Forum Moderators: open
"We do not allow pay-per-click search engines to advertise in our listings. As a result of this guideline, we were unable to accept any of your search listings. If you have any questions about a refund, please contact our Customer Service department. "
I also have some ads about search engines that i run that i'm sure will be terminated next.
COMPLETE BS.
I take it you are trying to put high value terms from another affiliate deal through low value terms on Overture?
If not - I am completely missing the point and I apologise.
I run a search engine as well as offer sponsored & pay per click listings. They cancelled the listings saying i can't advertise competing services.
Since i run a search engine and a ppc i'm not allowed to advertise on there network at ALL with that account apparently as it just immediately told me to ask for a refund.
All of the others - Google, Kanoodle, goClick, searchfeed, search123, insite, business.com, search123, 7search, ah-ha/enhance, findwhat all let me run ads.
Seems like a new policy now that yahoo is pushing for market share. To me what Overture is doing is saying its illegal for me to advertise Satellite TV on Cable tv because i compete with Cable. They shouldn't take control over advertisement targeting as long as it meets editorial principals, but they're actually banning competitors from advertising.
Hopefully google won't follow or else that could really kill competition!
I know they can do what they wan't, but isn't there some rule about giving competitors a chance?
Grabbing at straws... lol
P
I don't see this as not allowing a competitor to advertise on your site. I see this as the same sort of problem with Microsoft saying that rival browsers to internet explorer won't come included in the Windows Operating system.
Overture is a search service (similar to how Windows is a service platform for other programs), not just a mom and pop website that doesn't want to display competition. Preventing competitors from using this service to find competition smacks of antitrust to me.
edit: fixed typo
Don't let your source of income cloud your judgement
Interestingly enough, Google does.
Google's moral high ground certainly gives them a significantly superiority to a lot of the other players out there.
Kudo's to google's management.
It doesn't make any sense to me why you think Overture should have to advertise their competitors. Think about it ... since Overture ads also appear on other search engines, I think the people who run all of the other search engines that deliver some or all of their results from Overture PPC's would be pretty ticked off if competing search engines started appearing in the results.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who recognizes what a CAPITALIST SOCIETY is. You guys seem like you would prefer communism. Things aren't supposed to be equal and fair, things are what you make of them - accept it, embrace it, and for gods sake quit crying like a baby.
I think that point is argueable. I am pretty sure well over 90% of people who do PPC use either Google or Overture .. well within monopoly guidelines.
Most monopolies, BTW, are unwelcomed in a capitalist society. I think what you are referring to is laissez fair government..
First, you're trying to combine two completely separate issues. One is about whether a company is a monopoly or not, and the other is about whether a company should have to display advertisements for their competitors. If Overture was a monopoly, they would still be a monopoly if they accepted and displayed competitors ads. And if they were found to be a monopoly and split up like the Bells were, they still wouldn't have to accept and display competing ads. The outcome of one decision would have no affect on the other, so why are you trying to lump them together like one has something to do with the other?
The argument just doesn't make any sense ... should Cisco have to show ads for Extreme Networks on their website? Of course not. Should they have to advertise their competitor if they own 95% of the market? NO - they would be broken up.
Besides, how do you even define the market for PPC? Is it based on the number of people buying PPC, number of websites displaying PPC ads, or the number of people viewing/clicking them? You would find very different percentages if you were to compare those 3 categories, so which one defines what makes them a "monopoly"?
There is nothing monopolistic about Google, Overture, or any other search engine. To suggest there is shows a complete lack of understanding of consumer choice, capitalism, and how the web works in general.
They are not broken up, they are just custom fitted with a tailored solution to their particular industry in order to encourage competition and innovation. This was what I was merely suggesting.
The interesting debate here, at least from my perspective, is whether or not Google/Overture form a collective monopoly.
Personally, I think even if MSN jumps in and it becomes a triumvirate of sorts, there will still be a cartel of sorts.
I will give you that it isn't 100% clear that they are a monopoly - however, my opinion is generally to side on the err of caution.
And they don't need to be legally declared a cartel/monopoly. When aquisitions over $50 Million are made then the government will generally do an anti-trust investigation of some sort. Because of the cartel like aspects in the PPC industry, I think overture should be encouraged to drop it's anti-competition policies if they wish to complete their (hypothetical) aquisition.
A useful comparison is how the FTC has ruled that telecommunication carriers of certain types are required to carry the traffic of their competitors.
How can you use that as a comparison? You're talking about physical space. The incumbent phone companies have easements through private property that you simply can't mess with these days. Verizon "owns" a 3 foot wide stretch of land under my pool, as your local telco probably has a similar easement on your property. If phone companies weren't forced to share lines in this manner, then EVERY phone company would have to dig on your property if they wanted to provide service to you - which is the only reason the law you mention exists.
You can't realy compare that to Internet services because the Internet is accessible to everyone regardless of their geographic location and there is nothing that forces anyone through Overture over another search service - you just type in a different domain.
Besides, Google and Overture cannot be considered a collective monopoly because they are clearly competing against each other. But even if they could, it still raises the question I asked before, how are you defining what makes them a monopoly?
I think that over the next few years you will see the U.S. Government's definition of a monopoly redefined. These laws were created long before the concept or possibility of of an "Internet" existed and as I'm sure you've seen, can't always be easily applied. Back when the law was created they were thinking about physical space, physical companies, and physical products or physical means to transport data (aka telegraphs and telephone calls).
If we interpret the law the way it was written word for word, then we need a new law to apply exclusively to software and Internet because the existing one doesn't cover it. In which case no Internet company could POSSIBLY be a monopoly because no anti-internet company monopoly laws exist.
Instead, we (and I say we meaning the U.S. Government) look at the law with the "How would they have written this if they knew about the Internet?" mindset. And the result is that a company is only a monopoly when consumer choice is ruled out. If 95% of the public CHOOSES your product when several alternatives are available, you're not a monopoly - you're just popular. This is why Microsoft wasn't split up, and why Internet Explorer still comes with Windows. But I digress :P
No one can question that there are hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of other PPC options aside from Overture and Google. It takes the same amount of energy to search through Overture and Google as it does any other search engine - no monopoly here.
Adwords is by far the worse. Over 50% on the keywords I have checked are just PPC clones.
