Which we were NOT, merchants Y's name is a singular word & there is no derivative of that word or phrase for merchants Y's brand anywhere within our account what so ever, whether it be part of a phrase, broad or exact match.
However, the ad did appear for that term.
The network chose not to believe to us and were quite forthright saying that they had no alternative but to suspend us...guilty until proven innocent?
Duly wishing to sort this out, we contacted Google who on this occasion were quick to respond, confirming what we initially said & sent a couple of emails confirming our claim, that there were no variation of brands name (merchants Y) or misspellings appearing within our account & that we were not violating any trademarks pertaining to merchant Y.
It's admirable that merchant X goes to the effort of ensuring that affiliates are not bidding on competitors brands like merchant Y in order send traffic to them merchant X. Even if it's simply to protect themselves legally, when affiliates & a number of merchants appear to probably do this regularly.
I say probably, because now this becomes an even greyer area as you can never be 100% sure whether someone is brand name bidding or not like in this instance.
But, the network should also believe the affiliate instead of pandering to the merchant and give the affiliate due credibility rather than trying to ride roughshod over them.
I personally think it's very wrong that Google should display my ads for a term I am not bidding on, jeopardising my relationship with the merchant & network, but the network should believe the affiliate too. The only correlation between the two merchants X & Y was that they were in similar areas of business. Especially when our ads appear on there without our knowledge or doing it.
Even though we appreciated the quick response from Google to clear our name, they seemed more concerned about merchant Y, registering their mark with Google. Which lends itself that any & every merchant who are serious about ads appearing on their terms should / must register their tradmark at Google.
This is not the first time this has happened, last time was about two years ago with another merchant & network.
Also, it's definitely suggests that any merchant or network cannot be absolutely 100% sure that any affiliate or competitor merchant is bidding on their brand.
Being quite defiant, we informed the network on our communication & temporaliy not suspended until discussed further tomorrow.
Is Google doing some kind of content or contextual advertising on their own site for phrases not bidded upon?
glad to see you here, hope all is well
great point you make, and apart from AdwordsAdvisor reading this, I will make sure it's sent upto some other relevant people at G hq and also their London office.
Shak
there are no terms relating or similar to the competitor in our account.
the ads are even appearing for mispellings for the competitor..why?
***************
Hi Shak,
doing well thank you, i hope life is treating you royally & are in good health.
***************
Latest:
Because we had proof from Google yesterday we were informed on the phone yesterday from the network we wouldn't be suspended.
The network called this morning but I wasn't around.
Then when I started work this afternoon, we found out our links were not working.
Upon a phone call, they claimed had had told my partner Julie this morning, when I told her she informed me they hadn't. She called them back & he denied he had said that to me.
We didn't receive an email saying we were suspended.
I requested an email from the network accepting that we were not bidding on the competitor brand, he felt no need & would pass it on to whoever.
Upon his conversation with Google, we have to place negative singular word terms into our account...now just imagine having to do that for every scenario we don't know about because of a Google flaw & an unreasonable network. If we do that the terms now appear in our account albeit negative, when reiterating no terms for that merchant Y previously existed..
What is a little odd is that ads appear for the mispelling for this merchant Y too.
I said I would do that only when the network could have the courtesy to send an email accepting that we were right. He felt they didn't need to that or have to inform us our links would not be working because we were suspended. He felt the phone call was enough...when any last conversation about suspension was yesterday saying that we wouldn't be....you may say only a letter...this is not the first time the network has messed up on this merchants program....it's been a few times...so there is a history and each time the network has been unreasonable with regard to this program, we have had to endure a lot of unnecessary aggravation from the network on this particular program.
So at the moment
I said to protect our backside we need it in writing.
The solution would be to place in negative keywords, but the network is failing to acknowledge.
They are aware of this thread, and didn't seem to happy, though we haven't mentioned the network yet, which we will do a little bit later today. In my opinion highlights the aspects of networks we don't like and that is uncompromising.
I would politely ask that you dont mention the network, and instead lets look at the bigger picture of Google and Affiliates.
AWA will be on duty soon, and am sure can ping to the right folks ...
Shak
If I have keywords of "blue widgets", "red widgets", and "orange widgets", I would like the ad to display for searches on those as well as "widgets that are blue", "where can I buy red widgets", and "who makes widgets that are orange?" But I don't want to show for searches on "yellow widgets", "Frank's funky widget book", "multi-colored widgets", or "My Competitor's Widgets".
There should be an option that means "if all of the words in my 'keyword' are part of the search (typed in any order), then please show my ad. Do this even if there are additional words that are not part of my 'keyword.' If ALL of the parts are not included in the search, then don't bother showing my ad."
It is odd that it is not an option since that is more or less how Google matches the natural search results.
AWA will be on duty soon, and am sure can ping to the right folks ...
I'm heading off for a meeting in the next few minutes, but will certainly stop by later to read this thread more carefully - and ping as appropriate.
AWA
you may have moved cubes but I can still see ya
Shak
No problem at all if that is the forums request.
Just to reiterate
- the term used is a singular word.
- there is no similarlity in the names
- the ad appeared for the singular word of the competitors brand and singular word mispellings
- the only similarity is that the retailer is in a similar field
After putting negative keywords in, we were admitted back into the program, however on a subsequent call since from the network MD.
They are insinuating we are liars and the MD of the network is threatening unless we are abiding by the rules, which we are not breaking, we will be kicked out the network, claiming we knew about it..which we didn't until it was pointed out yesterday morning.
If their staff are uncompromising to us, we seriously won't tolerate it & will be equally as firm in return. Let's say the exchanges have been fairly heated.
We have asked for these threats in writing from the md and will pursue accordingly if necessary. If he does follow through then of course every merchant on the network will be contacted accordingly who's contact details we already have collated.
Put it this way, if the financial well being of your family was being threatened upon, how far would you go..well that is how far i am prepared to go.
Only once have we seen something similar to this before. But we certainly don't want our ads appearing for keywords we have not bidded on & incur that extra expense.
Basically the MD said along the lines that even though we had definite proof from Google we were innocent, it didn't prove anything & was quite dismissive of it.
The saga continues..
glad to hear the saga has been partly resolved
however I think its more to do with your relationship with the MD of the network than an adwords issue.
I actually chatted to the MDs of 2 of UKs largest aff networks today and pointed em to this thread.
the jist of it was "No, not us" and "aha QGJ again"
good luck
Shak
"aha QGJ again" - lol
You know me, not prepared to be bullied by a network when a network is unreasonable or pandering to the merchant.
Which is all too often the story.
Leave us alone to quietly get on is fine, trying to impose authority or try to jeopardise our relationship with a merchant or bully us & we will stand up for oursleves.
glad to hear the saga has been partly resolved
I can't see how being threatened by a network is anywhere near resolution. Far from it really as impo, the network is becoming quite bitter & cannot simply accept they were in the wrong which everyone is on occasions, you rectify & move on. It's the wrong way they have approached it by being over zealous & aggressive with accusations.
This could open up a can of worms, as these are ads we didn't want displaying on keywords which were not in aour account.
however I think its more to do with your relationship with the MD of the network than an adwords issue.
This is an adwords issue, thats why we were posting here as we want to know why this ad was appearing...as it was adwords that generated the problem....The what is now a problematic relationship stemmed from the ad appearing..the relationship problem stemmed from this.
Basically, with the millions of keywords in all advertisers databases, this could be happening continuously without the advertiser knowing, which it was in this case.
Advertisers are not psychic. But raises the question if ads are appearing for a non related brand, it doesn t mean the advertiser is bidding on that brand. Therefore there is a misconception of those ads in the marketplace.
The MD got involved at this latter stage, becuase we were not being submissive enough & standing up for ourselves re any taunts....only last week had a lengthy amiable conversation with him re future progress of the network, new developments etc etc.
Basically reiterating...i personally want to know from Google why this is happening..because it shouldn't,...and highlight the effect it can actually have on business relationships. Where business can end up sueing each other needlessly.
How long is it, if it doesn't happen already, there will be these scenarios over contextual advertsing.
