homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.123.2
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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

Google AdWords Forum

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google AdWords Says Yes To Alcohol Ads For U.S. Market
engine




msg:3803399
 3:02 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google AdWords Says Yes To Alcohol Ads For U.S. Market [adwords.blogspot.com]
This fall, we changed our policy around beer, for the first time allowing advertisements of its sale in the U.S. via AdWords. And starting today, in response to advertiser feedback we've received over the years, we'll permit the advertisement of hard alcohol and liqueurs that target the U.S.

To comply with the updated hard alcohol and liqueurs policy, advertisers must promote the information about hard alcohol and liqueurs that their websites contain, such as recipes and brand messages. Ads that directly promote the sale of hard alcohol and liqueurs are still not permissible through our program. In contrast, advertisements for beer may directly promote its sale.

For example, under the hard alcohol and liqueurs policy, you might market to individuals searching for helpful and relevant alcohol-related information by promoting holiday cocktail ideas or the caloric content of popular spiked beverages. Under the beer policy, you might state a specific sales promotion for a great winter ale.

Hard alcohol and beer manufacturers can now take advantage of online holiday traffic and initiate campaigns that appeal to their target audiences.


 

carguy84




msg:3803499
 4:47 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Can't say I blame them. Alcohol is a big advertising industry. To not take money from them right now when they're eager to spend probably got a lot of pressure from the board.

himalayaswater




msg:3803505
 4:52 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

What about adsense content network? Is this only limited to search engine queries?

wheel




msg:3803506
 4:53 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is not a change in policy at all. Their policy is to make money even if they have to change policy every time the wind blows a different direction.

Google's morals and ethics are ones of convenience. Beer and alcohol is bad bad bad. Oh, unless advertising revenue is static. Then it's OK. Hugh Heffner should probably start budgeting for an adwords campaign because his day is coming too.

{It seems I'm a google basher these days. I swear I'm not :). It's them that's changed.}

koan




msg:3803521
 4:59 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google's morals and ethics are ones of convenience.

What makes you think their initial decision to disallow such ads were based on ethics? There's nothing unethical or immoral with drinking beer or cocktails. It was probably more an issue of showing alcohol-related ads to minors, but we have them on TV anyway. They just started out prudent... however I agree with their decision to include them now, even recipe sites might benefit from it as a lot of recipes contain wine, beer and hard liquor.

wheel




msg:3803550
 5:28 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Uh, so what changed then? They're no longer going to be showing ads to minors? They were prudent and now they're not?

Nothing's changed. Actually what changed is Google's need to keep revenue high. Which is about what I already noted.

There's nothing unethical or immoral with drinking beer or cocktails

I agree. I personally don't even have a problem with the promotion of it.

[edited by: wheel at 5:45 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2008]

signor_john




msg:3803558
 5:33 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'd guess that legal issues play a large role in what's allowed or not allowed. Liquor laws can be tricky, and I doubt if Google wants to get sucked into checking for compliance with different laws in scores (maybe hundreds) of jurisdictions.

Allowing ads for "alcohol-related information" is a whole lot different from allowing mail-order booze ads (illegal in some jurisdictions), liquor ads with prices (illegal in some U.S. states), and so on. It's like THE NEW YORKER or GOURMET running branding ads for Johnny Walker Black Label or recipe ads for Cointreau liqueur but not running ads for "The Glenlivet, 12 years old - 750 ml bottle, $35 plus shipping."

carguy84




msg:3803564
 5:37 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

I see "cigarettes" are still a no go. Looks like you can't even advertise on that keyword phrase. I'd think it would be a perfect place to put a "Quit Smoking" ad, no?

What's more interesting is that Wine has always been OK, but beer and liquor, off limits.

koan




msg:3803629
 6:57 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

What's more interesting is that Wine has always been OK, but beer and liquor, off limits.

Yeah that was always weird. But I agree with signor_john, I think it was just a matter of murky legal issues to research, or gaining more experience on the matter. If there was a strong enough demand from advertisers ("in response to advertiser feedback"), they would invest the energy to figure it out.

signor_john




msg:3803660
 7:29 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

What's more interesting is that Wine has always been OK, but beer and liquor, off limits.

Maybe because wine tends to be associated more with food than with drinking? (That's just a guess, but it's a reasonable one: When was the last time you heard about people "doing glasses of wine" in a bar or having a "casker" at the fraternity house?)

JS_Harris




msg:3803662
 7:35 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

This is not a change in policy at all. Their policy is to make money even if they have to change policy every time the wind blows a different direction.

Unless you can point to a new study saying hard alcohol isn't as potentially damaging as it was in the past he's right. The alcohol didn't change, what it can do didn't change, all that changed is that Google will now help promote it. The move must therefore be considered purely financial. I'm sure we'll see lawsuits when those hard alcohol ads show up on various sites where minors frequent.

LifeinAsia




msg:3803664
 7:36 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

When was the last time you heard about people "doing glasses of wine" in a bar or having a "casker" at the fraternity house?

Devil's Advocate: When was the last time you heard about a "beero" or "whiskeyo" on Skid Row? :)

nealrodriguez




msg:3803668
 7:40 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

with their recent layoffs, they're going to have to outsource for a penny a landing page to get the staff required to check if the liq is a recipe or being directly sold.

JS_Harris




msg:3803712
 8:40 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Not really, they have the most advanced filter system on hand I'm sure. If the ad bot reads certain text it can display free ads until a human checks the red flag that was created.

Poor guy who has to check all those pages held for review though, he'll be having dreams of 151 and bad websites for a month into the new year.

signor_john




msg:3803715
 8:41 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Devil's Advocate: When was the last time you heard about a "beero" or "whiskeyo" on Skid Row? :)

Well, Google can always put "Thunderbird" and "Richard's Wild Irish Rose" in its ad filter. :-)

drall




msg:3803755
 9:23 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Let the good times roll!

adamxcl




msg:3803779
 9:52 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

Seems like a good counter to down times. Poorer economy and less spending on ads if companies are struggling. And alcohol sales boom in down times. Logical move on several fronts.

walkman




msg:3803784
 10:04 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

This was dumb anyway: alcohol is legal so why should google restrict it unless they have to by law?

loner




msg:3803823
 11:14 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

#*$!ography is legal too- what's stopping G from advertising that?

If it can't be filtered then it's time to drop Adsense.

signor_john




msg:3803829
 11:29 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

This was dumb anyway: alcohol is legal so why should google restrict it unless they have to by law?

Some types of alcohol advertising are restricted by law. More to the point, what's legal in one jurisdiction may be illegal in another (e.g., mail-order booze sales). That makes things trickier for a company like Google than it might be for Joes-piddly-site.com, which isn't likely to be a tempting target for ambitious prosecutors and organizations with axes to grind.

Just as important, standards are hardly unique to Google. Magazines, newspapers, TV networks, etc. often have restrictions on what advertising they'll accept. For example, many newspapers won't run paid movie listings for NC-17 films--not because the movies are illegal (they aren't), but because they don't want church groups protesting outside their doors or politicians trying to get votes at their expense with cries of "smut peddler"! (Heck, this forum won't even let us use the word p-o-r-n minus the hyphens, even though there's nothing illegal or morally questionable about the word.)

kksite123




msg:3803844
 11:49 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0)

What's more interesting is that Wine has always been OK, but beer and liquor, off limits.


I may be misinformed but I think this is one of the quite odd, as well as dangerous characteristics of the Google Guys' actions. The idea was that when they decided this, the motivation was that Sergey and Larry both loved wine and hated beer. Wine is good, beer is evil. So...their personal preferences caused an important business decision for many.

That's like when G, at their IPO, tried to raise the exact amount of $2.718.281.828, which is derived from "e" in math.

Again, I'm not 100% sure on this but it might very well be true. I personally find it quite scary sometimes how powerful these guys are (against the nice idealistic ideas they have shown most of the time so far).

On the other hand, now that they're public, profit maximization is top priority. If there's a stagnation in sales (advertiser feedback uh-huh),policy is adjusted as mentioned before.


#*$!ography is legal too- what's stopping G from advertising that?

If the numbers stay down, I absolutely expect that they will make this possible.

Sorry for being a little OT :)

hutcheson




msg:3803862
 12:32 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

>Heck, this forum won't even let us use the word p-o-r-n minus the hyphens, even though there's nothing illegal or morally questionable about the word.

Be fair now: that isn't an ethical restriction, it's a practical one.

Because some #*$!meisters will spend all day dropping links in every forum they can find: and if they can't get their key phrases in, they'll stop posting in the forum (saving untold forum moderation work).

Apparently even the leet-speak form (involving inverted 'r' and 'o', and substitution of digit for letter) isn't allowed.

signor_john




msg:3803895
 1:30 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hutcheson wrote:

Be fair now: that isn't an ethical restriction, it's a practical one.

Because some #*$!meisters will spend all day dropping links in every forum they can find: and if they can't get their key phrases in, they'll stop posting in the forum (saving untold forum moderation work)

I didn't use the phrase "ethical restrictions," and I'd suggest that practical considerations are as important at Google as they are at Webmaster World. That's one legitimate reason, though not the only legitimate reason, for having ad standards. Consider: Banning certain types of alcohol advertising from AdWords is a practical thing to do if there's a risk that software filters might not catch ads for mail-order liquor sales or liquor ads with prices (both of which are illegal in some jurisdictions). It may also be a practical thing to do if Google is concerned about possible PR fallout. Or it may be a practical thing to do if you're the person in charge of AdWords standards and Sergey Brin or Larry Page tells you, "I really hate it when teetotalers from MADD spray-paint protest slogans on our Boeing 767."

[edited by: tedster at 10:39 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2008]

StonedRose




msg:3803906
 1:41 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

The topic of this thread is google expanding advertising fields in a desperate attempt to plug the hole from the collapse of the finiance sector.

To claim Google is growing in advertising revenue is I think decietfull to shareholders. The figures quoted I feel are an aim to deciet, you seem so knowledgeable on figures what is the year on comparrison August this year to August last year.

signor_john




msg:3803910
 1:47 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

The topic of this thread is google expanding advertising fields in a desperate attempt to plug the hole from the collapse of the finiance sector.

It is? Funny. Somebody must have edited the first post in this thread after you read it and before I did.

StonedRose




msg:3803914
 1:54 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

It is? Funny.

Nah its not funny mate, here is a search engine desperate for a replacement to the finiance sector lowering its standards even further and having issolated there second core business after #*$! are looking at a gaping hole and a collapse of there model.

Actually I am wrong, it is funny..........

woop01




msg:3803954
 3:06 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Just guns and gambling to go then.....................

Good luck with that. They just got done clearing out virtual horse racing games. The reasoning was that even virtual horse racing with no tie to real life or wagering at all is still gambling because horse racing is associated with gambling.

anand84




msg:3804044
 7:19 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google should probably sign up for a Commission Junction account..there is lots of money to be made there...

2clean




msg:3804108
 10:10 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

"in response to advertiser feedback we've received over the years, we'll permit the advertisement of hard alcohol and liqueurs that target the U.S."

Absolutely disgusting.

What on earth does this mean. Is it that the advertisers were previously saying "ooo no I really don't want to advertise on Google"
but suddenly they all agreed it was a good idea and Google said "yes we think so too".

More from the original link:
"To comply with the updated hard alcohol and liqueurs policy, advertisers must promote the information about hard alcohol and liqueurs that their websites contain, such as recipes and brand messages."

"drinking is good for you and will make you slim attractive and desired" is that a brand message?

And lets not forget about the children. While I can understand that is is virtually impossible for Google to stop its spider crawling websites based on some ethical principle or serving content to only those users that meet the required age for receiving it, it is another to condone the promotion of alcohol via its commercial program.

Looking forward to the new Oxford dictionary update.

Term: Unethical (reference:Google).

Thank goodness I'm in Europe.

fom2001uk




msg:3804152
 10:58 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0)

Did I just read ethical and Google in the same sentence? LOL

If it's okay to allow the posting of violent video clips, then it has to be okay to advertise the demon drink, surely? ;-)

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 ( [1] 2 > >
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.
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