Werbeagentur-Erfurt.net

They were hired to manage our entire sales effort through Google Ads and grow sales. After three months of working together—and additional costs, some of which had not been clearly communicated in advance—the agency eventually said it couldn’t do it anymore and that all options had been exhausted. That raises the question for me: why would an agency agree to provide certain services up front if it can’t deliver them later? I’m also wondering how meaningful the 52 five-star reviews you can find on Google actually are. During the collaboration, communication was good and we could talk to the guys, but that ultimately doesn’t help if the promised results aren’t achieved. --- Response to the claim (see below) made by the agency: Summary of findings and objections Delayed campaign launch The contract was signed on 16.05.2025. However, the first Google Ads campaigns were not activated until 21.07.2025. That meant the agency took about two months to carry out basic setup and get the campaigns running. From my point of view, such a lengthy preparation period is neither professionally justifiable nor contractually supported. Unannounced additional costs / deviation from the proposal the agency submitted a proposal for one-time costs amounting to €856.80. Yet on 15.07.2025, an invoice for €2,988.80 was issued—without these significant additional costs having been discussed with me beforehand or approved by me. After I expressly rejected that invoice, the agency provided no further clarification or statement. Lack of market analysis and poor suitability for the project it is clear that before accepting the contract, the agency did not look into the market situation or evaluate its own expertise in the relevant market segment. A basic preliminary analysis should have shown that the agency was not suitable for this project. Insufficient results despite high click numbers between 21.07. and 21.10.2025, the campaign generated around 12,000 clicks. The only conclusion drawn by the agency was that the products were “too expensive” for the German market. This is an unprofessional shifting of responsibility: in a market with over 40 million households, claiming there is no market for higher-quality products is not professionally credible. Such a statement shows that the agency was unable to properly target or evaluate the campaign. Use of unsuitable keywords / inefficient budget use the agency worked mostly with broad, highly competitive keywords that made it impossible to clearly differentiate from competitors, since they are also used by major market players. Only after I pointed out this problem myself and suggested more specific long-tail keywords did the strategy get partially adjusted. By that time, however, the budget and valuable time had already been consumed. Conclusion the agency did not properly deliver the services originally agreed upon and did not carry out professional campaign management. The delays, unjustified additional costs, lack of market knowledge, and strategic errors in keyword selection led to inefficient use of the advertising budget and an absence of project success. Overall, it is clear that the agency did not execute the assignment properly from a professional standpoint and did not manage the project in the customer’s best interest. …and now please let the agency take legal action against this… The managing director and owner requested the removal of the negative Google review, arguing that it was defamatory. The client disagreed with this view and filed a criminal complaint in connection with the matter.

They were hired to manage our entire Google Ads campaign and increase sales. After three months of working together and incurring additional costs—some of which had not been clearly communicated beforehand—the agency finally explained that they couldn’t do it and that all options had been exhausted. This raises the question for me: why would an agency promise certain services upfront that it later cannot deliver? I also wonder how meaningful the 52 five-star reviews found on Google really are. While communication was good during our collaboration and we could talk to the team, that ultimately doesn’t help much if the promised results aren’t achieved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to the agency’s claim (see below): Summary of findings and complaints Delayed campaign launch The contract was signed on May 16, 2025. However, the first Google Ads campaigns were not activated until July 21, 2025. This means the agency took approximately two months to configure basic settings and launch the campaigns. In my view, such a long preparation period is neither professionally justifiable nor contractually justified. Unannounced additional costs / deviation from the quote: The agency submitted a quote for one-time costs totaling €856.80. However, on July 15, 2025, an invoice for €2,988.80 was issued—without these significant additional costs having been previously discussed with me or approved by me. Following my express rejection of this invoice, there was no further clarification or response from the agency. Lack of market analysis and unsuitability for the project: It is evident that, prior to accepting the assignment, the agency did not assess either the market situation or its own expertise in the relevant market segment. A basic preliminary analysis should have revealed that the agency was not suitable for this project. Insufficient results despite high click counts: Between July 21 and October 21, 2025, approximately 12,000 clicks were generated. The agency’s sole conclusion was that the products were “too expensive” for the German market. This statement constitutes an unprofessional shifting of responsibility: In a market with over 40 million households, claiming that there is no market for higher-quality products is professionally incomprehensible. Such a statement shows that the agency was unable to properly target or evaluate the campaign. Use of unsuitable keywords / inefficient budget allocation: The agency primarily worked with general, highly competitive keywords that made it impossible to clearly differentiate from the competition, as they are also used by major market players. Only after I pointed out this problem myself and suggested more specific long-tail keywords was the strategy partially adjusted. By that point, however, the budget and valuable time had already been wasted. Conclusion: The agency neither properly delivered the originally agreed-upon services nor carried out professional campaign management. Delays, unjustified additional costs, a lack of market knowledge, and strategic errors in keyword selection led to inefficient use of the advertising budget and a lack of project success. Overall, it must be noted that the agency did not execute the assignment professionally and did not manage the project in the client’s best interests. ...and now the agency is welcome to take legal action against this...