This is so wrong! I thought the editorial guidelines were in place for the very reason to alleviate the thing that is occurring - people bidding on keywords that they don’t sell. I believe this is the very reason there is an editorial person checking these ads. At least that’s what other services like Overture and Findwhat do. A person cant just bid on Pepsi keyword and sell Coca-Cola...that is so wrong and a violation of unfair competition laws! I cant see why google would let some of these competitors like that go thru...unless google is that greedy to make money off EVERY advertiser?
If this continues, what's gonna happen is the advertisers that are truly selling the products they keyword target will A) stop spending ad money on google since these other sites are stealing potential customers B) search users will get perceive that google's results are poor quality and go elsewhere C) Advertisers go to other Pay-per-click services like Overture.
What are your thoughts on this folks and have you also noticed this trend in your niche market?
If BigCompanyWidget.com decides to pay $5.00 per click and I choose to bid $.05 - there I will be in the #2 position - and if my creatives are substantially better or more on target for the search, chances are that G will put me in the #1 slot.
Nope, even with a 100% CTR, if your competitor is bidding 100times higher than you are, you still can't be shown in the number one slot. (of course, with that CTR their ad will be disabled due to low CTR).
This is why I think there should be a bid cap for different KWs. A new bid shouldn't be higher than 2x the current top bid (minimum of $2), and you can't initially bid over $2 if there are no competitors for a KW.
The thread
[webmasterworld.com...]
inlcudes many of these issues.
There is a different emphasis in this one on "comparison ads" or perhaps "related or derived demand sources" which is for sure a fascinating opportunity.
I has been covered by implication only in that thread.
Phew I had to edit this post twice sorry.
Promise to engage brain before posting again.
Mark A :-)
[insurancejournal.com...]
(as seen on slashdot: [slashdot.org...]
Now a (French) court may decide if this is legal:
...in France.
p.s. I wonder if AXA ic claiming consumers can't find them.....
[google.com ]
I say, if they aren't diligent enough to figure out what's going on, not my problem. I type our company name (and variations) in all the major SEs at least once a week and pounce on anyone infringing. I've even sent C&D's to spammers who have tried to optimize for the various names we own in the company. I know it's my problem, not Google's, to police.
Very same items, different brand!
Google could not simply access a trademark name database and use this to automatically exclude triggerwords bidding on any trademarks which were in this database because trademarks are sector specific.
This for sure complicates the issue considerably for Google Adwords if they themselves seek to comply with the meaning of tradenames and marks and ensure that all adwords buyers are doing the same.
It is I think impossible for Adwords to become a totally open system and would be against Googles own interests as it could be a devalued advertsing medium and loose its value to them.
So Adwords must try to ensure that flagrant violations do not occur because as the agent selling the advert they are arguably then liable for damages.
Google is an agent in the sale of the advertising but not the only person responsible when trademarks are really abused with this system. There will be an exernal individual acting in that abuse who will normally be more guilty than Google.
The trouble is there is no point in seeking damages from someone with few assets as is the case with many smaller people who want to abuse trademarks for profit. Google however has assets so will likely always seem an attractive target for litigators.
They have my sympathy in that they are to a certain extent in a catch 22 situation.
It can be argued that they cannot police trademark law but remain unliable for damages arising from so many angles :-) yet they have to attempt to stop flagrant abuse because to permit it would damage their own property the adwords system itself, reducing this into a mere space selling operation rather than a targetting operation using words to target.
Apple is a computer company business name and that business competes with other named and trademarked computer companies, each of which want to some extent to protect their own names.
However:
Apple is also a fruit's description, but an apple is not the brand name of the fruit known as apple.
An Apple is a fruit which people buy and growers and sellers of Oranges compete with growers and sellers of apples to secure the sale of their products.
Neither of them have tradename or product name protection imho on the words apple and orange because these are the descriptive words for the pieces of fruit.
There may be a trademark dispute were microsoft to be using apple in trigger words to show significant resulting computer adverts which seriously displaced their competitor and confused in the minds of customers that the business name and trademark apple applies to a specific type of computer.
However because that computer company called their products apple, a word already in common usage to describe an everyday fruit could also now form grounds for a serious complaint by growers and sellers of apples and oranges because in the internet advertsing medium this has serious price implications should apple fruit or orange fruit growers wish to avail themselves to channels such as Google Adwords where the market sector of a single word entered into a search engine cannot be pre guessed.
So apple and orange growers and sellers now have a real beef with Apple Mac?
This I think is the issue for adwords .. on a search for apple it may have to prompt ..
do you want fruit?
or a computer product?
Google certainly does have to try to infer the intent of the searcher as to category of product as neither Google SERPS nor Adwords want to deliver completely irrelevant results.
The implication of the suggestion of allowing the computer company apple to own all rights to the word apple online or in search would indeed be to deny the growers of fruit their rights and they could have a case for damages were this tried.
Perhaps reapplication of generic common usage words as trademarks is not such a clever choice after all for any of us as.
I dont see anyone growing microsofts on trees anywhere that might cause a future case for damages against Mr Gates :-)
