When should a 'Target ROAS' bidding strategy be avoided, even if the historical data suggests it's viable?

A 'Target ROAS' (Return on Ad Spend) bidding strategy should be avoided even if historical data suggests it's viable when a campaign is prioritizing maximizing overall volume and market share growth, particularly in situations where short-term profitability is less critical than long-term expansion. Target ROAS bidding aims to achieve a specific return for every dollar spent on advertising. While it can efficiently manage costs and maintain profitability, it inherently limits reach and impressions by aggressively restricting bids to only those queries and audiences predicted to meet the ROAS target. If the strategic goal is to significantly increase brand awareness, capture a larger portion of the market, or aggressively outgrow competitors, a Target ROAS strategy will constrain the campaign's ability to explore less profitable but high-reach opportunities. For example, a new product launch might benefit more from a 'Maximize Clicks' or 'Maximize Conversions' strategy, even with a lower ROAS, to quickly build awareness and gather data before transitioning to Target ROAS. Similarly, if the business is entering a new geographic market, prioritizing volume over immediate ROAS can establish a foothold more rapidly. Therefore, while historical data provides valuable insights, strategic considerations related to market share, brand building, and competitive positioning should override the adoption of Target ROAS when volume and reach are paramount.