Re-acquiring buyers you already own via email = wasted spend. Exclude email subscribers from prospecting campaigns.
At a glance
Cross-platform card: percentage of Google Ads converters who are ALSO active subscribers in the email programme (Klaviyo, Dotdigital, Mailchimp). High overlap means you are paying Google Ads to reacquire customers you already own via email. The fix is to exclude email-subscribers from prospecting (cold-acquisition) campaigns, freeing budget for genuinely new customers.
Calculation
Calculated automatically from your Google Ads data. See the At a glance summary above for what the metric tracks and the worked example below for a typical reading.Worked example
A UK fashion brand. The 30-day window covers 14 Mar 26 to 12 Apr 26.
The card reads 61% (the first overlap row).
What this scenario tells the analyst:
- 61% overlap is high. At account-average ~£27.50 CPA, the brand spent ~£16,800 on Google Ads acquiring 612 customers already on the email list. Of those, Klaviyo flow-revenue suggests email would have driven ~40-50% of those sales anyway (£6,700-£8,400 of “self-cannibalised” Google Ads spend). Action: exclude active Klaviyo subscribers from non-branded prospecting campaigns (Search Display, PMax prospecting), keep them included for retargeting and Branded Search.
- The 22% who placed an email-attributed order in window are the highest-confidence overlap. Those customers are actively engaging with email; paying Google Ads to bring them in is direct duplication. ~£6,000 of spend.
- The 39% NEW-to-brand are exactly who Google Ads SHOULD be reaching. Budget reallocation should keep Google Ads focused on this cohort. The number to grow is ”% of converters who are NEW”, not the overlap percentage itself.
- Excluding email subscribers from prospecting saves budget AND improves attribution clarity. When Google Ads only acquires NEW customers, ROAS is more meaningful and can be benchmarked against other paid channels’ acquisition cost. With overlap blurring the picture, ROAS comparisons across channels are biased.
- Compare to industry benchmark. Healthy DTC overlap is 25-40%; below 25% means email programme is small (build it); above 50% means re-acquisition through paid is wasteful. This brand at 61% is on the high side; a typical 6-12 month investment in email-programme growth + paid-audience exclusion brings it to 40-45%.
- Overlap > 60%: review paid prospecting strategy. Most overlap typically lives in PMax and Discovery, where audience signals are coarse. Add customer-list exclusions.
- Overlap < 25%: email programme is under-developed. Invest in Klaviyo automations and list growth.
- Overlap rose +10pp month-on-month: paid channels shifted toward retargeting (more matches with subscribers); audit campaign mix.
- Overlap dropped sharply: either the email list lost many subscribers (check email-platform health), or Google Ads is reaching genuinely new audiences (good news).
- Multi-store / multi-region: each store’s overlap is per-store; international stores may have different overlap norms.
Sibling cards merchants should reference together
Reconciling against the vendor’s own dashboard
Where to look in Google Ads UI: This is a cross-connector card with no native Google Ads UI equivalent. The closest reference points: Google Ads > Audience manager > Customer match lists lets you upload your email list as an audience, then either include (for retargeting) or exclude (for prospecting) it from campaigns. The overlap percentage shown there is Google’s match rate (typically 60-80% of uploaded emails match Google accounts), not the conversion-overlap metric this card computes. Google Ads > Insights > Audience insights shows broad demographic / interest segments of your converters; not directly comparable. Klaviyo > Audience > Performance for the email-side counterpart: which Google Ads-acquired customers become engaged email subscribers. Other views that look like this number but aren’t:- Google Ads Customer Match audience size: the number of your subscribers Google could find in their network; not a conversion-overlap metric.
- GA4 “New vs Returning” users: directionally similar but uses Google’s first-touch logic, not commerce-platform customer history. Differs by 10-20pp typically.
- Klaviyo’s “Acquisition Source” tagging: shows which channel acquired each subscriber; useful but answers a different question.
- Marketing-mix model output: the econometric estimate of channel overlap; useful but slow.
Why the BUSINESS metric often differs (the IMPORTANT one):
The “wasted spend” implication of high overlap depends on what the email programme would have done in the absence of paid:
- A robust email programme with abandoned-cart, browse-abandonment, and back-in-stock automations would have recovered most of the overlapping conversions independently. Paid spend on these customers is largely cannibalisation. Action: exclude email subscribers from prospecting.
- A weak email programme with only a monthly newsletter wouldn’t have driven those purchases. Paid spend on email subscribers is still acquisition (just from a known audience). Action: invest in email programme first, then exclude.
- High-intent, time-sensitive products (sale, drops): email can’t always reach customers in real time. Paid surfaces the announcement. Overlap is OK if paid is genuinely catching customers in their high-intent moment.
- B2B / wholesale: email lists may be sales-team contacts, not consumers. Overlap with Google Ads converters is meaningless if the email programme isn’t sending to retail buyers.