homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.106.111
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >     
Brand names banned from bids
will this cost affiliates money?
peewhy




msg:535371
 8:30 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Dell has asked Google to ban any bids using the word Dell.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

Okay, big brands have a right to protect their name and ring fence it from abuse, but it begs the question, why recruit affiliates if they cannot use the brand name?

What if all manufacturers jealously guarded their brands to the extent that no one was allowed to use it in any form of bidding or online promotion?

It would cause a few problems for a lot of sites, including some of the big boys.

A lot of affiliates are going to feel the pinch when the landslide happens.

 

jbinbpt




msg:535372
 9:43 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is Dell asking informally for Google to stop or did they send a C&D letter?
I believe that Google needs to be real clear in the direction they take with the request? If Google honors informal requests then are they in the business of researching trademarks?

peewhy




msg:535373
 9:57 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not privy to the manner in which the request was made. If Dell own the rights to the name, Google may wish to play ball and prevent bidding on it.

Dell is a small valley, there might be one or two for sale and it wouldn't surprise me if someone had a restaurant, hotel or similar with the name. I wonder where Google would stand?

jbinbpt




msg:535374
 10:11 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

A quick look at the USPTO (Trademark office) shows 214 uses of Dell including "The Farmer In The Dell".

menton




msg:535375
 10:12 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have seen examples of sites that allow people to review products and services, which under specific search terms can feature highly in the SERPs. If this happens, these sites will no longer feature. Will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

I myself wouldn't like to see this happen.

menton

peewhy




msg:535376
 10:18 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

It will cause problems for many affiliates and indeed online shops that sell certain 'banned' brands.

I can understand the issue if it were to prevent bidding wars, then each affiliate should agree on fixing a maximum bud. This doesn't stop those who are not in an affiliate program but sell the product.

Imagine Sony, Hoover, JVC etc preventing their names being used in bids?

jbinbpt




msg:535377
 10:22 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

We found and stopped a competitor from using our tradename and trademarks in meta keywords. Should we do the same to a very good customer? We have not had to make that decision yet.

To me, the issue really is use of trademarks.

peewhy




msg:535378
 10:35 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Trademarks and Trading names I suppose. This is the point, if you are say, Mercedes how on earth can you ban the use of the name?

I can understand Mercedes for example banning the use of it in bids. Preventing PPC engines from accepting monies for the use of that name.

I cannot see anyone enforcing a blanket ban.

In your case of preventing a competitor using your trademark or trading names in their metatags, you are 100% entitled to take that action, it is becoming common for businesses to take that stance.

I can see Mr.Gates having a battle with 'windows' :)

peewhy




msg:535379
 10:42 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

A quick look at the USPTO (Trademark office) shows 214 uses of Dell including "The Farmer In The Dell".

I haven't looked yet, does this mean someone has protected that phrase - 'The Farmer in the Dell'?

Bizarre!

gypsychild




msg:535380
 10:45 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

As an affiliate, you should be able to sell under the brand name of whatever you're selling - for any company to take this line of thought is in my opinion very short-sighted. It will certainly affect affiliates and in turn, repress the overall growth of the brand in question. Affiliates are no different to sales people working on behalf of a company - this effectively equates to being taken on as a sales person, but not being able to mention the brand you're selling.

I also believe search engines should think of themselves more in the way of traditional media such as newspapers and magazines - if they choose to accept advertising on any particular page, then this should be their right and nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else listed there.

peewhy




msg:535381
 10:49 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Gypsychild, you are right, what is the point in being an affiliate if you can't mention the name.

I think the crux of this 'ban' is based upon people buying or bidding on trade names.

So in effect you can use the word 'Dell' wherever it is sensible in order to sell the product, but not be allowed to bid on the keyword.

Afterall, if you type in 'Dell' - Dell Inc want to come up first without having to pay for the pleasure!

rpking




msg:535382
 11:05 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

> Dell Inc want to come up first without having to pay for the pleasure!

Exactly... why should a trademark owner enter an auction to bid for their own name?

They want to pick up customers who already know of them cheaply, and leave the affiliates to bid for the generic terms.

peewhy




msg:535383
 11:07 am on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Fair enough, I tend to agree with the banning of bids for trade names - it levels the playing field somewhat.

gypsychild




msg:535384
 12:41 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I can't see the reasoning behind this at all - if someone takes you on to sell their product, then you should always be able to use and bid on their brand name - this should not be seen as competition, but working together to achieve sales.

peewhy




msg:535385
 12:49 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

If each person bids higher than the next it diminishes the opportunity for everyone.

No bidding makes it a level playingfield.

gypsychild




msg:535386
 1:05 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Advertising has never been a level playing field - those with the money can play and as a rule, the biggest player has always been the brand name company itself.

From the view point of affiliates, conceding to this arrangement is giving the brand names the best of both worlds.

woop01




msg:535387
 1:21 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

gypsychild,

Not necessarily. Before I beefed up the terms of my affiliate contracts, one of my affiliates was bidding on my trademark in the PPCs. The search term couldnít be confused with anything but my website. They were actually higher on the page than my site, which is obviously the #1 SERP for my site name, because they were bidding on my site name.

Now, why would I need to pay an affiliate a commission for that type of a lead? They didnít send me a new customer. Those users werenít looking for information about my site or affiliates of my site, they were looking for my site because they had heard about it through word of mouth or other forms of advertising.

peewhy




msg:535388
 1:21 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Advertising has never been a level playing field - those with the money can play and as a rule, the biggest player has always been the brand name company itself.

If bidding on brand names was banned, money doesn't come into it. It is a level playingfield and the best at SEO wins - not the highest bidder.

From the view point of affiliates, conceding to this arrangement is giving the brand names the best of both worlds.

conceding?

Wild_Cujo




msg:535389
 1:42 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Imagine Sony, Hoover, JVC etc preventing their names being used in bids?

The difference here, and correct me if I am wrong, is DELL has their own supply chain no one else sells DELL so dell wants to protect their name. I don't see JVC or others doing that b/c they have little to gain by restricting their name, since most of their sales come from retail stores. Dell on the other hand by not allowing places like ebay, which sell used Dells, to bid on their name will get all referrals in this case better for dell, in theory.

-Cujo

peewhy




msg:535390
 1:53 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Welcome to Webmasterworld!

Some UK affiliate programes do drop partners who bid on advertisers names as keywords.

I accept what you say about Dell, but they are not the exception to the rule by any means.

peewhy




msg:535391
 1:59 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Devendra just posted this
In the UK markets advertisers have been very aggressive in dropping affiliates who infringe on their names for a long time. Advertisers type in their brand name in google and backtrack who is advertising. One brand - William Hill - is particularly aggressive in enforcing this and whizzes off letters and legal threats left right and centre. Affiliate networks also discourage name squatting on adwords.
In my experience, the adword editors remove the offending terms without even informing the advertiser. Currently, editing seems to be manual rather than automatic so detection is everything...

gypsychild




msg:535392
 4:02 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Conceding?

Conceding in the sense of affiliates accepting this kind of arrangement.

peewhy




msg:535393
 6:45 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Gypsychild, am I right in thinking that you agree that affiliates should bid against each other?

If manufacturers allowed affiliates to continue bidding higher and higher for brand name keywords, it would leave a small handful to line the pockets of PCP SE's.

That's not a level playingfield.

If however the banning of brand names went ahead, everyone would have the same opportunity to earn a honest buck through good SEO.

That is a level playingfield.

colinirwin




msg:535394
 11:45 pm on Jul 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

As an affiliate the amount you are prepared to bid is limited by your ROI.

However, trademark owners are known to bid well over the odds for their companies ads to occupy the #1 slot.

An unnamed company (let's call them Dell) were recently bidding in excess of 6 quid per click for the phrase 'digital camera' on Overture, just to guarantee occupancy of the top slot. There is no fiscal sense in this tactic, unless you consider PPC advertising to have a significant awareness component.

Col

peewhy




msg:535395
 5:38 am on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

As an affiliate the amount you are prepared to bid is limited by your ROI.

Perfectly true in all cases. As I previously said; If each person bids higher than the next it diminishes the opportunity for everyone.

To hike up the price of say,'digital camera' can serve only to make more money for the PPC engines ... no one else. If it is the supply source that keeps upping the bid on the phrase, they will ultimately build that money into the cost of the camera.

The camera will become a no better deal than from the high street.

Then it becomes a lose - lose situation.

Jenstar




msg:535396
 3:01 pm on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

I haven't looked yet, does this mean someone has protected that phrase - 'The Farmer in the Dell'?

Most people search for live and dead trademarks - there were three dead for "Farmer in the Dell" and one live for "The Farmer in the Dell". A preserve and syrup company registered it back in the 60's.

gypsychild




msg:535397
 4:31 pm on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Gypsychild, am I right in thinking that you agree that affiliates should bid against each other?

Essentially yes, if that's what they want to do. Even if you disallow advertising under a brand name, there would still be competitive bidding for other keywords associated with a product. Unless you place a ban on all paid advertising, affiliates would still be competing against each other.

In term of a level playing field, ability to pay for advertising is not necessarily more of an advantage than good seo skills - either asset provides an opportunity to succeed.

rpking




msg:535398
 4:52 pm on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is this not simple economics on the part of the merchant?

Case 1
Stop affiliates bidding on your trademark, and so get clicks at 10p. If you convert 1 in 50, this customer costs you £5.

Case 2
If you have to compete with affiliates you now have to pay 20p for your clicks (to still appear at number 1). At the same conversion, you now pay £10 per customer.

Case 3
If you decide to let the affiliates fight it out for themselves, and pull out of the pay-per-click market, you will have to pay your affiliate scalp fee for customers from this source, which typically could be £15.

Surfers are only searching for your trademark because you have spent money building the brand. As a merchant with a legal right to protect this trademark, what would you do?

Affiliate schemes are surely designed to provide companies with additional revenue they might otherwise not receive... if somebody is searching for your brand name and you're top of the SERPS, it's safe to assume you'll get this business anyway.

peewhy




msg:535399
 5:35 pm on Jul 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Gypsychild>>
In term of a level playing field, ability to pay for advertising is not necessarily more of an advantage than good seo skills - either asset provides an opportunity to succeed.

You are mixing paid for advertising with good SEO skills - two different planets totally.

>Gypsychild, am I right in thinking that you agree that affiliates should bid against each other?
Essentially yes, if that's what they want to do. Even if you disallow advertising under a brand name, there would still be competitive bidding for other keywords associated with a product. Unless you place a ban on all paid advertising, affiliates would still be competing against each other.

This is going around in circles and a subject better left for another time. ... I'm dizzy :)

ineedmoreexercise




msg:535400
 1:24 pm on Jul 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

I always thought that you're allowed to mention a competitor's name in a comparison type of ad.

I don't see why you should not be able to bid to show a comparison type of paid listing ad to someone searching for a given brand name. As long as there is no confusion as to who is the original source of the goods, why should it matter?

In other words, if consumers can obviosuly tell by your listing that you are not "Dell", then how does Dell have any case?

Someone with tradename legal training care to comment?

This 48 message thread spans 2 pages: 48 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved