Microsoft's Latest Ad Platform Updates

They Matter More Than the Usual Feature Dump

Every January, ad platforms announce updates. Most are incremental. Some are marketing spin dressed up as innovation. But Microsoft's recent changes to their automated campaigns address something I've been pushing clients to think about for some time now. It's the tension between letting algorithms optimize and actually growing your business.

The Real Problem With Automated Campaigns

Here's what drives me crazy about most automation in paid media; it optimizes for whatever converts easiest. The algorithm finds whoever is most likely to buy and hammers them with impressions. Nine times out of ten, that means your existing customers. People who were probably going to purchase anyway.

Your return on ad spend looks great. But you're not actually acquiring new customers. You're paying acquisition costs for retention.

This isn't a Microsoft problem. Google's Performance Max does the same thing. Both platforms will chase easy conversions unless you tell them otherwise.

Microsoft just gave advertisers a way to fix this. Their automated campaigns can now differentiate between existing customers and prospects. You can tell the system to value new customer acquisition higher. You can even set it to pursue only new customers if that's your goal.

This isn't revolutionary technology. But it's the right answer to a problem that's been obvious to anyone running these campaigns seriously. When I can tell an algorithm that a new customer is worth three times a repeat purchase because of what they'll spend over their lifetime, that changes what "optimization" actually means.

Visibility Into the Machine

The other persistent frustration with automated campaigns is the reporting black hole. You put money in, conversions come out, and somewhere in between the platform made thousands of decisions you can't see.

Microsoft is now surfacing competitive metrics inside their automated campaigns. You can see how often you're showing up versus competitors. You can see whether you're losing impressions because of budget constraints or because your ads aren't competitive. You can also set tracking parameters at a more granular level without rebuilding your entire campaign structure.

Google still has better transparency. Their Performance Max shows budget allocation across Search, Display, YouTube, and other networks. Microsoft is behind on this, but these updates help.

None of this gives you full control. That's not the point. The point is having enough information to make informed decisions about where to put your next dollar.

The B2B Advantage Microsoft Actually Has

Here's where the platforms diverge in ways that matter for the businesses I work with.

Microsoft lets you layer LinkedIn profile data onto your targeting. Job title, company size, industry, seniority. Google doesn't offer this. For B2B advertisers or anyone selling to professionals, this is a real differentiator. You can combine search intent signals with professional attributes in ways that aren't possible on Google.

Microsoft also offers remarketing based on ad views, letting you target users who saw but didn't click your ads. Google doesn't have this either. It's useful for reaching people who showed interest but didn't take action.

Both platforms now support 50 search themes in their automated campaigns, so Microsoft has reached feature parity there. But the LinkedIn integration means those themes deliver more value in B2B contexts.

Cross-Platform Reality

Most advertisers I work with aren't choosing between Google and Microsoft. They're running both. That means campaign imports matter more than they sound like they should.

Microsoft loosened up their import process so it doesn't break when it encounters asset issues that have nothing to do with campaign performance. They also expanded some of the targeting parameters you can bring over. Practical stuff. Not exciting. But the time savings across a portfolio of accounts adds up.

• One gap worth noting

Microsoft's self-serve negative keyword support in Performance Max is still in pilot. You have to contact support to add negatives to your campaigns. Google is further along on this. That matters if you're trying to exclude irrelevant traffic at scale.

The Cost Equation

Let's talk money. Microsoft typically delivers lower costs per click than Google. Industry estimates put the difference at 30 to 70 percent depending on vertical.

Microsoft's own internal benchmarks claim three times better return on ad spend for their Performance Max campaigns, with significant drops in cost per acquisition. Take platform-reported numbers with appropriate skepticism. They're measuring their own homework. But the general truth holds. Lower competition on Microsoft means your budget produces more results. For mid-market businesses trying to validate an approach before scaling, that matters.

The Auto-Generated Creative Question

Microsoft is now defaulting to auto-generated ad copy for new search campaigns. The system pulls headlines and descriptions from your website content. Microsoft reports a 5% improvement in click-through rates for advertisers using this feature.

I'm skeptical. Not of the number, but of what it means. More clicks don't necessarily mean more conversions. If the algorithm writes headlines that get attention but don't accurately represent what you're selling, you're paying for traffic that doesn't convert.

You can turn this off. If you care about creative control, check the settings on any new campaigns.

Where This Leaves Microsoft in the Mix

Microsoft's ad platform has always had a specific value proposition. Lower competition, higher intent from a more professional user base, and a fraction of Google's volume. That's still true.

What's changing is that it's becoming a platform where you can run a real performance marketing program. Not just a Google clone operating on autopilot. The ability to optimize for customer acquisition economics rather than just conversion counts is a meaningful step. The LinkedIn targeting creates genuine differentiation for B2B.

For mid-market businesses trying to grow sustainably, this is worth attention. Microsoft won't be your primary channel for reach. But it might be the channel where you can optimize for the metrics that actually matter to your business and test strategies at lower cost before scaling them on Google.

It might be worth running some research for your business. If so, just reach out we can take a look.

Sources:

• Search Engine Land, "Google and Microsoft: How their Performance Max approaches align and diverge," December 2025

• WebProNews, "Google vs Microsoft Performance Max: AI Ad Strategies for 2026," November 2025

• Conversios, "Microsoft Ads vs Google Ads 2025: Cost, Reach, ROAS & Best PPC Strategy," June 2025

• ALM Corp, "Microsoft Performance Max 50 Search Themes: Complete 2026 Guide," January 2026

• Five Nine Strategy, "Google Performance Max in 2026: What Actually Works (and Why)," December 2025