ryanfromaustin
msg:805932 | 6:26 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
What, specifically, has been changed in the policy? This looks like the same old policy that's always been there.
|
growingdigital
msg:805933 | 6:46 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Yahoo! Search Marketing has determined that they no longer allow bidding on keywords containing competitor trademarks [edited by: jatar_k at 3:39 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2006]
[edit reason] no emails thanks [/edit]
|
iblaine
msg:805934 | 8:03 pm on Feb 24, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Thank you Yahoo/Overture. It's about time.
|
lethal0r
msg:805935 | 12:13 pm on Feb 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
so if i sell widgets from company a and i advertise under widgets from company b(which i do currently) this will no longer be allowed?
|
ryanfromaustin
msg:805936 | 1:39 pm on Feb 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There is a lot of gray area here. Our website sells widgets from Company A in 20 states only and Widgets from Company B in all 50 states. Are we "competitors" to Company A in the states where we do not offer their products? I am also concerned because even many of the products for which we "directly facilitate the sell" show ads that state "Compare," simply because the editorial Yahoos (pun inteneded) at YSM said we needed that to get our ads approved. Will we now have to rewrite all of those ads and resubmit ourselves to the hell that is the Overture editorial review process?
|
growingdigital
msg:805937 | 8:10 pm on Feb 25, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I agree with the gray area comment posted earlier. I posted this example yesterday on my blog at Revenews:
1 - Consumer searches for "Merchant A review".
2 - One of the paid search listings reads "Compare Merchant A to Merchant B"
3- They arrive at a landing page with an apples to apples comparison of Merchant A and Merchant B.
4 - The consumer is presented with more information, and makes an informed buying decision. Each competitive trademark situation is unique, and requires an editor to make the call. Based on the past performance of the Yahoo editorial team, I would probably just come out with a blanket policy too.
|
|
JP
|
lexipixel
msg:805938 | 6:12 am on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0) |
"Yahoo! Search Marketing has determined that they no longer allow bidding on keywords containing competitor trademarks" - growingdigital |
|
Where do you get that? It allows (3) specific types of advertisers who are permitted use of other's tradmark; 1. Reseller
2. Information Site, Not Competitive
3. Competitive Comparison Site ...(each type has conditions that apply) Seems ethical and has plenty of room for creative 3rd parties.
|
growingdigital
msg:805939 | 7:45 am on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0) |
lexipixel my post is taken out of context because it's been edited by a mod. Condition #3 ("Competitive Comparison Site") will be removed when the policy is officially implemented on March 1, but advertiser listings that qualify under the reseller or non-competitor information guidelines may be allowed, subject to Yahoo!'s discretion to accept or reject listings. This has yet to be posted to Yahoo's website, but was sent in an e-mail to select advertisers.
|
ryanfromaustin
msg:805940 | 1:27 pm on Feb 27, 2006 (gmt 0) |
We still have not been notified of this. I wonder if this means our account is not affected? Could we be so lucky?
|
iblaine
msg:805941 | 8:19 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Has an official, public statement been made yet?
|
markd
msg:805942 | 9:29 am on Mar 22, 2006 (gmt 0) |
So, where does that leave agencies who work for clients and bid on/manage their PPC listings? Would they be barred from bidding on their clients' 'trademarks'?
|
|
