Forum Moderators: martinibuster
i think the most important one is this:
Deceptive implementations: We've clarified this policy a bit in the 'Encouraging Clicks' section of the program policies - ads may not be formatted in a way that makes them indistinguishable from other content on the page where they appear.
Encouraging Clicks
# Format ads so that they become indistinguishable from other content on that page.
# Format site content so that it is difficult to distinguish it from ads.
does it mean that we cannot blend the ads with page style?if yes then it is ver bad
Haven't optimized yet? Our tips are more comprehensive and detailed, so now's the time to optimize! See our Optimization Tips to get started earning more.
That tip points to their page [google.com...] which is still suggesting blending as a formatting possibility.
So, what's the story? Are we allowed to blend or not?
The new terms sound great to me. Could maybe even go a little further - content network could do with a tidy up. People only go onto Google to find quality sites, so it's ridiculous that many advertisers ignore our potential for fear of being conned out of their cash by lesser quality sites operating devious tricks.
Maybe one ad per page would be a good next step.
People only go onto Google to find quality sites, so it's ridiculous that many advertisers ignore our potential for fear of being conned out of their cash by lesser quality sites operating devious tricks
I think that is so sadly true. Quality sites have little defence against competing poor MFA sites and even less defence against poor ads displaying from even rubbishier sites.
Maybe it will all get cleaned up one day.
I think people need to go offline for a minute and think about advertising before the internet. Newspapers, magazines, etc... How has it been done without being misleading for the last 50 years?
You think it's a new situation where advertising and editorial is confusing to readers?
What is the standard disclosure?
Simple. Above every ad there is a notice which says "Advertisement."
Just about every example Google has provided of what it considers to be misleading ad placement has one common denominator: there is no notice above the ad that it is an ad!
e.g:
[bp3.blogger.com...]
[bp0.blogger.com...]
I don't know who at Google came up with the idea of putting "Ads by Google" below some ad blocks, but it's kind of funny that they can't figure out 99.99% of the "clarification" they send publishers would be redundant if "Ads by Google" was put above every ad.
The whole blending debate is a moot point when the "Advertisement" notice appears above the ad.
I still can't figure out why Google doesn't see that placing the notice above EVERY ad, including the big cash cow (336 x 280), solves the problem and upholds the integrity of its program.
How many more clarifications are we going to have to get in the next ten years!?
Just because Google doesn't put the notice above ads on your site, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
I challenge Google's AdSense manager to debate this issue with a lawyer at the FTC.
"The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) responded to a complaint filed last year by consumer advocacy group Commercial Alert alleging search engines use deceptive advertising practices. Eight major search engines were accused of 'placing ads in search engine results without clear disclosure that the ads are ads.' " ["FTC Wants Clear Ad Disclosure, 2002"]
You think the principle required by the FTC needs to be followed only by search engines and not publishers?
Have you ever seen a print magazine where the disclosure that copy is an ad comes at the bottom of the ad?
Google's 336x280 ad block is non-compliant with advertising industry standards, and, indeed, may even be illegal. Same with these other ad blocks:
Leaderboard (728 x 90)
Banner (468 x 60)
Button (125x125)
Half Banner (234x60)
Small Rectangle (180x150)
Small Square (200 x 200)
Square (250 x 250)
Medium Rectangle (300 x 250)
[google.com...]
Therefore I suggest every publisher in the AdSense program who wants to comply with publishing industry standards and the FTC requirements, and not have to worry about future Google policy changes (and there will be changes), place the disclosure "Advertisement" or "Sponsored Links" above every ad.
You may not get the next AdSense policy update.
p/g
Have you ever seen a print magazine where the disclosure that copy is an ad comes at the bottom of the ad?
I'm not sure that placement is as important as visibility. In magazines and newspapers, a full-page ad that looks like editorial (and that may be advertorial or "sponsored editorial") is invariably accompanied by the word "Advertisement" in tiny type that's much less prominent than the "Ads by Google" logo in an AdSense ad unit.
In any case, attempts to deceive (or to exploit the AdSense network and its advertisers) can't be measured or defined by type size, background color, etc. alone. Often, a "smell test" is needed to decide not only whether a site is adhering to the letter of the law, but also whether it has intrinsic value to users and advertisers or is merely a made-for-AdSense platform with some content thrown in as filler. Empirical evidence such as higher-than-normal click rates and/or lower-than-normal conversion rates may also come into play. Simply saying "You'll have nothing to worry about if you do A, B, and C" is an invitation to game the system. And let's face it: Participation in the AdSense network is not a right, but a privilege. If Google no longer wants to do business with John Doe because his site looks and smells shady, Google has the right to break off its relationship with John (just as John can break off his relationship with Google at any time, for any reason).
The ad units do not have "advertisement" above the ads, so it clearly looks as if the ads are navigation links.
This is unethical, illegal (?), and a new AdSense TOS violation, officially classified by Google as "placing ads under a misleading heading."
[google.com...]
"a website's heading may be interpreted as an inappropriate ad label."
You can just imagine publishers justifying this ad placement, "Well, my site is named 'Red Widgets.' Why shouldn't I place the site title at the top of the page. And Google says to put ads at the top of the page above the fold."
A lot of publishers can expect to get banned shortly. That type of ad placement is a new violation and hardly an "innocent mistake."
Don't wait for a ban warning. Google's policy update implies it no longer has time for warnings.
p/g
P.S. It would be very easy for Google engineers to code-detect likely violations simply by crawling all AdSense publisher sites for AdSense code directly after H1, H2, H3, or H4 tags. So don't assume you can easily get away with it forever.
[google.com...]
Then go to that website then chose from horizontal navigation on main page any link (Kitchens, Bathrooms etc...) and you will see on left side something what probably many of us will consider as TOS violation?
As first heading above Adlinks units is VIDEO or KITCHEN etc... (depend which page you chose from horizontal menu) and as second Adlinks units are perfectly blended with rest of links.
Then it is also questionable of Adunits in middle/top of page are far enough from header to not be confused.
They do not have any header with Advertisements or Sponsored Links but header from site self.
But it is absolutely not TOS violations. It is furthermore one example of success stories by Google.
Therefore I suggest every publisher in the AdSense program who wants to comply with publishing industry standards and the FTC requirements, and not have to worry about future Google policy changes (and there will be changes), place the disclosure "Advertisement" or "Sponsored Links" above every ad.
Hmmm. How would that apply to affiliate links?
Suppose I had the following sentence in an article on my site:
"If you want to build your own red widget instead of purchasing, there are red widget how-to ebooks available for a reasonable price."
and the bold type is an affiliate link to an ebook sales page.
Would I need to modify my text to read:
""If you want to build your own red widget instead of purchasing, there are (advertisement) red widget how-to ebooks available for a reasonable price."
FarmBoy
Originally Google placed the industry standard notice ("Ads" or "Advertisement") above its ads. Then it decided to lift them.
The mass international fraud across the Publisher Network began on April 4, 2007
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
Before and After screen caps:
[bp1.blogger.com...]
Based on what? Consultation with FTC attorneys?
Not exactly.
"we’ve found that the new formats are not only visually appealing to users, but they also perform even better for publishers and advertisers."
lol. No kidding. Then they did two more years of testing and discovered, low and behold, advertisers were getting defrauded... Policy Update.
Web usability expert Jakob Nielsen has addressed this issue of unethical online advertising.
In addition to the three main design elements that occasionally attract fixations in online ads, we discovered a fourth approach that breaks one of publishing's main ethical principles by making the ad look like content:[http://www.useit.com/alertbox/banner-blindness.html]- The more an ad looks like a native site component, the more users will look at it.
- Not only should the ad look like the site's other design elements, it should appear to be part of the specific page section in which it's displayed.
- This overtly violates publishing's principle of separating "church and state" -- that is, the distinction between editorial content and paid advertisements should always be clear. Reputable newspapers don't allow advertisers to mimic their branded typefaces or other layout elements.
If you go to any reputable or long-established newspaper website, including the sites that use Adsense, you will see they all put the word "Advertisement" or "Sponsored Links" above their AdSense ads--not at the bottom, not in the corner. They don't rely on the default AdSense format because they aren't willing to compromise their reputation.
Google's compromise was a sad fall for a company that was originally praised by the FTC for being the search engine with the highest ethical standards by making it clear which text links were sponsored links.
p/g
If you go to any reputable or long-established newspaper website...
Better hurry, it's already hard to find examples of the former and the latter are dying it seems.
The more an ad looks like a native site component, the more users will look at it.
I refer back to my previous question about the affiliate link in an article's text. Is everyone who does that unethical?
FarmBoy
