Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Unless you study this [webmasterworld.com] rather closely, it doesn't immediatly stand out as an AdWords based paying image based advertisement: jason bourne [google.com].
I had not seen something like that before with an Image. At first, I just thought it was a G-universal search thingo, but nope - a paying ad, with an image.
Background:
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
<added> screen shot link </added>
It's up to you to track down Jason Bourne across three continents.
With Google tools at your fingertips, you're well equipped for your mission.
I'm getting this for a regular search (not Google desktop, not logged-in) and there are no competing ads - it's across the top of the page.
Note the reference to "Google tools". This apparently is cooperative marketing. Maybe no money changed hands, and so they don't consider it an "advertisement". Perhaps Google feels the rules should be different depending on whether it's a paid ad or not, or an ad for their own services.
since the linked site locks up my browser. :-)
sorry for the offtopic but if you haven't heard, upgrade your flash to 9.0.47 because previous versions can hide a keylogger... upgrade might help the lockup too
It appears to be a square placement with other ads beside it, at a glance it looks like actual content.
I did my own search for it, and what I see is a banner ad stretched accross the top with the blue background... and when in that shape it does look like an ad.
When I make the browser window smaller by dragging one side in all of the jason bourne ad begins to shrink, eventually becoming square. Is the screenshot of a browser window thats been partly minimized?
There are several in this thread - on the web - and you have the search itself. The screen shot was for those in Europe and asia that can't see the search.
> and when in that shape it does look like an ad.
That is the point. We don't know if it is an ad. I am leaning towards Ewhispers point of veiew that it isn't an ad.
The current color of the adwords background for me - is light tan, and not blue. Google universal search is light blue background.
Did Google's marketing department really choose the villain's side here?
So, thanks to my friends at WW, I've learned that this is Google marketing itself with a movie, not a movie marketing via Google...
Well, in any case, it's screwing around with the display of the search results in a questionable way. Incredibill, you were wrong, but right: "It's going to be a long weird trip."
It’s their search engine and they can decide just how profitable they want it to be.
It's not an ad - it's similar to what they did last year.
So, still no picture ads on google.com.
I'm convinced it was a 24 hour promotion on Google to launch their Search for Bourne game.
Whether or not they are considering this is as a possibility for normal advertisers like me and you is another question.
I believe that they will go down this route. Pictures have to improve CTRs; thus more money for them.
They usurped IMDB, wikipedia and a few other top ranking sites.
If I ran a movie review blog/forum I'd be upset.
[edited by: tedster at 1:25 am (utc) on July 18, 2007]
The game requires you to either login with your Google account. If you don't have one, you have to get one.
So far (I have only played two days), you have to search the web for clues about where Jason is. You get one mission and clue per day. I think you can still sign up (if you care to) at www.google.com/bourne which redirects to www.searchforbourne.com
They have created at least one additional site to support the game (http://www.daternotes.com)and I would suspect there will be more. The additional site is utilizing adsense.
The missions seem to be easier if you know how to use advanced search commands and features on Google, so I wonder if they are using this as a way to try to teach people about advance commands and other G products?
It's not a SERP result, it's not even relevant to the search, it's trying to divert the user from their mission.
Plus, don't tell me that Google doesn't get ANYTHING in return for promoting the movie while they promote their own services. There's gotta be some "consideration".
OK, so this time, Google did it on a trivial, entertainment-related term. Slippery slope. Next time?
Cut the doublespeak, Google. Promotion = ad, regardless of whether it's paid or not, for a third party or not.
Google has been running ads for quite a while now, in case you hadn't noticed. :-)
As for whether the "user's mission" has been interrupted, I doubt if many people searching on "Jason Bourne" are going to be bothered by a promotion for a Web site that's related to the movie or the novel.
Then Google themselves is running the ad, they can place it above all organic content and they don't bind themselves to labeling their own advertisements. (I assume Google has product placement in the movie?)
The only catch to this is of course is you have to be a fortune 100 before Google would even bother talking to you.
Remember when it was cute to hear "Google" casually mentioned on tv shows like Buffy? I guess it's grown into paid partnerships now.
Then Google themselves is running the ad, they can place it above all organic content and they don't bind themselves to labeling their own advertisements. (I assume Google has product placement in the movie?)
It's in a special box-shaped format with a distinct background color. Anyway, how many users are being harmed in the making of this promotion? Talk about a tempest in a teacup!
Oh, if only we had a Matt Cutts Sock Cam. heheh
Oh, if only we had a Matt Cutts Sock Cam.
Or a Silk Cutts cigarette so people could blame Google for their ill health. :-)
[edited by: Tinus at 7:32 am (utc) on July 19, 2007]
It is no ad.
Well, it is kind of since they are ONLY showing clips from youtube and not any other video service. And they happen to own it.
It is their perogative if they wish to do this as it is their search engine, but it does mean that they are giving preferential treatment to a site that is not google.com.
This is probably a whole other topic, but if they are giving preferential treatment to youtube.com, do you think there will ever be a day when their SERPs are basically dominated by "quality" websites that G bought up and put adsense on? Probably not. But the youtube thing is a step in that direction.
This is probably a whole other topic, but if they are giving preferential treatment to youtube.com, do you think there will ever be a day when their SERPs are basically dominated by "quality" websites that G bought up and put adsense on? Probably not.
Most assuredly not, because that would put Google Search out of business.
Most assuredly not
But the fact is that they have started down that path. Youtube is a seperate site that is getting preferential treatment in the SERPs. This is the first time, that I can think of, where this was the case. Well, no wait, I suppose you could count Froogle, since it was technically a seperate URL.
Either way. How many of those front page slots will slowly be taken over by "Quality Google Sites" and will the public care. They don't seem to care with YouTube, nor with Wiki (which is just on the front page of every SERP due to a darn clever system and not preferential treatment from G). If what G provides is quality, will people really care? I actually don't think so.
But the fact is that they have started down that path.
No, they haven't. You might as well argue that, just because Newyorktimes.com promotes the New York Times Company's other businesses, it will end up covering nothing except the Boston Globe, About.com, etc.
Boston Globe, About.com
But the NYT is about news, not about other sources of news and information. So of course they would not. You are comparing apples to oranges. What you are saying would be like G buying Ask and listing Ask results in their results.
Google Search is about finding quality site, and if they feel that the sites they own are quality sites, then they would have every right to promote them in theri own SERPs. Sorry, but an impartial result would be looking at Y! video, Revver and a dozen other sites to see if the videos on those sites were better. Obviously G feels on a wholesale level that is not the case. So what is to stop them from doing that again.
Listen, I am not saying that this is some nefarious plot, nor do I think G owes anybody a spot in the SERPs. Personally, I think this is a good business move. How many slots on the 1st SERP can you take up before anyone cares? 2? 5? 10? Not 10, but 5... yes, I could see 5 as long (and this is the tricky part) you put relevant, quality sites in those slots. If you happen to own them, well all the better.
I think as long as they keep a balanced representation of their sites and alternatives, they would be fine, if they wen't that way.
Not saying they have or will, but they are one step closer than they were a few months ago.
and its gonna get even more intelligent in the upcoming months.
so the top 10 spots are going to be even more competitive now because its not going to be a "natural" top ten anymore.....video, images, and ads--will be relevant to queries on the left hand side...
I think it's good, it throws a little curveball for SEO's. makes it a little bit more interesting.
