homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.5.234
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

    
Forget Double Serving - Google Allows FIVE Accounts
Same advertiser using five separate accounts to dominate ads.
WebFusion




msg:3329296
 11:23 pm on May 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

ENOUGH ALREADY!

How many times do you need to report advertisers cheating the system using multiple accounts before Google will get off their collective backsides and enforce their own policies?

It took me all of 10 minutes to tie all 5 accounts to the same person/company (it helps that Mr. Wizard uses his company info on all the sites).

Here's what's happening:

This individual is using (what are essentially) throw away domains to redirect people to the same product. It's the same design/adcopy, etc.....just hosted on a different domain.

What's worse...when I first reported him two months ago, he was using two domains...then a third appeared....last month he added a fourth....and as of today, he has five ads occupying five spots on the front page of every term we pay for.

Now, I don't mind competition...if you can out market me using good copy, then so be it. BUT...this low life is cheating his way past his competitors....and apparently has Google's blessing doing it.

I've had enough....I'll give Google another 30 days, and then it's "if you can't beat em, join em."

 

admagix




msg:3329686
 12:09 pm on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Same Problem here, My client's competitor is having 2 different domains pointing to the one single landing URL for the same keywords. We have reported this to one of our Google representative but no action was taken yet.

I remember the quote "Rules are made to be broken". So, follow the devils route.

FlwrLdy




msg:3329746
 1:37 pm on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

Same issue here. Four accounts (three with the exact same affiliate products from the same hosting company) from one company and two from another all targeting the same keywords.

They've been reported by several AW advertisers and the response is basically 'the sites are different enough'.

I thought the guidelines were designed to give users variety and keep companies from dominating the page and crowding out the competition.

We've also reported ads with claims of 'free' products or services when the offers are found nowhere on the site. Nothing is being done about those either.

chinara




msg:3329756
 1:45 pm on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

(it helps that Mr. Wizard uses his company info on all the sites).

Double serving is big problem, i see it just about everyday.
And these people are getting smarter - many of them use private registration to hide the whois info, or using thier grandma info to make the detection and reporting harder.

Rehan




msg:3329851
 3:17 pm on May 3, 2007 (gmt 0)

They've never done anything about the display URL violations I've reported either. It gets pretty frustrating sometimes, but not enough to "join 'em".

I'm planning to raise this issue during one of the sessions at the SMX conference next month.

AdWordsAdvisor2




msg:3330368
 3:19 am on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

I personally detest double serving. StickyMail me the URLs and if they are related I will have them taken care of as soon as possible. Keep in mind that "he told me at a trade show that he owned both sites" doesn't count for us to consider them related, but if there is hard evidence I can take care of it.

AWA2

narsticle




msg:3330750
 2:27 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Even the big guys do this. Until about a month ago, All GM car brands has 2 listings for the same domain.

BriGuy20




msg:3330994
 5:21 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

A certain addictive smartphone company has dual ads up for one of the keywords I target.

WebFusion




msg:3331282
 10:35 pm on May 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

I personally detest double serving. StickyMail me the URLs and if they are related I will have them taken care of as soon as possible. Keep in mind that "he told me at a trade show that he owned both sites" doesn't count for us to consider them related, but if there is hard evidence I can take care of it.

AWA, Stickied you a detailed post, let me know if you didn't receive it ;-)

WebFusion




msg:3333267
 9:32 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

** crickets **

Has anyone noticed any action at all on their double-serving issue?

Just took a look at my favorite cheater - and he's still proudly displaying all his ads.

drudden




msg:3333972
 6:16 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Has anyone noticed any action at all on their double-serving issue?

I actually had a similar issue with a competitor, and I had success getting their duplicate ads offline.

In my case, I actually utilized Google's online chat support. The agent I spoke with said she would forward my complaint to the appropriate account manager and action would be taken if any guidelines were being broken. The next day, I noticed my competitor's duplicate ads were taken down. I guess it worked.

Miamijuice




msg:3334346
 12:03 am on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the good news Gdrudden.
Obviously your approach works.
I have similar problems {4 competitors on the same page driving up my cost}
Iíll do the same, hopefully with the same results.

Rehan




msg:3334386
 12:42 am on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

In my case, I actually utilized Google's online chat support.

I've reported display URL violations (which result in multiple ads for the same website) via e-mail, live chat, and phone... Unfortunately, all of those violations seem to be present weeks/months later. I guess it must be my bad luck.

[edited by: jatar_k at 1:10 am (utc) on May 9, 2007]
[edit reason] no specifics thanks [/edit]

WebFusion




msg:3334460
 2:22 am on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hmmm...well, apparently, this part of the TOS isn't important enough to be enforced. As it took me all of 10 minutes worth of "investigation" to not only tie all the accounts to the same person, but to find out his name, AND all the other relevant info about his business model....it must be a low priority for the adwords team.

Ah well....as least I know what I could get away with if I wanted to break the rules as well.

karamkshetra




msg:3335547
 5:22 am on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is actually very bad... as this means clear cheating for the first position that means... I can have all 10 websites with 10 different accounts for the keyword loan... that I will become rich as anyhow I will be the only person getting leads from the keyword "loans"
:P

WebFusion




msg:3339580
 10:38 pm on May 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

This is actually very bad... as this means clear cheating for the first position that means... I can have all 10 websites with 10 different accounts for the keyword loan... that I will become rich as anyhow I will be the only person getting leads from the keyword "loans"
:P

From what I can tell, google is either so short handed that they won't/can't look into these double/triple/quadruple serving cases unless the ads are selling/promting something illegal, OR they simply consider double-serving such a low priority that they only give each report a cursory glance. OR....[place tinfoil hat here] perhaps they use an internal ROI system to determine if is more profitable on a case by case basis to allow select advertisers to break the rules.

In my case, I first reported this months ago, and sent a PM to AWA with a very detailed report about with the URLs, the product, and even the name of the individual cheating the system. Again....nothing is done. As of right now (I wish I could post a few example keywords here) he has FOUR ads running for each KW in positions 1,3,7, & 8. Since he's been doing it for months, it MUST be profitable.

[edited by: WebFusion at 10:40 pm (utc) on May 14, 2007]

AdWordsAdvisor2




msg:3339619
 11:57 pm on May 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Checking back in here ... I have received the Stickys on two different issues and am following up on each. Anyone who sent me a Sticky should have received a Sticky in reply as confirmation of receipt.

Maybe AWA and I should have used more distinct names, but rest assured there are actually two separate individuals behind the keyboard. Sending something to me doesn't automatically include AWA in on the issue.

AWA2

WebFusion




msg:3339962
 11:59 am on May 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi AWA2,

Since I didn't receive a reply - I'm assuming the system ate the sticky I sent you ;-)

I just resent it. Thanks for taking the time to check these things out ;-)

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:3340261
 5:51 pm on May 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Maybe AWA and I should have used more distinct names, but rest assured there are actually two separate individuals behind the keyboard. Sending something to me doesn't automatically include AWA in on the issue.

Thank for the clarification AWA2. Hopefully that'll put a stop to people stopping me on the streets and saying "Hey, aren't you AWA2 on Forum81?" :)

But, that said, I really like your screen name - it has a nice ring to it.

AWA

Kobayashi




msg:3340313
 6:54 pm on May 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is'nt Google supposed to automatically filter out duplicate domains? I sure don't have the time to constantly monitor the hundreds of domains I advertise for duplicates. Hopefully someone at Google is not only correcting these reported cases but finding out why they happened in the first place.

karamkshetra




msg:3341819
 9:10 am on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

They do filter out different domains...
You cannot have 3 sites in an account selling same product to the same geo-targeted market.

That is even if I take keyword "jobs" as my main PPC keyword... still I can't have 3 campaigns called: careerbuilder, jobs and monster. I have to create separate account for all 3.

Am I right Mr.AWA and AWA2..............

Kobayashi




msg:3342361
 7:44 pm on May 17, 2007 (gmt 0)

I understand they automatically filter out ads using the same domain within the same account but I am talking about multiple ads using the same domain being shown in searches presumedly from different accounts. I thought those were automatically filtered.

drudden




msg:3346655
 5:12 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I actually had a similar issue with a competitor, and I had success getting their duplicate ads offline.

Looks like I spoke too soon. I got one of my competitors taken down, but another one of my competitors is now double-serving ads and getting away with it. Doesn't seem to matter how much I complain.

I know for a fact this competitor has a dedicated Google account rep fly out to meet with them on occasion, and they have a six figure monthly budget.

It's very suspect that my smaller competitor got thrown off after I complain, yet the large competitor gets to continue double-serving.

bwnbwn




msg:3346736
 6:20 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

We have an account with 3 accounts that target the same keywords. I knew this was a not good so what I did was contact our rep and he had the adwords team build us a account that has all three of the sites in the account and revolves them in and out 33% each.

This really works well for us and sure made my job easier to maintain them.

BigSpender




msg:3349509
 9:09 am on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

My question is why Adwords tollerates this so much. Double ad serving isn't a mistake, it's a decision on the part of the advertiser to try to cheat the system. When it's found, Google just takes down the duplicate ad. If Adwords doesn't want people double serving, then they should impose a pentalty for doing so. Maybe shutting down their entire account for a couple weeks would make a better point.

On the other side though, I often think people who multiple list to mirror sites is bad for them and good for me. I'd rather have 5 competitors advertising online than 10. As long as I'm above the double listings I'm likely to get first shot at introducing my product. If someone is double and tripple listing below me they're more likely to annoy the customer with their spam ads. Multiple listings hurts adwords the most; it diminishes the quality of the paid ads in the surfers mind and generally discourages people from using those links in general.

trinorthlighting




msg:3349664
 1:27 pm on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

We do not take the whole first page in adwords ads, we only have one account. But I do not see what the big deal is about this.

If I wanted the whole first advertising page in the New York Times or Washington Post classified section, I am sure they would be more than happy to sell it for a large price.

Adwords is all about bidding, the higher you pay, the larger your advertisements should be. That is how it works with magazines, newspapers, yellow pages, etc..

BigSpender




msg:3349735
 2:31 pm on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

RULES! The issue is rules. Google says no to predatory behaviour by big spenders and they have the one ad per account per keyword rule. The problem is they have rules then don't enforce them properly.

Look at my moniker, if Google wants to open it up so people can buy the whole page of ads, I'll be first in line. I would have no problem using a bankroll to squeeze out the little guys.

Unlike the New York Times, because of limited real estate, its possible to buy all the adspace on a google page. You have to compare apples to apples.

Where the AdWords group is concerned, they have to make a better effort to enforce their own rules. Google says, "we don't allow double serving". Well, we all know the truth. Google swears they don't do a lot of things and then wonder why people don't believe them....

trinorthlighting




msg:3349787
 3:02 pm on May 25, 2007 (gmt 0)

I agree about the rules, but if google was smart they would change them. Google gives variety in their natural serps. Advertising comes at a cost and the big players should have that capability.

Why do you think big advertisers you see on television do not advertise on google that much? I am talking about sears, coke, pepsi, etc.... Do a search on google for "pepsi" and you will not see a single advertisement for pepsi that is paid for by pepsi. Googles rules more than likely limit larger advertisers this way.

If pepsi will shell out millions during the super bowls, why do you not see them shelling out millions on google?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved