One-on-One Ad Platform Coaching Inside Your Own Account

One person, one platform, their own account. Sessions run seventy-five minutes, weekly, and we spend them inside the live account rather than on slides. If there is no account to open, what you want is training and you want somebody else. Who is in the room: The channel lead who inherited an account they did not build and is now expected to defend its numbers. Usually two to five years in, competent, and stuck at the point where the platform stops rewarding effort and starts rewarding judgement. The most common person I coach is running Google Ads or Meta at a company where nobody senior enough to check their work exists: a first marketing hire, or a growth lead whose chief executive has started asking questions they cannot answer without guessing. Before we begin: I want thirty minutes with their manager and a written answer to one question: what is this person allowed to change without asking. Coaching somebody who cannot act on a conclusion is theatre with a fee attached. If every budget change needs three approvals, coaching is the wrong intervention and I will say so before you pay for it. How a session runs: You bring a decision you are about to make, or one you already made and cannot defend. We open the account. I ask why, repeatedly, until we reach the assumption you have never tested, which is usually a structural belief inherited from whoever built the account before you. Then you make the change. Not me: I do not take write access and would refuse it if offered. Between sessions you send three lines on what you changed and what happened, and I reply within a working day. Platforms: Google Ads, Meta, LINE Ads, Yahoo! Japan Search and Display, or Apple Search Ads. One of them, named at the start. Coaching across four platforms at once produces somebody shallow in four places. I would rather you become the person in your company who cannot be argued with about one. What we usually end up working on: Reading platform-reported performance against reality without becoming a nihilist about it. Account structure as a measurement decision rather than an organisational habit inherited from an agency. Recognising when automation is making a better decision than you would, and when it is laundering your own poor signal back to you at a markup. Writing the one-page recommendation your finance lead will actually approve. Refusing an internal request for a campaign that cannot work, in language that does not cost you the relationship with the person who asked. Language: Sessions run in English or Japanese. Japanese-speaking practitioners in an English-reporting company hit a specific problem, where the analysis is correct and the memo lands badly, so we work on the memo as well as the account. Not included: I will not log in and make changes. No recordings, no course, no deck to circulate afterwards; what has value is in your account and in your reasoning, not in a file somebody skims. No group sessions, no cohorts, no certificate. Not for you if: You want to be told which settings to use. A checklist from me, applied without the argument behind it, is a worse outcome than working the answer out under scrutiny, because you will not be able to defend the checklist when somebody senior challenges it, and they will. You are between roles and want interview preparation. Or your company is buying coaching in place of hiring the operator it actually needs, which I can usually tell inside the first call and will name rather than take the fee.