LinkedIn
Most agencies do not skip Microsoft Ads because they tested it. They skip it because they believe three things: it is a Google import with a different logo, small budgets cannot support it, and clients will spot the outsourcing a mile away. I believed the first one myself for years. I used to tell clients Bing was a copy-paste bonus you turned on after Google was done. I was wrong. A straight import is exactly why Bing “doesn’t work” for so many agency clients.
Myth 1: “Bing is just a Google import with a different logo”
Why people believe it: Microsoft gives you the button. Click import, watch your Google campaigns appear in Microsoft Ads, and it feels finished. I did this for years on small accounts where nobody wanted to pay for a second build. It looks efficient. What the deck calls “synergy,” I call doing the same job twice without doing it twice.
The problem is that the import copies structure without copying what made Google work. The negatives were tuned to a different query mix, the bid strategy was trained on different volume, and the audience signals do not transfer. The account can spend in a cheaper auction while paying Google prices, match more loosely than you expect, then get judged after 30 days and declared a failure. That verdict sounds like a finding about the channel. It is often a finding about the setup.
Microsoft’s import gaps make the shortcut riskier: unsupported bid strategies reset to Enhanced CPC, broad-match negatives arrive as phrase match, and age 45–54 targeting does not come over at all. A campaign appearing in the interface is not proof that its settings survived the trip. Someone has to check what changed before the account starts spending, not after the first disappointing report.
The fix is a rebuild, not a blind import. Reset match types and bids, pull fresh negatives from weeks two and three of search terms, and cut syndication you did not ask for. That is the mechanism behind why Microsoft Ads spends without converting when you treat it as a Google copy. You can use the import button to save typing. You cannot use it to skip judgment.
Say you move $20k a month across home services clients and park 20% on Microsoft without a rebuild. Same keywords, Google bids, no fresh negatives. That $4,000 slice spends money to prove a point nobody tested. Rebuilt, separated, and fed with search terms, that same slice is often your cheapest cost per booked job by month three. I know which version I would rather report on.
Myth 2: “Small budgets can’t make Bing worth the fee”
Why people believe it: the math looks bad on paper. If a dentist is spending $2,000 a month and you charge $1,000 to manage two platforms, adding Bing looks like splitting crumbs into two piles. Agencies respond by gating it behind a minimum that almost no local client clears. I understand the instinct. Paying for management should not consume the budget that was meant to buy clicks.
This will not work for everyone. If the client cannot fund 30 clicks a month on their core terms on either platform, do not split. Fix tracking and intent first. A second platform does not rescue a campaign that cannot tell you which leads became booked jobs.
For clients with enough room to test, the cheaper auction changes the calculation. Agency audit data puts Microsoft CPCs 20–40% lower than Google for the same keywords, with legal at $8–25 versus $15–50 and HVAC/plumbing at $4–12 versus $8–20. If the close rate holds, lower click cost means lower cost per booked job. The “if” matters. Cheap clicks that do not book are still a bill.
My practical split: if a client spends $2k–5k on Google with diminishing returns, shift 20–30% to Bing and judge the blended CPL after 90 days, starting around 75–80% Google and 20–25% Microsoft. A $300 test can be informative on Microsoft where the same $300 disappears without a signal on Google. Bing is not automatically a tax on a small budget. Set a test the client can afford, then judge the leads rather than celebrating the CPC.
Myth 3: “It’s only worth it for one type of client”
Every agency has a version of this rule. Bing is for older people, or for B2B, or for home services, so everyone else should skip it. The belief survives because there is a grain of truth in the demographics: the Bing searcher skews 35–65 versus 25–44 on Google, with 46% in $100k+ households and a 65/35 desktop tilt. That profile can fit desktop form fills for estate planning, home remodeling, senior care, HVAC, plumbing, legal, and dental. It is a poorer fit for young mobile-first offers.
The mistake is turning a skew into a rule. I have seen the same skew help a plumber and hurt a sneaker store. The useful question is not whether a client belongs to an approved industry. It is whether that client’s buyer is likely to search and fill out a form on a desktop at 9 p.m. That is a buyer-and-offer question, not a logo question.
Sell Bing where the lead math fits. For many agencies, that means home services, legal, and dental clients who need a steady flow of booked jobs. It does not mean promising every client that another search engine will behave like their best Google campaign.
Myth 4: “LinkedIn profile targeting is a gimmick”
People believe it because it sounds like a conference slide. Upload a list of job titles, get enterprise leads from Bing, charge a premium. I dismissed it for the same reason for a long time. The mechanism is duller and more useful than the pitch: LinkedIn data works as a bid-modifier layer on Search, by Company, Industry, and Job Function, across Bing, Yahoo, and partners.
It does not restrict impressions to those people. It lets you pay more when someone matching that profile types the same keyword. You get Job Function, not exact job titles, so “VP Finance” precision is fiction. For B2B, finance, and enterprise, the useful combination is search intent plus professional context: same keyword, higher bid for the profile that closes. Use the layer to weight bids, never to build targeting from scratch.
Myth 5: “White-label means the client will find out”
Agencies picture the worst version. A stranger emails their dentist client, the report arrives with someone else’s logo, and the client asks who is actually doing the work. Then comes the margin conversation nobody wanted. That can happen with a bad partner. It is not a necessary feature of outsourced delivery.
A proper white-label setup runs the other way: audits, proposals, and reports go out in your logo and colours, the provider signs an NDA and never contacts the end client, and every message moves through you. The agency still owns the relationship and the decisions it presents to the client. The partner does the work behind that relationship. Those are different jobs, and confusing them is how a handoff becomes a mess.
Ask for a sample report with your branding and a written no-contact rule. If a partner cannot provide both, that is not the white-label arrangement you thought you were buying. It is a referral with extra steps.
Myth 6: “A one-time audit fixes a Bing account”
Agencies love audits because audits are sellable. Fixed price, fixed scope, PDF at the end. The belief is that Bing needs the same treatment: one cleanup, then it runs. I sold audits like that early on. A cleanup can tell you what was wrong when someone opened the account. It cannot decide what to do with search terms that have not appeared yet.
The work that keeps a Bing account alive is weekly and boring. Search terms match more loosely so negatives need feeding, Search and Audience Network performance gets blended and hides waste, imported Google bids can overpay in the cheaper auction, and the desktop skew calls for separate device and schedule splits. Each problem changes the next decision. If you leave them alone until the next audit, the PDF becomes a record of money already spent.
An audit tells you what broke last month; it does not watch next week’s query mix. If nobody owns search terms after week three, you did not fix Bing. You photographed it.
Myth 7: “We need a Bing specialist on staff before we can sell it”
Why agencies believe it: selling work you cannot fulfil in-house feels dishonest. So Bing waits behind a hiring plan that never clears, because no owner wants a full-time specialist for a channel that will be 20% of spend. This is the myth I find hardest to kill. It sounds responsible. It is also a way to avoid deciding who will actually own the work.
Bing holds 8.92% of US search versus 86.1% for Google, about one in eleven searches your Google ads cannot reach, at CPCs roughly 30% below Google. You do not have to staff for that the way you staff for Google. You do need someone who understands that a smaller channel is not a set-and-forget channel. Borrow the execution; keep the accountability.
That is the point of ranking six options for who should actually run your Microsoft Ads. A partner can rebuild instead of importing, work the search terms weekly, and let you sell Bing without making a new hire first. groas does that work inside its Search Ads service, which runs Google, Bing, and ChatGPT ads for one flat $1,499 a month with no cut of spend. The small channel no longer needs its own headcount to justify itself. It still needs someone to answer for the results.
The partner check: eight questions before you resell
If you resell Bing, you are renting someone else’s judgment under your name. Ask these in order before you sign. A vague answer on the account mechanics is not a minor detail; it is how the import myth reaches your client’s budget.
- Do they rebuild or just import? Ask to see how they reset match types, bids, and structure.
- What happens to bid strategies on import? Ask what resets to Enhanced CPC.
- Do they separate Search from Audience Network? Blended reporting can hide waste.
- How do they set the starting budget? Look for around 20–25% of Google spend, then reallocation on cost per booked job.
- Whose logo is on the report, and who can contact the client? Get the NDA and no-contact rule in writing.
- What is the account minimum, and what is the fee tied to? A percentage of spend punishes the small budgets Bing can serve.
- What do they do for B2B clients beyond keywords? Ask about LinkedIn layers and desktop splits; the gap matters when Microsoft Ads beats Google for B2B only if you stop mirroring Google.
- Who owns search terms after week three? This is the question agencies skip. Without weekly negatives, loose matches keep spending and the client pays for a supposedly finished account.
Stop asking whether Bing deserves a specialist on staff. Ask whether your partner treats it as its own auction. The shops that rebuild, feed the negatives, split the networks, and report under your name can stand behind what they sell. The shops that click import and invoice keep the myths alive. groas runs it the first way, inside work that never sleeps, which is why agencies white-label it instead of hiring for it.