What inherent limitation exists when using location extensions without carefully considering user proximity and intent?

The inherent limitation when using location extensions without carefully considering user proximity and intent is the potential to attract irrelevant clicks from users who are too far away or not actively seeking a local solution, leading to wasted ad spend. Location extensions display the business's address, phone number, and a map marker in the ad, making it easier for potential customers to find the business. However, simply displaying the location without considering user proximity and intent can result in ads being shown to users who are outside the business's service area or who are not interested in visiting a physical location. For example, a user searching for 'pizza' in a large city might see location extensions for pizza restaurants that are located several miles away, even though there are closer and more convenient options available. If the user clicks on the ad, the business will incur a cost, even though the user is unlikely to travel that distance to visit the restaurant. Similarly, a user searching for 'online banking' might see location extensions for local bank branches, even though they are specifically looking for an online solution. To mitigate this limitation, it's essential to use location targeting to restrict ads to users within a defined radius of the business location and to carefully analyze search queries to understand user intent. For example, using radius targeting to only show ads to users within a 5-mile radius of the restaurant and excluding keywords like 'online' or 'delivery' can help ensure that the ads are only shown to relevant users. Therefore, combining location extensions with careful consideration of user proximity and intent is crucial for maximizing the effectiveness of local advertising.