"gambling, lotteries, sportsbooks, and related content"
and yet if you type in many gambling related terms you see lots of ads?
How is it that some sites can advertise gambling products and others can not?
Is it that they have proved they are not a 'gambling site' such as a casino or a sports book operator, but merely a site providing information on sports?
How is it that some sites can advertise gambling products and others can not?
Frank_Rizzo, below I have quoted the central policy regarding advertising of Gambling related sites from the Help Center. Any more specific questions regarding this policy would best be addressed to the AdWords support team.
Quoting from the AdWords Help Center:
Advertising is not permitted for online casinos, sports books, bingo, and affiliates with the primary purpose of driving traffic to online gambling sites.
You also asked:
I'm trying the reconsider the disapproval approach - I guess that is what it is there for.Does anyone know what the procedure is? Do they mail their response or just ignore requests like this?
I am not really sure what you are asking here. If you're wondering if you can 'turn in' advertisers who you feel are not meeting the guidelines, the answer is yes. You would not be alone in doing this, and such emails are certainly not ignored.
We're you to do this, you'd receive a reply acknowledging your request. However, the specific results of the review of the competitors ads/site will not be made available, as they are confidential to the advertiser who is reviewed.
Also, please keep in mind that in most cases, ads which do not meet the guidelines have simply not been reviewed yet, as suggested by thebigsteveman - and any 'violations' would be caught upon review.
AWA
I am not really sure what you are asking here.
I'm asking if it is worth appealing against the dissaproval. Is google bothered at all with manually checking what their auto systems have already flagged as a no-no?
I do believe that they must offer some leeway with gambling related sites as some of the ads which are being displayed have been there for months.
I'm pretty sure that google will accept a campaign if you can prove to them that the site is not a) a casino, b) a sportsbook, c) a facade which links to either a) or b).
More on topic, gambling info sites are doable. You are right in that what you link to and how they view it is important.
... any 'violations' would be caught upon review.AWA
What we need is an Adwords Customer's Bill of Rights
I'm asking if it is worth appealing against the dissaproval. Is google bothered at all with manually checking what their auto systems have already flagged as a no-no?
Got it.
Sorry, Frank_Rizzo, I actually missed the fact that your own ad(s) had been disapproved.
In this case (or in any case in which an advertiser feels that a disapproval has been made in error) by all means, please feel free to appeal.
The very best way to do this is to reply directly to the disapproval email that you will have received, and state your case. Be sure to give include all the pertinent details as to why you feel that an error has been made, and why your ad/keywords/site are within AdWords policy.
As I've said often in this Forum in the past, it is to everyone's advantage to have your ads running, so long as they are in-line with guidelines and policy. I think you'll find AdWords support quite willing to take a second look, and to apologize if we've made an error.
AWA
I'm really dissapointed with that. I've asked them to clarify why I see 26 ads for my competitors when searching for keywords.
What are the chances of getting my £5 deposit back?
£5 is nothing but if they have principles over the gambling issue, I have principles too.
If they can't give one valid reason why my competitors are allowed to advertise while I am not then surely this is an unfair business advantage?
I'm seeing plenty of gambling sites listed there too.
Do you have to bid more for the long blue ads or pay an extra premium?
BTW, I'm getting no response from google and I'd like to know how I can take this further.
I'd much rather spend time on the site but if my competitors have an unfair advantage then something needs to be done.
I don't know what organisations you have in the US for small businesses but here I would think that our OFT (office of fair trading) may be of assistance.
The case I'm making is that google are banning me from advertising because of a clause, and yet they are allowing my competitors to advertise in contravention of that clause.
Worth pursuing or not?
I think it's all to do with the primary purpose of the landing page. If the primary purpose is to get people to sign up to online casinos, then it wont be approved.
However if the primary purpose of the landing page is just to give away or sell info on how to play poker etc then that probably wont be banned.
Thats the experience Ive had targetting US anyway. The rules seem to be different for some countries though, eg UK the ads are very blatantly for online casinos.
What I'm trying to say is we promote similar products but they can advertise and I can't.
If the promotion of Widget Racing is banned by google then how come companies A, B, C, D, E, F, G..... can advertise a book on widget racing, but company Y can not?
As I say this has gone on for months. There is no cloaking going on and it doesn't seem fair to me.
I've dug up an old thread from April 2004 where you responded to a question asking when google will remove gambling ads:
We're aware that there are 'stragglers', and are working to complete the process. I'd guess you won't be seeing inappropriate ads by the end of the week.
It's a good few months later :)
In another thread you state:
I've consulted with the policy folks, and was given this information:* google no longer accepts and runs ads for online casinos, online betting, online sportsbooks, online lotteries, online bingo, and online poker.
* This also includes ads for sites with a primary purpose of driving traffic to online gambling sites, affiliates of such sites, tips, odds, or handicapping sites, "free" online casino sites, and play money casino sites.
* However, on a case-by-case basis, we may allow advertisements for:
- Location-based gambling
- Books, magazines, or TV shows that discuss gambling
Has the policy been tightened up? Is it possible to appeal against a reassessment?
Do you have any further input on this thread? Can you advise what I should do?
I'm sorry if I my message is not clear and implying something different.
All I'm asking for is a level playing field. I rank very highly on serps with nearing 40,000 pages indexed by google. But what I can not get into is targetd ads on gambling related sites. My competitors can and I don't think that's fair.
The most ironic thing is that the site is very much anti-casino and absolutely detests sports book sites.
Do you have any further input on this thread? Can you advise what I should do?
This is not really something that I can advise you on Frank_Rizzo, for a variety of reasons - chief among them being that I can't see your account, your ads, your keywords, or your site's content.
On the other hand, the AdWords support team can see these things, and it sounds as if they have twice made the same decision based on the actual factors at play in your particular case.
If you don't agree with the decision, or don't understand why your scenario seems to be different than the 'competitors' you've mentioned, I'd say that your best bet would be to reply to the most recent email and ask, specifically, you could do to modify your ads, keywords, and/or site so that everything would be in line with AdWords policy.
As an aside, if it turns out that you've repeatedly re-submitted ads/keywords/landing pages that have caused disapprovals in the past, you might want to mention in your email why this has been the case - and also mention your commitment to not doing so in the future.
I hope that helps.
AWA
I don't think bothering the adwords support team is of any use. They have to follow their T&C and just continue to not authorise my ads (even though the site is anti-casino, and anti-sportsbook).
I think I have sussed why my competitors are slipping under the radar.
They have found a set of words which are not blocked by the algo.
I can only assume that the algo is very primative and that it gives an initial OK for any ad which does not have banned words.
I checked this by making an exact copy of a competitors ad. Guess what - my ad is authorised and is being shown.
That seems to be a crazy thing to happen. I put up a legit ad:
[u]Widget Racing Info[/u]
Learn how to analyse Widget Races
mysite.co.uk
and that's automatically declined by the algo.
Yet if I create an ad:
[u]Turn $2000 into $17934[/u]
Back widgets to Lose and
make serious money. Guaranteed!
This is accepted straight away.
Are google bothered about this? Are they content that their algo has so many holes?
What do I do now? I guess I could follow the "can't beat 'em so join 'em" line where I copy my competitors ads and slip under the radar too.
Like who's going to complain? My competitors? I doubt it!
Who's side are you on? I would let it go. If someone finds loopholes let them go. I see all kinds of things like this going on in Adwords and SEO. Just find a way to join them or outdo them at their own game.
I am not on the searche engines side. They are already making billions.
Who knows a few weeks later a human reviews the ad. I doubt it very much though because, as I say, some of the ads have been there for months.
I guess they are just using trial and error: enter an ad, wait a few mins to see if they get a red box, then try again.
If they did get a human to dissaprove an ad they just find other words. Unlike AdSense if any shenanigans are going on Google won't ban the advertisor. They just tell him the ad is a no-no and let him get on with finding the other holes in the net.
Unlike AdSense if any shenanigans are going on Google won't ban the advertisor. They just tell him the ad is a no-no and let him get on with finding the other holes in the net.
I doubt anything will happen if you unintentionally break the TOS occassionally, but be aware google have banned advertisers from adwords for repeatedly breaking the TOS.
I don't think bothering the adwords support team is of any use. They have to follow their T&C and just continue to not authorise my ads (even though the site is anti-casino, and anti-sportsbook).
This has not been my experience at all; in fact in years of dealing with AdWords, the ONLY time I can get anything done and cleared up is by CALLING them and talking to a real live person. Whenever I email them about an issue, I just get back a formulaic email that starts off saying "I understand that your problem is blah blah blah" and essentially restates my issue and tries to sound sympathetic and helpful without actually doing or saying anything to help.
I have similar issues with two of my clients, one of which requires a lot of words that are associated with the pharmaceutical industry (although they are not a pharmacy) and another of which requires a lot of words that have to do with the casino and gaming industry, even though they are a supplier and not a casino or any kind of gambling outfit themselves. I am ALWAYS running into the problems with words and ads either being disapproved or delayed for review because of the words I need to use. Once I called AdWords Support (actually, I think it took two calls) on the good advice of AWA, I believe I have finally gotten these issues settled once and for all - at least, I haven't had a problem in the last month.
Calling them doesn't cost you anything but time, and might resolve your problem, while NOT calling them almost certainly won't.
If I were you, I'd call.
If they promoted sites which contravened US laws on gambling they would get hassle. The solution was to lay down a blanket ban on all gambling related sites.
The problem is that this is a blanket ban and sites which advise on handicapping issues are unfortunately getting blocked.
One debating point is whether google should be banning UK ads seeing as this is a US problem.
I guess calling is worth a try. Where would I find the contact no?