Google Tag Manager best practices become more relevant as a business adds new tools, platforms and people to its marketing. A GTM setup that was fairly simple when it was first implemented can look very different a few years later.
We see this most often when a GTM container has been in use for several years. During that time, the business may have changed agencies, redesigned its website or added new marketing technology. Different people have worked in the container along the way, often making changes to support whatever the business needed at the time.
The result isn’t necessarily a bad GTM setup. Everything in the container may have worked exactly as intended when added. The issue is that no one may have looked at the container as a whole in quite some time.
That’s usually when questions start coming up about what’s still in use, who originally added it, and whether former vendors still have access. The current marketing team may know that GTM is important without knowing which configurations support GA4, advertising, or other platforms.
Google Tag Manager Is More Than a Place to Install Tags
Open a GTM container that has been around for a few years, and you’re rarely looking at the original setup. GA4 and Google Ads may be there alongside tracking for paid social, phone calls, forms and other tools the business has added over time.
Things get harder when nobody knows why a tag is there. Removing it may be fine, but you don’t want to find out afterward that something important depended on it. Changes made in GTM can affect the information different teams use to evaluate marketing performance, which makes understanding the existing setup important before making another change.
This is also why a marketing analytics strategy has to extend beyond the original analytics implementation. As the business and its marketing technology change, the measurement behind them needs to keep up.
Different Setups, Different Decisions
A recent project required us to review a group of existing GTM containers. We found quite a bit of variation from one to the next. Naming was different, the number and types of tags varied, and it wasn’t always immediately apparent what some of the existing tags were being used for.
The user access revealed another part of the story. Some vendors had been given access to install tags at one point but were no longer working with the business or no longer needed the same level of access.
Taken together, the containers reflected years of changes made by different people, without the same approach used across all of them.
Google Tag Manager Best Practices Go Beyond Tag Configuration
A technically correct tag is important. But looking at tags individually doesn’t tell you whether the container as a whole is being managed well.
For a growing organization, Google Tag Manager best practices should also address ownership, organization, documentation, access, and how changes are introduced.
Establish Clear Ownership
One of the first questions we ask when reviewing an analytics environment is surprisingly simple:
Who owns it?
That question can be harder to answer than expected.
Marketing may use GTM regularly without actually administering it while outside agencies or developers handle much of the configuration. Other partners, such as a paid media agency, may only need access for specific tasks like managing advertising conversions.
There is nothing inherently wrong with several people or vendors working in the same container. The business should, however, retain control of it and know who is responsible for managing access and overseeing the broader configuration.
Google’s own guidance recommends that the organization being measured create and control its Tag Manager account, then provide agencies with access rather than having an outside agency own the account. Google also recommends having at least two active administrators to reduce the risk of losing access. When the person who managed GTM leaves, the next person may spend considerable time figuring out how the existing setup works.
Create a Structure Other People Can Understand
Naming conventions and organization can sound like minor housekeeping until someone other than the person who built the container needs to work in it.
A useful GTM structure shouldn’t require someone to reverse-engineer the logic behind every tag before making a change.
Consistency helps teams identify what a tag supports, distinguish current configurations from legacy ones, and understand how different pieces of the measurement environment relate to one another.
The specific naming convention matters less than having one that people consistently follow. This becomes increasingly valuable when more than one person or vendor works in the container.
Document the Decisions That Will Matter Later
Documentation doesn’t have to mean creating a detailed manual for every tag and trigger. It does mean retaining enough context that someone can understand important tracking decisions later.
A custom configuration may have been created for a specific vendor, campaign, or platform. Knowing why it was added, what it supports, and whether anything else depends on it can be helpful when someone needs to work with that tag again. Those answers are much easier to find when the person who implemented the configuration is still involved. Three years later, they can turn into a research project.
We’re seeing this in a current project where we’re reviewing an existing GTM setup before moving it into a new structure. There are tags that aren’t immediately recognizable from the way they were named or configured, so we can’t simply decide to move or remove them. We first have to determine what they’re doing and whether they’re still needed.
That research takes time, but guessing isn’t a good alternative. A tag that takes a few minutes to add can take considerably longer to investigate when nobody remembers why it’s there.
Give Vendors the Access They Need Without Giving Up Control
Agencies and technology partners often have legitimate reasons to work in GTM.
Good governance isn’t about preventing them from doing their jobs. It is about making access intentional.
Google Tag Manager supports different permissions at the container level, including Read, Edit, Approve, and Publish. These permissions allow businesses to provide different levels of control depending on what someone actually needs to do.
Access should also be reconsidered when relationships change. A vendor that needed publishing rights two years ago may no longer work with the company. Keeping access current helps ensure that the people who can make changes in GTM are still the people who need to be there.
This is another reason GTM should be viewed as a business asset rather than simply a tool an agency happens to use.
Test Changes in the Context of the Larger Measurement Environment
A new tag can work exactly as intended and still create an unintended problem somewhere else.
For example, adding another implementation of a platform that is already being loaded elsewhere can result in duplicate measurement. A website change can alter the information a trigger depends on. A change to consent settings can affect when analytics or advertising tags are allowed to operate.
This is why validation needs to look beyond whether the newest tag fires. The better test is whether the measurement environment still behaves as intended after the change.
This becomes more important as the number of systems connected through GTM increases.
Consent Has Added Another Layer to GTM Management
Privacy and consent requirements have also changed the role GTM can play in the broader measurement environment.
For businesses using a consent management platform, GTM may sit in the middle of an important relationship between the website visitor’s consent choices and the analytics and advertising technologies operating on the site.
Google’s current Tag Manager documentation includes consent management as part of its tagging environment and recommends using a consent management platform or compatible content management system to collect user consent and communicate those choices to Google.
We’ve encountered this recently while reviewing existing GTM setups. The tags themselves were in place, but the sites didn’t have the consent management setup needed to control how those tags behaved based on a visitor’s consent choices. Looking only at whether the tags were installed and firing wouldn’t have identified the larger issue.
The consent configuration is another part of the setup that needs attention when new tags are added or vendors make changes.
Website Changes Should Include a GTM Conversation
Website changes often affect tracking even when analytics isn’t part of the project. We’ve seen this happen with changes to forms, landing pages, checkout processes, and third-party tools.
The tracking may depend on a URL, button, form submission, or information being passed through the data layer. When something on the website changes, the existing GTM configuration may no longer work the same way.
The person making the website change may have no reason to know that a connection exists. A developer can make the requested change without knowing that marketing relies on that page to measure a conversion.
Including the person responsible for measurement gives them a chance to check the tracking and identify any needed updates.
It is much easier to include measurement requirements while a change is being planned than to investigate a reporting discrepancy weeks after launch.
When Should You Review Your GTM Container?
We don’t think every business needs to review its GTM container on the same schedule. How often it needs attention depends quite a bit on how frequently the website, marketing platforms, and people working in the container are changing.
Some of the best times to take a closer look at GTM are when something else is already changing. A website redesign, new CRM or advertising platform, agency change, or update to consent management can all affect the existing setup.
Something unexpected can also prompt a review such as a conversion that stops recording correctly or an unfamiliar tag. A new agency may also discover that the current team isn’t entirely sure what’s already in the container.
GTM Management Should Grow With the Business
GTM can become more complicated as a business adds websites, locations or other parts of the organization. At some point, decisions that once applied to a single container may need to work across several of them.
We’re dealing with this in a current project where we’re reviewing multiple GTM containers, each with its own existing setup. The containers vary in how they’re organized, what they contain and how they handle tracking. Before building a more consistent framework, we first have to understand which differences have a reason to be there and which ones don’t.
This is where standardization starts to matter. Some tracking approaches can work consistently across the business. Others need to account for differences between websites, marketing programs or operations.
A business doesn’t have to start with this level of complexity. But as more websites, platforms, and people become involved how GTM is structured may need to change with them.
Keeping GTM Manageable as the Business Changes
Google Tag Manager often starts with a fairly simple purpose. After several years of changes, the container can become much more involved. New platforms and vendors come into the mix, while websites and consent requirements change. Over time, the container reflects decisions made by different people.
For businesses that have been using GTM for several years, understanding what’s already there is a good place to start. That includes knowing who has access, what the existing tags support, and where more documentation or organization would make future changes easier.
Following Google Tag Manager best practices helps keep that history from becoming an obstacle every time something needs to change.
Leave a Reply