Should I bid on competitor brand names?

How competitor brand bidding actually works (and what’s allowed)

“Bidding on a brand keyword” is different from “using the brand in ad copy”

When people ask, “Should I bid on competitor brand names?”, they’re usually talking about showing up when someone searches a competitor’s brand on Google Search. In practice, there are two separate decisions: targeting the competitor name as a keyword (or otherwise matching to that query), and using the competitor’s brand name inside your ad text (headlines, descriptions, assets) or other visible ad elements.

Those two choices don’t carry the same risk. Targeting competitor brand names as keywords is generally possible in Google Ads. The bigger compliance and account-friction issues usually start when an advertiser tries to place the competitor’s trademark into the ad text itself.

Trademark policy reality: keywords are usually fine, ad text can be restricted (often complaint-driven)

From a policy standpoint, Google Ads generally does not restrict the use of trademarks as keywords. Where advertisers run into restrictions is when a trademark is used in the ad and a trademark owner complaint is involved. In those situations, restrictions can apply based on where the trademark appears (it has to be in the ad, not only on the landing page) and how it’s used (for example, confusing/misleading use, or use by a direct competitor).

There are also cases where using a trademark in an ad can be allowed, such as when the landing page is clearly focused on selling or facilitating the sale of products/services related to the trademark (like resellers/parts/compatible products) or when the landing page is primarily informational (for example, informational details about products/services related to the trademark). The common theme is clarity: the ad and landing page need to be clear about who you are and what relationship (or non-relationship) you have to the trademark owner.

Don’t “accidentally” insert competitor trademarks into ads

If you use dynamic features like keyword insertion, be careful: it can make it easier to unintentionally place a competitor brand into ad copy. Google’s systems won’t insert trademarks that are restricted under the trademark policy into ad text, but you still don’t want your campaign strategy relying on a feature that can create compliance headaches or ad review volatility. Competitor campaigns are one of the rare cases where I strongly prefer static, tightly controlled ad messaging.

Also watch the “confusion” line: misrepresentation risk is real

Even if something is technically targetable, your creative and landing page must never imply affiliation, authorization, or identity with another brand when that’s not true. Anything that looks like impersonation, “official” positioning, or a bait-and-switch experience can move from “aggressive marketing” into policy trouble very quickly. Competitor conquesting only works long-term when it’s clean, transparent, and user-first.

Pros and cons: when bidding on competitor brands helps—and when it backfires

The real upside: high-intent shoppers and clean competitive positioning

The best reason to bid on competitor brand names is simple: you’re catching users at the exact moment they’re expressing brand-level intent in your category. If you have a credible alternative—better price, better features, better availability, better service model, stronger reviews, faster implementation—competitor searches can be an efficient way to introduce yourself.

This is especially effective when the market already understands the product category and is choosing between a short list of vendors. In those scenarios, conquesting can function like a “shelf placement” strategy: you’re not trying to educate from scratch; you’re trying to win consideration.

The common downside: expensive clicks and weaker conversion rates

Competitor brand traffic often converts worse than non-brand “category” traffic and usually worse than your own brand traffic. Why? Because the user didn’t ask for you—they asked for someone else. That mismatch tends to drive lower click-to-conversion efficiency, and you can end up paying premium CPCs to rent attention you don’t ultimately keep.

In many accounts, conquesting only becomes profitable when you measure beyond the first conversion. If you have strong lifecycle economics (high LTV, strong expansion revenue, repeat purchase behavior, or high close rates after lead capture), competitor campaigns can make sense. If you need first-transaction profitability, competitor terms frequently disappoint.

Brand reputation and internal politics: the hidden cost

Even if conquesting is allowed, it can trigger retaliation. Some competitors respond by raising bids on your brand terms, escalating CPCs on both sides. Others file trademark complaints if you step over the line in ad copy. In regulated or relationship-driven industries, conquesting can also create reputational friction if it’s perceived as predatory rather than comparative.

A practical litmus test

I generally recommend bidding on competitor brand names only when at least one of these is true: you have a demonstrably differentiated offer, you can route the traffic to a landing page that cleanly addresses “Why choose us instead?”, and you can afford a higher CPA while the campaign learns (or you have a sales process that monetizes leads well).

A proven playbook for doing competitor brand bidding safely and profitably

Start with a tight structure that protects the rest of your account

Competitor campaigns should almost always live in their own Search campaign(s), separate from your non-brand and your brand campaign. This gives you clean budget control, clean reporting, and clean levers when performance is volatile. Inside the campaign, I like one ad group per competitor brand (or per competitor product line) so you can tailor ad messaging and landing pages to that specific comparison.

Keyword strategy: control first, then expand carefully

For conquesting, tighter match types are your friend at the start. Exact match still includes close variants and there’s no opt-out, so you’ll naturally capture misspellings and very close intent variations. Phrase match today is meaning-based (and incorporates the old broad match modifier behavior), which is useful later, but it can widen faster than many advertisers expect.

My usual sequence is to launch with exact match for the core competitor brand terms, then add phrase match once you’ve proven your funnel economics and you’ve built a strong negative keyword layer from real search term data.

Ad copy rules that keep you out of trouble (and improve performance)

The safest conquesting ads typically do not use the competitor brand name in the ad text at all. Instead, they lean into your differentiators and remove uncertainty. You’re trying to answer, in one scan, “What is this, and why should I click it instead of the brand I searched?”

Good conquesting copy is specific. “Better than the leading solution” is vague. “Switch in 14 days,” “Flat-rate pricing,” “Works with X integrations,” “24/7 support,” or “Same-day shipping” gives the user a concrete reason to reconsider.

Landing page strategy: match the intent without being misleading

If you send competitor-brand traffic to a generic homepage, you’ll usually pay for it with lower conversion rates. A dedicated “alternative” page often works better because it acknowledges the user’s comparison mindset and reduces cognitive load.

If you choose to mention the competitor on the landing page (for example, “Alternatives to [Competitor]”), keep it factual, avoid confusing branding, and be explicit about your identity and non-affiliation. If you do comparisons, focus on verifiable differences (features, pricing model, contract terms, support hours, implementation timeline) rather than loaded language.

Bidding and measurement: treat conquesting like a controlled experiment

Competitor campaigns can swing hard week to week, especially when competitors change budgets, promos, or brand coverage. Set expectations internally that this is not a “set it and forget it” channel. You need a defined test window, a defined CPA/ROAS guardrail, and a defined interpretation plan (including what happens if it’s marginal but assists pipeline).

Use your search terms reporting aggressively to see what users actually typed before clicking. That’s where you’ll find the leaks (support jobs, login, customer service, complaints, investor relations, “free,” “trial,” “coupon,” etc.) and where you’ll find the profitable pockets (e.g., “[competitor] pricing,” “[competitor] alternative,” “[competitor] vs,” “[competitor] reviews”). Build negatives from reality, not guesses.

Use competitive reporting to know when you’re being attacked (or when you’re wasting spend)

The auction insights report is one of the fastest ways to sanity-check competitor behavior on conquesting and on your own brand terms. It helps you see how often specific advertisers overlap with you, how often they outrank you, and how frequently they appear above you. It also prevents a common misread: a competitor can have strong presence in the auctions that overlap with yours while still not being present in many auctions you’re eligible for (and vice versa). Treat it as a directional competitive monitor, not an exact market share tool.

Critical guardrails checklist (use these before you launch)

• Separate campaign + capped budget: Assume higher CPCs and lower CVR until proven otherwise.
• No competitor trademarks in ad text (by default): Only consider exceptions with a strong, compliant use case and clear landing page context.
• Dedicated landing page: Build an “alternative” experience that’s transparent about who you are and why you’re relevant.
• Search terms mining cadence: Daily in week 1, then 2–3x/week until stable.
• Negative keyword hygiene across campaign types: If you’re using automated campaign types that can match broadly, use the appropriate exclusion controls to prevent brand waste and to keep conquesting contained.

One more strategic move: defend your own brand while you conquest

If you bid on competitor brands, assume at least some competitors will test your brand in return. The best defense is a strong brand campaign with excellent message clarity, strong assets, and landing page continuity—so even if CPCs rise, your conversion efficiency stays high. For accounts running automated formats that may capture brand queries, use the right brand controls to avoid paying for traffic you would have earned anyway.

Bidding on competitor brand names can work, but it’s rarely a “set it and forget it” tactic: targeting a competitor as a keyword is different from using their trademark in your ad copy, and the upside of high-intent traffic often comes with higher CPCs, lower conversion rates, and potential retaliation or policy friction if your messaging or landing page creates confusion. If you do test it, it’s usually smartest to isolate competitor terms into their own capped-budget campaigns, start with tight match types, keep ad text clean and clearly differentiated, and send clicks to a transparent “alternative to” page while monitoring search terms closely for wasted spend. If you want help putting those guardrails in place, Blobr connects to your Google Ads account and runs specialized AI agents to handle the day-to-day analysis and actions—like expanding controlled keyword lists with the Keyword Ideas Finder and refreshing differentiated, policy-safer messaging with the Headlines Enhancer—so you can test conquesting more confidently without muddying your core campaigns.