From Review to Ad: Does Using Real Customer Words Boost Your Click-Through Rate?

In the world of online advertising, it pays to stand out, especially among your competitors. As advertisers (or those managing ads for clients), making sure our ad copy connects with potential customers is one of our top priorities.

So, with my research hat on, I started thinking about the role of customer reviews. I’ve always believed there’s gold hidden in that feedback, and I even wrote a blog about it - Turning Customer Feedback into Powerful Google Ads Copy. But this time, I wanted to go a step further and put my advice into practice. I decided to test whether using real customer sentiment from reviews could actually improve the click-through rate (CTR) of Google Ads.

This post is the first iteration in a series of small experiments. My starting question: Can using customer reviews to extract key emotions or sentiments (and use them in Google Ads copy) improve CTR?

I chose one of my B2B clients for this test. For confidentiality reasons, I can’t share the company name, but I can say that the fact they are B2B may well influence the results.

What I Did

Step one was to collect and collate a batch of the client’s customer reviews. I then did a light-touch sentiment analysis to identify the recurring emotional themes.

The overall sentiment was overwhelmingly positive. The key emotional takeaway for this particular client? Trust and satisfaction.

In terms of features and benefits that stood out most frequently, here’s what I found:

• Excellent customer support
• Ease of use
• Accuracy of results
• Time-saving
• Cost-effectiveness
• Helpfulness in getting their job done
• Flexible payment options (linked to managing costs)

With this insight, I created two sets of ads:

• Version A: In line with best practice, clear features and benefits, a call to action, and including relevant keywords.
• Version B: Copy focused purely on the sentiment and language pulled directly from customer reviews.

I didn’t want to disrupt top-performing ad groups, so I chose two lower-performing ad groups to test this in. I duplicated the existing ads, then replaced the copy with the sentiment-based version to run them side by side (A/B testing style) and both going to the same landing page. I let them run for 30 days.

Why Click-Through Rate?

CTR isn’t everything, but it’s a good place to start. A high CTR generally shows that your ad is grabbing attention and resonating with the audience. Of course, it doesn’t tell you whether people convert, but it’s still a useful signal for the strength of your messaging.

The Results

Here’s what happened...

Ad Group One

In this group, the standard ad copy (Version A) had a better click-through rate (10.34%) than the sentiment-based version (Version B) which was 7.91%.

But, and it’s a big but, the conversion rate and number of conversions were actually higher for the sentiment-focused ad. So, while fewer people clicked, those who did were arguably more engaged or more likely to take action. Definitely something worth reflecting on.

Ad Group Two

This group told a different story. Here, the sentiment-based ad actually had a better CTR with 9.8% than the original (5.88%), even though neither ad led to any conversions during the test window. This adds another layer of complexity. We want higher CTR’s but we also want conversions!

So, Did It Work?

Sort of.

I had hoped for a clear win. Something to say, "Yes, this works, use customer sentiment in your ads and your CTR will definitely improve."

But that didn’t happen. The results were mixed, and this first experiment didn’t give me a straightforward answer.

Still, I wouldn’t say it failed. If anything, it sparked more questions:

• Would it perform differently in a B2C (business-to-customer) context?
• Should I have selected better-performing ad groups to test?
• Do I need longer than 30 days to see a meaningful pattern?
• Should I factor in conversion rate more heavily when judging ad performance?

In one test, the sentiment-based ad had a lower CTR but a higher conversion rate. That could point to better audience alignment, even if fewer people clicked - quality over quantity.

Also worth noting: both ad groups were targeting different sets of keywords, which could influence results. However, even with that caveat, CTR remains a solid early indicator of engagement, provided it's considered alongside other metrics.

Takeaways and Thoughts

So where does this leave us?

It didn’t give me a firm "yes, sentiment ads are better," but it did:

• Highlight that real customer language can spark different results.
• Show that people who click on sentiment-focused ads might be more ready to convert.
• Reinforce the idea that marketing experiments rarely give you perfect clarity, but always teach you something and typically add more questions.

One of the biggest insights? Support was the most frequently mentioned aspect in the client’s reviews. Now, support might feel like a basic feature, something customers just expect. But clearly, this client’s style of support meant something to people. That says a lot. Sometimes, the things we think are a given are actually what customers value most.

Final Thoughts

This was a tiny experiment, but I found it really interesting. I’ll definitely run it again, probably with a B2C client to see how the results differ. I still believe there's power in using real customer words in your ad copy. It might not always lead to a better CTR, but it could lead to better quality clicks, and that matters.

If you're curious about doing something similar, like carrying out a light-touch sentiment analysis on your own reviews and turning that into ad copy, get in touch. I offer free discovery calls, and we can talk about whether this kind of approach might be worth testing for your business.

Keep an eye out for the next test!