• About Us
  • Contributors
  • Guides
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Write for The SEM Post
  • Submit a tip or contact us!
  • Newsletters

The SEM Post

Latest News About SEO, SEM, PPC & Search Engines

  • Google
  • SEO
  • Mobile
  • Local
  • Bing
  • Pay Per Click
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • State of the Industry
You are here: Home / Google / Is Google AdWords Incorrectly Forwarding Call Extensions? Why You Should Check Your Ads!

Is Google AdWords Incorrectly Forwarding Call Extensions? Why You Should Check Your Ads!

August 13, 2014 at 7:46 am PST By Jennifer Slegg

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS

check call 2Call extensions have been a pretty popular option for local businesses looking to make it easy for potential customers to reach them.  AdWords offers two varieties – one where you list and use your own phone number, or another option with call tracking where Google assigns one of their own tracking numbers and then forwards it to your phone number.  And it appears there could be a bug with call extensions that could possibly be affecting others.

Is Your Number Forwarding Correctly?

When you use AdWords call tracking, it will use its own phone number, which Google automatically assigns, and then will forward that number to the business number you have chosen.  There are reports that Google might sometimes have a bug when it comes to the number assigning, and actually forward your calls to someone else.

LawnStarter is reporting a bug that happened to their company that resulted in the Google assigned number going to a young girl instead of their business, and it costs them thousands of dollars in clicks going to the wrong phone number.

lawnstarter

lawnstarter1Google later confirms to Lawnstarter that there was something not working correctly with their number, however Google did not explain why the issue occurred or if it was isolated to a small number of phone calls.

lawnstarter2Lawnstarter states that their “account wasn’t credited” for any calls that went to the wrong number.  However it is unclear if they requested a refund (which is normally how advertisers receive refunds) and it was denied, or if they assumed Google would credit it without them expressly asking for it.

It is also unclear just how much of the “thousands of dollars” was directly related to call extensions or if the majority of it was the cost of click throughs to the company page instead, which would have been legitimate pay per click ads they were paying for.  So the amount of ad spending on the actual call extensions might have been minimal enough that a small credit was issued but Lawstarters might have assumed it was regular invalid click refunds and not related to their call extensions.   Because they were paying $300 per day on AdWords, it would have been noticeable if the cost was going up but there was no traffic to the site to account for it.

It is also a reminder that advertisers should always double check their call extensions to not only make sure the forwarding is working correctly, but that the Interactive Voice Response is working correctly, or if it goes to a real person, that the person is actually handling calls correctly and utilizing voice mail or backup person if they are busy.

I have reached out to Lawnstarter for more information and will update when I hear back.  Added: Their contact form doesn’t work in multiple browsers, so attempting to reach out to them on Facebook.

Update: They have added to their blog post: “Double Edit: It now has been credited, and we found out that within the account there were 2 similar numbers with the incorrect one displaying. All is right with the world again.”  It is still unclear how it happened or if it was a user error.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS
The following two tabs change content below.
  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Jennifer Slegg

Founder & Editor at The SEM Post
Jennifer Slegg is a longtime speaker and expert in search engine marketing, working in the industry for almost 20 years. When she isn't sitting at her desk writing and working, she can be found grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, State of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates - August 1, 2022
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update - October 19, 2021
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update - April 23, 2021
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met - October 16, 2020
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters - October 6, 2020

Filed Under: Google, Pay Per Click Tagged With: call extensions, Google AdWords

Sign up for our newsletter


Trackbacks

  1. Google AdWords Bug Costs Company $1000s | Bill Hartzer says:
    August 13, 2014 at 5:22 pm

    […] TheSEMPost.com is also covering this, with an article here. […]

  2. AdWords Introduces Website Call Conversions | PPC Hero® says:
    August 19, 2014 at 9:15 am

    […] The article the tweet above refers to was brought to you by The SEM Post. […]

Founder & Editor

Jennifer Slegg (2052)

Sign up for our daily news recap & weekly newsletter.


Follow us online

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Latest News

2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates

We finally have the first Google Quality Rater Guidelines update of 2022, and like usual, it is … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters
  • Analyzing “How Google Search Works” Changes from Google
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines Update: New Introduction, Rater Bias & Political Affiliations
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines: Reputation for News Sites; Video Content Updates; Quality for Information Sites
  • Google Makes Major Changes to NoFollow, Adds Sponsored & UGC Tags
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines Targeting E-A-T, Page Quality & Interstitials

Categories

  • Affiliate Marketing
  • Amazon
  • Apple
  • Bing
  • Branding
  • Browsers
  • Chrome
  • Content Marketing
  • Design
  • Domains
  • DuckDuckGo
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Foursquare
  • Google
    • Analytics
    • Google RankBrain
    • Quality Rater's Guidelines
  • History of Search
  • Industry Spotlight
  • Instagram
  • Internet Explorer
  • Links
  • Local
  • Mobile
  • Native Advertising
  • Other Search Engines
  • Pay Per Click
  • Pinterest
  • Publishers
  • Security
  • SEO
  • Snapchat
  • Social Media
  • State of the Industry
  • The SEM Post
  • Tools
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • User Experience
  • Video Marketing
  • Week in Review
  • Whitepapers
  • Wordpress
  • Yahoo
  • Yelp
  • YouTube
June 2025
MTWTFSS
« Aug  
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30 

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in