| 3:10 am on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google is in for profit. The more advertisers for a search term, the higher the 'auction' outcome.
Here a thread called 'Duplicated Ads Why'
As of writing this post the persons mentioned in that tread are still working their way through, with 2-4 ads, for some major euro cities.
| 5:46 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you haven't already, please send a note in to AdWords support with the display URLs, and the search query they are appearing on, that you think are violating the terms and conditions. One of our support reps will be able to escalate this to the policy team for review.
| 6:02 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Again though they are using a homepage of the url they are advertising, but it redirects back to their company afterwards, does that matter?
| 7:45 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have been battling this same thing since May 10. I have emailed about 6 times. After requesting to know what the status was, I got a reply saying basically we can't discuss details of other accounts with you but I assure that our specialist team has already taken necessary actions. Google is committed to delivering quality ads.... However, NOTHING changed.
| 8:46 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Again though they are using a homepage of the url they are advertising, but it redirects back to their company afterwards, does that matter? |
It sure does. It's a violation of the Adwords "redirection" policy.
This was discussed here a couple of months back until the horse had so many holes in it that it couldn't be recognized as a horse. But let's perforate the poor beast's hide a few more times just to make sure. ;)
The author's multiple complaints to Google, along with their "looking into it" responses were well-documented here.
Additionally, some details initially "leaked" contrary to WebmasterWorld policy and others (myself included) were able to verify that what the author is saying is true. In fact, I reported this abuse to a Google rep myself. The rep looked at examples while we were on the phone, and agreed with me that this it was abusive and contrary to Google policy, without qualification.
I observe, as does the author, that the abuse is still going on.
From my own observations, this type of abuse is widespread and systemic.
| 9:04 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's very widespread (the problem).
| 6:29 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As TerriGW mentioned, we won't discuss the details of an account (or accounts) with anyone other than the account owner, but any emails that pertain to single entities operating multiple accounts will get routed to the policy group for review. I've been here for quite a while, and I feel comfortable that I can do the due diligence to pass judgement in these situations, but I still defer to their group as interpretations of policy can differ, especially if you don't have it in front of you every day.
That said, I have activated StickyMail and would love to get the details from Matthewdwatson. I'd ask that it only be used to send specific information such as this when requested as I will not check it continually, and for most situations it would be easier to email our support team directly. For situations like this, it's just simpler for me than trying to track down a single email in amongst the AdWords support queues.
| 7:30 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Both Google AdWords and Yahoo Search Marketing allow this and have done so for some time (well over a year). As long as the ads go to different websites, you can have two ads.
| 7:32 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
AdWordsAdvisor2 please check your stick mail - I just found an instance of this.
| 7:34 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"As long as the ads go to different websites, you can have two ads."
My understanding is that landing pages have to be different as well - not just the domain. I just found 2 different domains with the EXACT SAME webpage for a very competitive keyword. That's a violation I am pretty sure - at least it used to be.
| 7:52 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"As long as the ads go to different websites, you can have two ads." |
That's just not true. Perhaps you can GET AWAY with it and GAME THE SYSTEM, but that's not the policy.
If the websites are under common control, it is not allowed.
The only situation where you can have 2 ads for the same product is in an advertising agency situation, etc.
| 8:16 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"The only situation where you can have 2 ads for the same product is in an advertising agency situation, etc."
Even ad agencies aren't allowed to run 2 different domains with the exact landing webpage which is what I reported to AWA2.
| 9:10 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|That's just not true. Perhaps you can GET AWAY with it and GAME THE SYSTEM, but that's not the policy. |
I used to think that, and I used to complain to Google. Eventually, I figured: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I started another AdWords account and placed two ads on the same keyword. (This is only in one industry that I do this, for other clients I run only one ad). It's no secret.
| 9:19 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If an ad appears for more than 5 business days (supposedly the longest it should take to review an ad) that clearly violates a policy and is costing me money I report it. As has been previously posted, no feedback is given as to the action taken, if any, so if it does not disappear one is left wondering what happened. For example:
1) Ones complaint may not have been reviewed yet.
2) It may have been reviewed and allowed for some reason.
3) It may have been reviewed and disapproved and resubmitted.
There are many ads with obvious violations that I have reported weeks ago that continue to run to this day and it is extremely frustrating not knowing why!
| 9:31 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"...extremely frustrating not knowing why!"
Google doesn't disclose anything - where have you been :)
| 10:37 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I understand the reason I do not know what I want to know is because Google does not disclose the information. Unfortunately, that does not make it any less frustrating when I see previously reported ads still running weeks later.
| 7:16 am on Jun 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Obviously there are advertisers who are getting away with this. My question is, if the advertiser can have a different display URL and have a different 'landing page' but of the same company (and its obvious that the landing pages belong to the same website), is this legitimate?
| 2:03 pm on Jun 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Is it actually written anywhere that this is against the rules? Or is this wishful thinking by advertisers who want to pay low prices?
| 2:35 pm on Jun 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Is it actually written anywhere that this is against the rules? |
|Can I show more than one of my ads on a page? |
To provide the best possible experience for our users and advertisers, Google does not permit multiple ads from the same or affiliated company or person to appear on the same results page. We believe that pages with multiple ads from the same company provide less relevant results and a lower quality experience for our users. Over time, multiple ads from the same source also reduce advertiser performance and lower their return on investment.
We do not typically permit advertisers to manage multiple accounts featuring the same business or keywords. When we find that an account is not in compliance with our double-serving policy, we will prevent multiple ads from appearing on the same query.
| 4:11 pm on Jun 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I knew they had that policy at one time but I thought they abandoned it. Anyway, I run two ads for the same set of keywords and it is no secret and my rep knows about it. I used to complain when I saw competitors doing the same thing, but I figured "might as well join them".
Same with Yahoo Search Marketing, where the rep *strongly hinted* that it was OK to do this when we complained about competitors doing it. There is so much fraud on Yahoo that I usually keep the second account turned off, but occasionally turn it on if there is a large gap in bids.
| 12:22 am on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think their policy is that they will allow just about anything until an advertiser who is deemed important enough complains. As we all know their TOS is vague as can be; even AWA2 wouldn't give me an answer to my question of what's allowed/not allowed - very frustrating to say the least.
| 9:19 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All these URL's are the SAME Company, and they are bidding on the same keywords, which is totally destroying competition!
Is this allowed? If it's the same company, offering the same service, but differen URL's, that's not fair. They simply created 7 different AdWords accounts and listed these sites.
Many of these sites are owned by the same company. If you look at the three categories you can see that the general format and message is virtually identical for each group of sites. Go as far as you can until
you have to enter a credit card.
I wanted to bring to your attention that the following sites are bidding on keywords in the software arena and other derivations of software keywords. These companies are taking advantage of less sophisticated consumers offering misleading services (i.e. a direct link for something they could find for free), adding additional charges during the checkout process that are not addressed, not providing any legitimate form of customer service (let along anything comparable to
what the software maker could provide).
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 10:09 pm (utc) on June 27, 2006]
[edit reason] take it up with google - not here. [/edit]
| 10:56 pm on Jun 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google is obviously not doing enough to prevent these sceanrios, but what is their incentive too? It's the same debate with click fraud, what does Google gain from being better at detecting click fraud?
| 1:43 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google is obviously not doing enough to prevent these sceanrios, but what is their incentive too? It's the same debate with click fraud, what does Google gain from being better at detecting click fraud? |
Very briefly, the answer is the same in either case: to earn the long-term trust of both users and advertisers, upon which the success of our business depends.
| 1:46 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well a lot of people think you aren't doing enough. WE are the one's finding instances of advertisers running multiple ads; why are we your QA team?
| 2:51 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
More importantly why are we the QA team ignored? Turn them in and see if Google responds. As the poster above stated, you are better off joining them.
| 5:50 am on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|More importantly why are we the QA team ignored? Turn them in and see if Google responds |
Indeed. My experience is that reporting violations is discouraged. Google reps liken it to "tattling" and try to make advertisers feel petty for reporting violations.
While this may not be the case, and I am sure AWA/2 will will claim otherwise, it certainly leaves the impression that there is a protected class of advertisers who can get away with anything.
My own take - where there's smoke there's fire.
| 12:46 pm on Jun 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Google reps liken it to "tattling" and try to make advertisers feel petty for reporting violations."
Additionally, Adwords reps don't take kindly to advertisers suggesting there systems aren't as rock solid as Google proclaims. Anytime I have pointed out an error with their tools - they are always quick to repsond "we would have caught that".