New AdWords Trademark Policy: Who Wins? (Guestpost) So today we kick of our unique series of guestposts on Searchcowboys! Here to open the series is Virginia Nussey. The first time I met Virginia Nussey was in New York. She was doing some great work on live blogging SES New York. We then had a great talk on her podcast SEM Synergy. She is one of the rising stars in the industry. She is US-based and will give us the US-angle on the new AdWords Trademark policy. Virginia Nussey blogs about SEO, PPC, social media marketing, branding and online reputation management for search marketing company Bruce Clay, Inc. She also coordinates and co-hosts the weekly WebmasterRadio.fm podcast with Bruce and the gang, SEM Synergy. New AdWords Trademark Policy: Who Wins? Google recently announced that, come June 4, the company would no longer investigate trademark infringement claims based on AdWords trademark bidding in 200 countries across the world. Previously in effect in the U.S., Canada, the UK and Ireland, European countries now subject to this policy include: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe Islands, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, San Marino, Serbia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and the Vatican. Not making the list are the Netherlands, Germany and Spain, three European countries that many SearchCowboys readers call home. Regardless of which set of rules you're playing with, there are benefits and drawbacks of any policy. But what's the sum effect here? Would the majority of advertisers across the world be better off if allowed to bid on trademarked terms? Or would most advertisers be happy to keep things the way they were? Here are some pros and cons for advertisers working under Google's newly expanded trademark bidding guidelines.  The Pros
The Cons
Google's policy allowing trademark bidding has successfully worked in the U.S. and UK for some time. Of course, every advertiser's situation is different and brings with it unique challenges and advantages. If you're not subject to Google's new advertising policy, would you want to be? What pros and cons do you see as a result of the change? Can you make the new rules work for you?  CommenteBay says AdWords is a waste of ...1 comment  A recent study
conducted by the e-sales giant eBay questions the value of Google AdWords, suggesting
that advertising on Google search is be less profitable than exp...... read more
One thing you need to know about...0 comments  Last week Mashable published an article with an alarming topic which reads Why
pay-per-click ads are wasting your money. Wait a minute: do they really
waste money? I...... read more
Social extensions, a great new f...0 comments  Lately, Google introduced Google+ pages in order to compete with Facebook pages. In my opinion a smart and necessary step. At the same time, Google announced that comp...... read more
The lifetime value of customers ...1 comment  The human psyche is a complex thing. What we do, when we do it and why we do it are not altogether clear or even logical. And while Pavlov may have been able to get a ...... read more
|
Last Comments
Bloggers
Latest Videos
  Columns
Tagcloudwebsite android browser news ads google earth maps search engine strategies twitter london bing apple video sea indonesia europe spain advertising google tools research google wave search engines searchcowboys sem youtube gmail analytics google ppc event baidu realtime marketing seo google maps privacy viral mobile a4uexpo socialMost Commented
Most Read
|
   Search |
© 2013 Searchcowboys.com - All Rights Reserved - All views and opinions expressed are those of the authors of Searchcowboys.
All trademarks, slogans, text or logo representation used or referred to in this website are the property of their respective owners. Sitemap
Comments (12)
I think it will work in the market's favour. For example I now work for an insurance comparison site in the UK. We don't have multimillion dollar TV budgets so we need to be smart with how we advertise to generate enough traffic for our site.
Bidding on trademarked terms such as insurance brands as well as on the names of competing comparison sites allows us to gain visibility and brand recognition without having to resort to ridiculously expensive TV ads.
Di 16 jun 2009, 11:02
It is also very beneficial if you are advertising a competitive offer within a competitive industry. I handle PPC ads for bingo sites in the UK and the users and extremely responsive to the various promotions available.
Furthermore, users searching for a brand are generally in purchase mode as they are seeking the specific product. If they accidentally stumble upon a better deal for a near identical product, they are, at least in my experience, likely to go for it. In turn, this pro-competitive move by Google has made users more reflexive to various deals and promotions in both their clicking and converting behavior. As if the current economic climate hasn't done so enough already.
Di 16 jun 2009, 12:53
Barry and Rich, thanks for adding your personal experience to the discussion. It sounds like you're both in favor of bidding on trademarks. Hopefully you live in the right place for that! It sounds like the majority of advertisers would stand to benefit from this policy.
Di 16 jun 2009, 18:01
The question "Would the majority of advertisers across the world be better off if allowed to bid on trademarked terms?" is in my opinion an irrelevant question, or at least a question with an obvious answer. The majority will always consist of the smaller advertisers within each industry, and as they are challengers they will be better off and therefore in favour of these policies. But it doesn't matter if the majority of advertisers are better off with these new policies. The big brands, even if they are fewer, do still have the right to be protected from trademark infringements.
Because that is what this is about. The smaller advertisers are now able to exploit the well-known advertiser's trademarks/brands. Luckily most European countries have marketing laws that prevents this from being allowed.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 10:05
@Magne, there's a bit of a grey area here. Advertising in PPC on your competitor's brand names, is that 'trademark infringement'?
I find that many things that are called 'infringement', be it of copyright, trademarks, or intellectual property, are nothing more than innovation- and competition-stifling methods to protect big corporations' marketshare.
When in doubt I'm in favour of erring on the side of fair use. The big companies are more than capable of withstanding a little competitive use of their brands, while smaller companies need that edge in order to be able to compete at all.
If 'trademark infringement' is being pursued strictly, as big corporate lobbyists insist, what we end up with is an handful of gigantic companies cornering the entire market and litigating every small startup out of business with silly trademarks and patents such as buttons that say 'click me' and circle-shaped menu navigation schemes.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 10:22
Well, yes, in my opinion advertising PPC on your competitor's brand name is trademark infringement. A trademark is by law protected from unauthorized use of that trademark, and isn't that what Google allows advertisers to do? They use competitor's trademarks in order for their ads to show.
What if your telephone company asked everyone asking for your phonenumber if they rather would speak to one of your competitors. Would you be happy with that? Does it really make sense that Google allows this?
I think everyone deserves the right to have their brands protected. You can't say that big companies shouldn't only because they are big. They are big because they have invested time, resources and money in product development and advertising, and hence their brands have become popular. Why should a two week old company be allowed to exploit this popular company's brand? Because it's fair business? It's the opposite of fair business, if you ask me.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 11:19
"They are big because they have invested time, resources and money in product development and advertising"
So, for example, Microsoft using their size to dominate and destroy smaller companies to gain more marketshare and increase their near-monopoly on the PC market is fair business? Is that good for the consumer?
Once companies attain a certain size they often stop being innovative and start behaving badly. From Microsoft and Apple to Shell and Google, there are countless examples of companies who have grown so large that they start favouring restrictive technologies and bullying business tactics and put product innovation and fair competition on a lower tier.
These companies have so much money and so many lawyers that they can, and often do, sue smaller competitors out of business with patent infringement suits and trademark disputes. This is not competition - this is market domination. And that is always bad for the consumer.
So yes, I believe we should give some leeway here and allow rival companies some space. Besides, advertising on your competitor's brand name (without using that name in your ad or your website) isn't trademark infringement, is it?
Wo 17 jun 2009, 11:30
@Barry: Yes, I do think advertising on your competitor's brand name is trademark infringement. You buy their brand name, which is supposed to be protected.
I don't think that everything big companies do are good. But things are not either black or white, usually they are something in between. We can agree that big companies from time to time do bad things in order to remain strong, but that doesn't mean that we should break laws to challenge them. Because there are marketing laws that we still need to comply to. Why else do you think Google didn't liberalize their guidelines in most of the European countries. They would if they could.
And yes, I do also like competition. As long as it's legal and ethical. I don't think trademark infringement is neither legal nor ethical.
But I'm not sure that we'll agree on this subject. Let's just say it's difficult and that we agreed to disagree...:)
Wo 17 jun 2009, 13:05
@Magne, you don't 'buy' their brand name, you are merely given the chance to show your ad when someone searches for that brand name. You're not stealing anything away from the company who owns the brand name - they should rank #1 in the organic results for that name anyway (if they don't they have bigger problems).
Another example: do you think it is wrong for TV advertisements to mention competing brands in, for example, a Pepsi vs Coke blind taste comparison? Following your logic this would be 'trademark infringement' as well. Yet this is allowed in the US and the UK and in my opinion it encourages competition and benefits consumers.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 13:13
@Barry You do buy clicks after bidding on their brand names. Right? Of course you're stealing something away from the brand owner. You can't expect everybody to get back to click on an organic listing or paid ad for the brand owner after having clicked on a competing ad, hence you steal something away.
As for your TV-example, I don't think you can compare that to buying others' brands in search engines. Price comparisons are legal in most countries as far as I know.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 14:10
Magne and Barry, you've hit on some provocative arguments! Because big brands make up the minority, I see why most advertisers would stand to gain from trademark bidding. But the question of whether or not bidding alone constitutes trademark infringement sure makes for a hot debate! I can certainly see both sides on this one.
Wo 17 jun 2009, 17:59
This is a great reading. Thanks for sharing this information. We have few readers who would like to read this stuff. We will pass it on to our readers for more feedback. We are dealing with seo firms and would like to get feedback from you too. This is a nice postings indeed. Thanking You. london seo agency <a href="http://www.irelandseoagency.com/">ireland seo agency</a>
Do 4 feb 2010, 21:27