On July 23rd, the search engine advertising world woke up to Amazon's surprising decision to abandon Google Shopping. An unexpected and multi-million dollar move, it left many doubts about how it could impact the entire global advertising ecosystem. The theory was that among those consequences would most likely be a reduction in CPCs resulting from the sudden reduction in competition from such a giant. Furthermore, brands would have an opportunity to gain more visibility and impression share in Google Shopping results. It seemed like a dream scenario for advertisers, but the reality is much more complex. A foreseeable consequence... and another paradoxical one of Amazon's exit from Google Shopping. The answer, according to a new study by Optmyzr, is more complex than it seems. Its analysis, based on data from more than six thousand accounts, showed a clear pattern. After Amazon's exit: Clicks increased by 7.8%. CPCs fell by 8.3%. Conversion value decreased by 5.5%. In other words, advertisers gained more traffic and paid less for it, but generated less revenue. The study explains the paradox because this traffic wasn't neutral: it was users searching for Amazon, with expectations built on years of convenience, fast shipping, and aggressive pricing. When they clicked on ads and landed on competitor pages, many bought less or looked for lower-value products. The authors dub this phenomenon the "volume trap": an increase in clicks and conversions that doesn't translate into greater profitability. And it actually makes a lot of sense. Even if you eliminate the obvious appeal that the name "Amazon" can have on users, just consider that there are more than 200 million Prime customers worldwide. People who, given a similar price, will always choose to buy from the platform where they have the opportunity to get fast and free shipping. Winners and Losers: A History of Verticals

But not all sectors reacted equally to Amazon's disappearance. The results of the study, category by category, reveal who was ready to capture that traffic and who wasn't. Electronics was the big winner. Here, clicks increased by 11.5%, CPC fell by 7.1%... but the most surprising thing was the jump in conversions: +81%. ROAS also grew (+7.1%), as did conversion value (+10.9%). Why? Because in this vertical, there are players that can compete head-to-head with Amazon. Major brands and marketplaces have competitive prices, fast delivery times, and a reputation for trust. In other words, they knew how to meet consumer expectations, who, unable to find Amazon, were looking for a credible substitute. Sports and Home fell into the volume trap. With 13% more clicks and stable costs, everything seemed to be going well for Home & Garden. However, conversion value fell by 7.5% and ROAS declined. Customers were arriving, yes, but they were spending less. Here, the inability to offer Amazon's convenience outweighed the traffic gains. Sporting goods, meanwhile, became the perfect example of the volume trap. Conversions increased by 20%, but the value of those purchases plummeted by almost 10%. Consumers, attracted by the extra visibility, ended up buying cheaper or simply didn't find the shopping experience they expected. Health and Beauty: More Sales, But Not Better Clicks increased by 12% and conversions by 14%. However, the value remained flat. More sales were made, but not better. The only relief for advertisers was that the cheaper cost per click (-11.5%) helped keep ROAS practically stable. Clothing and Accessories Suffered the Hardest Hit With more than a thousand accounts analyzed, this high-volume category clearly showed the sector's fragility in the face of Amazon. Conversions fell by 7.4%, value by 9.5%, and ROAS by 7.3%. The trend on Amazon had educated consumers about wide selection, low prices, and easy returns. Competing in that arena was very complicated. What advertisers can learn As you can see, on Google Shopping, Amazon wasn't just competing in advertising auctions: in a way, it was also playing consumer expectations to its advantage. Shoppers haven't immediately adapted to the new Shopping landscape. They're still looking for speed, aggressive pricing, and a frictionless purchasing process. And if they don't find it, clicks turn into mediocre results. The big lesson for advertisers is that it's not enough to fill the void left by a giant. Users arrive loaded with expectations that, if you can't meet them, become a burden. The study's authors urge brands not to be seduced by clicks. Always monitoring value metrics such as average ticket and ROAS is essential for a sound strategy. It's not about being the new Amazon, but rather about finding the space where your offering stands out without falling into the volume trap. Amazon has left Google Shopping, but not from consumers' minds. And as long as their expectations remain, competing won't be a matter of volume, but of value.