Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
In the UK we are going to have a real problem with landing pages for finacial companies. From the 14th Jan 2005, we are not allowed to add any copy for any financial ads.
This means legally, if we advertise an insurance/loan/mortgage etc, we cannot add any copy.
There are certain allowances but they don't apply for most affilates.
The end result is our landing pages are going to look very basic and plain. (Please, don't the usual posters say add content, we simply aren't allowed to by law)
So if I promote a insurance/loan/mortgage company on adwords all the clicker will see is a banner ad plus the text ads supplied by the company. We are legally bound to not add any inducments or any other copy.
Is Google going to say that are landing pages aren't good enough.
You mean to tell me anytime anyone over there mentions a financial services company they have to be hush hush about them and only mention their name?
I seriously doubt you are interpreting the law correctly. If so, the UK has stricter censorship laws than many communist dictatorships of the world past and present.
Contrary to an earlier post which complained that advertisers have "sites that have discovered how to monetize PPC Adwords campaigns with minimul (sic) work and hassle", what is inherently wrong with that?
When I heard about AdWords, I said these must be for people to sell things. As far as minimal work and hassle, it takes some talent to create a compelling sales pitch in 100 characters. Even if that talent should come easily to many of us, does that go against the spirit of the marketplace? Must we now include an essay on the history of the television in order to advertise a plasma TV for a merchant?
"Minimal work and hassle" seems to describe the business model for the largest entities on the internet today. Phone contacts are purposely buried in order to minimize inquiries from the public. Company emails often insist they cannot be replied to. Everything possible is done to keep revenue coming in without giving anything back to the paying customer and to ensure labor costs are kept to a minimum.
Why should only affiliates be judged to be acting improperly for keeping time and materials to a minimum while operating with a much smaller profit margin?
For that matter, I'm tempted to say that "minimal work and hassle" can be said of Google operations of late. Phone #s? Stock answers to emails, email responses that do not address the question asked at all, no answers at all if the question is too hard. They clearly lack enough reviewers to handle the ad volume on a timely basis (though they outdo Overture by a mile).
This humble affiliate includes his home phone # on what may soon become insufficient content "landing" pages and also answers all emails personally, often researching a question for an hour without the expectation that it will result in a sale (and a $2.00 commission).
If Google wants to improve its AdWord results, they should be scrutinized for honesty and accuracy, not to dismiss affiliates because it's obvious their main objective is to make a sale.
As far as minimal work and hassle, it takes some talent to create a compelling sales pitch in 100 characters. Even if that talent should come easily to many of us, does that go against the spirit of the marketplace?
That really isn't the issue. What matters is whether direct-to-merchant ads on Google SERPs or in third-party "Ads by Google" boxes are what Google thinks users are looking for.
AdWords aren't just "the marketplace," they're Google's marketplace. And in that marketplace, Google quite understandably gets to make the rules.
So recommending XXBankLoan to your friend on the street is ok providing there is no cash incentive to do so.