Abusive Adwords campaign

Does this go against Google's double serving policy?

[ScottD]

I have seen that 3 competitors have joined together to make a site (well just a page actually) that simply promotes their 3 sites - a banner to each one and some text explaining that "This site shows you the leading widget providers of widgets in Widgetville"

They then advertise this one site on Adwords, sharing the cost of getting their name out there to users - quite clever really, even if it annoys me.

However, I suspect that this goes against the double serving policy in spirit at least, as they continue to advertise their own sites separately and appear in the same list.

Also its clearly a site that is build purely for Adwords - is that a rule breaker in itself?

Anyone got an opinion on the legality of this? Should we all be doing it?

I have written to Adwords asking if its acceptable - will post any rely here.

Scott

[arran]

This is valid. They are effectively acting like affiliates (allbeit for themselves).

[dbhatta]

I do not see anything wrong with that. And how do you know the three companies own the site and not an actual affiliate who is affiliated with all 3 companies?

[toddb]

If the affilaite codes are the same on the site and in the adwords, Google will sometimes take action. I have had competitors try and corner a term and i was able to get Google to help me.

[Murdoch]

I've actually had a site removed from AdWords because of this same situation. A company has a "semi-redirect" page that shows their own company as well as 3 competitors, however they list their own site as the "premium site". Otherwise all it is is another way to convince people that they are legit while at the same time taking up more real estate. I think if the site itself offers nothing of real value other than links to other sites, then it could go against the double serving policy. The real question is though which company is hosting the account, and if it gives more weight to that company on the landing page. That was my indicator to get it removed (that and I had had them removed twice before for efforts that weren't even this subtle)

[ScottD]

This is not an affiliate site. There is only one page and the simplicity of its purpose is absolutely clear. Whats more I know the people and I know they colaborate. They are 3 sites who don't have natural positions and so rely heavily on Adwords - fortuneately not my problem.

Murdoch, what process did you use to have them removed?

No response from Adwords so far, but we'll see.

[ScottD]

The Adwords team write:

<email removed>

I wrote back as follows:

Thanks for your reply, and especially for the speed with which you replied. I wonder if you could ask though if this does not constitute a breach of the "double serving policy" which your Policy Specialists do not address.

The double serving policy prevents advertisers from having 2 adverts on the same key words (via 2 advertising accounts), in order to protect the user experience.

All 3 advertisers on the web page www.widgets.com also have their own ads related to these key words individually.

Personally I also think this site cannot be classified as a portal site. It exists purely for Adwords (there is only one page and it is very clearly provided by the same advertisers) A "mall" offers various shops within it, but is a seperate entity and in some sense neutral. It has its own purpose.

I think you are being abused in spirit if not to the letter, and it is to the detriment of the results and to your revenue. If I was in your shoes I would simply not want that kind of mis-use of the valueable service you provide.

and so it continues...

[edited by: eWhisper at 12:41 pm (utc) on Sep. 13, 2005]
[edit reason] Please don't post emails. See TOS. [/edit]

[toddb]

You have a tougher fight proving the page is not good. Do a whois of the four url's in question and see if you can not prove commonality.

[ScottD]

Good point toddb, thanks. I have done so and it shows that the 3rd website owner is also the owner of this page. A surprise as I thought it would be one of the others.

[Murdoch]

Todd, that's a good idea. It was such a simple part of the process that I forgot to mention it altogether. Scott, did you get a screenshot of the results page? That usually is one other thing that is simple but effective in relaying your message.

Honestly, in my situation, we have a consultant group with close ties to Google support so we get everything expedited. Not to mention we spend over $150,000 with them a month so that helps too. Still, you should be able to get some kind of an answer from them. Double serving happens to be one of the things they get to quickly (since it is TOS violation and not a ranking "problem")

[ScottD]

exciting stuff..I have this message from Adwords:

<email excerpt removed>

I have also sent them a copy of the two WHOIS records

[edited by: eWhisper at 4:48 pm (utc) on Sep. 13, 2005]
[edit reason] Please don't post emails. See TOS. [/edit]

[toddb]

Yep, that is the good response. Keep all of your documentation. Google's rules are not as solid as we are lead to believe. If he is bigger or something he can get a variance. If that happens the key is to resubmit as the second or tenth time they might enforce their own rule.

[ScottD]

sorry about the email posting eWhisper, I did not realise that might be out of bounds. I will stick to describing messages from now on

Basically Adwords said that the site could be viewed as a seperate entity or affiliates site, but when I wrote back pointing out that there is only one page and it has only 3 ads, each of which has its own ad campaign, they agreed to look into further because of the double serving policy (in case anyones interested!)

I am waiting for the reply.

[ScottD]

Well it seems that Adwords have taken action. I believe they have blocked the ads from the company who was hosting both their own site and the "affiliate" site.

Unfortuneately that leaves the "affiliate" site there, so heres a tip for those who are paying lots for advertising - simply join up with a few competitors and make a site that recommends your various sites as the best in the field, then share the cost of advertising this site.

Thank God for natural SERPs.