| 11:03 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
They are referring to Sprinks and Overture type text ads. Does that answer your question? If not, specifically what type of ads do you want to know about?
| 11:25 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There has to be a dozen or so companies that do contextual advertising so I'd have to say that they don't want you to have any ad that may constitute a fair market.
| 1:43 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I received this from Google:
"To answer your second question; no it would not be acceptable to run AdSense ads along with ads from www.textads.biz. We do not permit AdWords ads to be published on web pages that also contain what could be
considered competing ads. This would include all content-targeted ads as well as text-based ads. Text-based ads, for this situation, can be loosely defined as ads that mimic AdWords ads or appear to be associated with AdWords ads on your site"
| 1:50 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
....and someone scolded me on another topic for suggesting Google was being monopolistic ;-)
| 2:10 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks guys, I've read your comments, but... I'm still not a whole lot clearer on the issue.
I think they're more or less within their rights to have this sort of semi-exclusivity clause... just that it seems inconsistent:
1) They say text-based ads are 'competing' ads.
2)Then, they say, oh, alright then, not all text-based ads, obviously, just the ones that appear to be associated with Adsense or mimic Adsense.
3) Then they say limited text links are okay.
What on earth is a limited text link?
Why are these not 'text based'? Why, apparently, can't such a link mimic AdSense or be made to appear as if it is associated with AdSense (because if it could, surely it wouldn't be okay)?
What constitutes mimickry or association in this instance?
What does limited mean? Less than the number of words in a typical Adsense panel? Or does it mean limited in some sense other than length?
Obviously the reason I'm asking these questions is because I would like to feature promotional links on my webpages other than those provided by AdSense and at the same time I wish to stick to the AdSense guidelines... but the line on competitive ads at the moment seems to be blurry at best.
| 2:23 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ronin - this is probably best answered by Google. I really do think they just don't want any competition and so as long as the rules are fuzzy they can adjust them to each person. If Google can bully, or scare, the average Joe into not putting anything up for fear of reprisal then they will. I doubt seriously though that the same rules would apply to a huge site that generates big bucks for them. So like I said, be safe and ask them very specifically if what you want to do is OK by them. Sorry I couldn't help any more than that.
| 3:00 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|....and someone scolded me on another topic for suggesting Google was being monopolistic ;-) |
There's nothing "monopolistic" about an ad network demanding exclusivity. I'm pretty sure that Burst won't let you display FastClick or Tribal Fusion banners alongside its banners, either.
You have the option of accepting AdSense's terms or of finding another advertising partner. AdSense isn't the only game in town, after all.
| 11:26 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
europeforvisitors - It's not so much the exclusivity that I refer to as being monopolistic as they do say you can have certain other ads. The monopoloistic part of the TOC is that they are trying to say that a website cannot have other ads that *look* like theirs. This is strange because the format that they use is very generic and has been around longer than they have. So at best the TOC is contradictory to itself. Plus, that part of the TOC is only enforced on the little guy as there are a few larger sites that do run mixed ads. Not very fair to all the folks who like what adsense is about (BTW - I think this form af advertising is great) but only get a handful of traffic and would like to monetize that traffic as best they can.
But you are right about being able to go elsewhere. I don't think any of the other dozen or so companies doing this particular type of advertising mind if you show ads from multiple sources.
| 12:23 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't forget that Google also restricts AdSense to sites that don't have "excessive advertising." IMHO, one reason for this rule (and for the rule against competing text ads) is to ensure that participating sites are true "content sites" and not just the online equivalent of a weekly shopper where you've got AdSense ads, Sprinks, a dozen banner ads and sponsor buttons, and popups or popunders obscuring whatever real content the sites offer.
As for allowing big corporate-owned sites to run competing text ads, there's a good reason for that, too: Google is working closely with those advertising partners, and it can afford to invest time in determining (and negotiating) what forms of other advertising are or aren't acceptable. With smaller sites, it simply isn't cost-effective to give that level of one-on-one attention, so a conservative blanket policy has to apply.
Personally, I think it's great that Google is trying to maintain some kind of control (however modest) over the types of sites and pages where AdSense ads can run. I'd like to see Google become more restrictive, not less, to ensure the credibility and long-term success of the AdSense network.
| 1:03 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
europeforvisitors - I agree that certain controls should be in place to ensure integrity of the program as a whole but the question is what controls should be there. I guess I'm not entirely sure of what those should be. I just don't like the ones that are there so much.
Believe me when I say I absolutely hate sites that are nothing but ads and agree with you 100 percent :-)
But some sites carry more than one advertisement and are done very tactfully. I just can't see why a site cannot have maybe two advertisements and one be from Google and the other from Overture.
I'm not sure I agree with the reasons why big sites can do it and little ones can't. It seems quite a few little sites have been repremanded for violating the TOC which means if they put enough man power behind trying to find violations then they could also allow tasteful multi source advertising since there would be no extra work on their part.
| 2:52 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It seems quite a few little sites have been repremanded for violating the TOC which means if they put enough man power behind trying to find violations then they could also allow tasteful multi source advertising since there would be no extra work on their part. |
Most of the "reprimands" have involved fraudulent clicks, which can be monitored through software. Even the warnings can be (and probably are) sent automatically.
Google's business model is built around automated processes that can be scaled up almost infinitely. If Google had chosen to go the Overture route of limiting participation to larger sites, human monitoring might be practical--but AdSense is more like the Amazon.com associates program than a traditional ad network, so it has to rely on automated methods--which could very well include bots that look for competing ads.
Again, there are many revenue options available to Web publishers, and publishers who don't like the AdSense TOS can--and should--go elsewhere.