Where's Google's Balls?

[directmarketingadvice]

Last month Google announced that:

Last year, in an effort to provide better ads and a higher quality experience for our users, we adjusted our trademark policy in the U.S. to allow some advertisers to use third party trademarks in their ad text even if they don't own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it.

(snip)

Today, we're announcing that starting September 14 we'll be extending this policy to Canada, the UK and Ireland.

http://adwords.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-to-canadian-uk-and-ireland-ad.html

So, I marked the date in my calendar.

What happened?

I now have ads approved that mention "freeview", but they're "limited" because of the trademark.

Or, to put it another way, they only get shown 5% of the time (actually, it's around 2.5%, but they're being split-test against the existing ad, so I'm guessing 5% if they were the only ads).

Ooooh, Google, you're soooo brave...

Steve

 

[RedEvo]

It's a thorny subject. Us small guys think it's (mostly) fine but if Red Evolution became a well known brand how would I feel if people used the name to nick clients from me? Should be a good debate.

d

 

[directmarketingadvice]

It's a thorny subject. Us small guys think it's (mostly) fine but if Red Evolution became a well known brand how would I feel if people used the name to nick clients from me? Should be a good debate.

I'm talking about people using a trademark in an ad.

IMO, if someone is selling Ipods, they should have the right to use "IPod" in the ad. Otherwise it's just daft.

If Apple don't want that, then they shouldn't sell Ipods through 3rd parties.

You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

From Google's post, I thought it was going to be the end of this nonsense. But, no, it seems like they didn't have the stones to take anything other than a half-hearted stand.

Steve

 

[Ali-v-8]

I totally agree with steve on this one. I know that some SEO companies started to advertise using My nave "ali-v-8" which i thought was really out of order.
Its like a PPC company advertising on Steve gibson.
But Ipods are a resold product.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I totally agree with steve on this one. I know that some SEO companies started to advertise using My nave "ali-v-8" which i thought was really out of order.
Its like a PPC company advertising on Steve gibson.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of people being able to bid on brand names and company names.

As long as they're not pretending to be you or making unfair statements (usually the ads don't even mention the company name that's being bid on), what's wrong with that?

We don't own Google's search results pages for our names.

Steve

 

[RedEvo]

I think the iPod example is a good one and I agree it makes sense to allow people selling iPods to use the name. iPod is a word that's synonymous with MP3 player.

However, it's not that black and white. We have a trademark on the name Red Evolution. Say we created an SEO package that became very popular, the Red Evolution Google Buster. We worked hard on the package, marketed it and it became well known.

Let's say people started searching for the Red Evolution Google Buster and when they did every tuppence halfpenny SEO company was using it in their PPC ads. Would that be fair?

d

 

[directmarketingadvice]

let's say people started searching for the Red Evolution Google Buster and when they did every tuppence halfpenny SEO company was using it in their PPC ads. Would that be fair?

Depends how they use it. There are a number of different scenarios here. For example...

(1) They bid on "Red Evolution Google Buster", but don't mention it or you in their ads.

(2) They bid on "Red Evolution Google Buster", and suggest they offer it.

(3) They bid on "Red Evolution Google Buster", and the ad suggests they have something better.

(4) They bid on "Red Evolution Google Buster", and their ad offers a review/comparison.

My views:

(1) No problem.

(2) If they don't offer it, this is dishonest and shouldn't be allowed.

(3) They need to be very careful about what they claim - whatever they say needs to be fair/justifiable.

(4) As long as they're honest in the comparison - and that includes disclosing their own interests - I think it's legit.

Steve

 

[RedEvo]

I understand your view on this Steve and don't wholly disagree. However, the problem with relying on people to be honest and fair is they (very) often aren't, that's why we have laws and rules and why this is a complex issue.

Saying you can do something but please play fair isn't enough in today's world and probably never was. This is why we have what sometimes appear to be draconian rules and laws. We are our own worst enemies.

d

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I understand your view on this Steve and don't wholly disagree. However, the problem with relying on people to be honest and fair is they (very) often aren't, that's why we have laws and rules and why this is a complex issue.

I agree.

There's a question of who is responsible: do you have to check every search term relating to your name and then report anything illigitimate to Google?*

Seems unfair that that burden is placed on you. Surely google has a responsiblity to ensure they're not running in appropriate ads?

Steve

* The strange thing is, for smaller businesses, that's pretty much the way it is - and has been for a long time. It's the big boys (with the lawyers) that get the protection (too much protection in cases like "freeview" and "ipod" above, IMO).

 

[eventdomain]

It's a thorny subject. Us small guys think it's (mostly) fine but if Red Evolution became a well known brand how would I feel if people used the name to nick clients from me? Should be a good debate.

d

Just do them in Court for using your trademark (Passing Off) Simples!

 

[MagnifyB]

I agree.

There's a question of who is responsible: do you have to check every search term relating to your name and then report anything illigitimate to Google?*

Seems unfair that that burden is placed on you. Surely google has a responsiblity to ensure they're not running in appropriate ads?

I agree with the above - Google has to take the responsibility for the bids on Trademarks/names.

And as long as the bid is legit ( ie: the branded product is sold/reviewed by the biding site) it shouldn't cause an issue.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I now have ads approved that mention "freeview", but they're "limited" because of the trademark.

Update: after running for a couple of weeks as "limited", they've now been disapproved because they mention a trademark term.

What a nonsense.

Steve