Is targeting personal names okay?

[ihelpyou]

Just wondering what the consensus is on targeting personal names.

Do a search on Google for:

Jill Whalen
Doug Heil
Shari Thurow
Ed Kohler
Mike Grehan

on and on.... too many to list.

Is this something new and acceptable?

Actually it's somewhat of an honor although I would certainly prefer that seobook would not try to sell his ebook using my name. If I had ever read it and then endorsed it or whatever, I can see him targeting it, but I've never read it and won't read it. Just don't have the time.

Thoughts?

[seobook]

I obviously think it is fine. it is more to show up in adsense on articles that those people write or articles those people are mentioned in.

<added> also some people are specifically targeting my domain name (where they could only be targeting my domain name) and I do not care. http://www.google.com/search?q=seobook </added>

[ihelpyou]

Oh sure. My username is being targeted also:

ihelpyou

Only problem with that is that my username is also my "nationally trademarked" business name.

But I'm curious as to why someone would target personal names, and if it's generally acceptable to the whole industry?

In my opinion it could open up lots of cans of worms.

I also find it interesting that you are not targeting:

Danny Sullivan

hmm.

[seobook]

I also am not targeting Chris Ridings (and he expressly said it was ok by him)... what is your point?

[Nick W]

This sounds like an issue you need to take up with Aaron in private. Or at least make the question less personal.

If we cant post here without being targetted (wrongly or rightly) what do we have?

Nick

[mcanerin]

Good point, Aaron,

I was pretty confused about the targetting of names because I wasn't thinking about the AdSense issue.

I suspect that some people would be concerned that targetting a name rather than a product (yes I know that for consultants the product IS the name) is getting too personal, and attempting to trade off the reputation of others.

On the other hand, I guess if I was in the process of buying Jill's or Mikes book I may also consider buying yours, and vice versa. Kind of like how Amazon recommends other books based on your purchase, even if they are competitors to the author.

It's just kind of creepy to know someone is targetting your name, you know? I can see where the people involved may get concerned about the intent and purpose.

Additionally, there is the issue of people's names being targetting for reasons other than what you are doing - ie smear campaigns, etc. A business name is one thing, but personal names are....personal.

The AdSense/article thing makes sense to me, though. Tough call.

Ian

[ihelpyou]

I don't see anything "personal" about this.

This is strictly business and should be discussed in public for all to see and learn from.

If we can't discuss the search engines and business tactics, etc, then what do we have?

[seobook]

I specifically like some of those people (such as Mike Grehan) and would not actively try to anger him. <--- he knows where to find amazing curry, and I would not want him to write up an article for me like the SEMPO ones.

If you look the page advertising on Mike's name now links into a page that reviews a bunch of books with his book listed at the top.

I guess if it makes you mad you could always tell me what you feel is wrong with it.

[ihelpyou]

I did explain my concerns with it in the first post in here.

[seobook]

I did explain my concerns with it in the first post in here.
the logical question at that point is why not contact me first before posting that question to the forum

[ihelpyou]

Maybe you did not read my second post in this thread then? I gave the answer to that question above.

This is "business" Aaron, it's not personal at all. You have made it a very public business thing by targeting "many" personal names in the SEM industry. I feel that everyone should know what the general feelings about this are as we all have a stake in it.

Now if you would have asked my permission, or even if I had read your book and then endorsed it, I can see your reasoning for targeting my name. The fact is, none of that occurred and I was alerted to it by many today. When did this start?

[ihelpyou]

I see Jill Whalen and Dan Thies are not thrilled about this either?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=aaron+wall

It looks very cutthroat to me now. Don't worry, I won't be placing an ad targeting your personal name Aaron.

[seobook]

actually Dan does not care. he and I emailed back and forth joking about it. I have recently PMed back and forth with Jill and she has said nothing about my ad. thanks for interjecting your opinion on the subject though.

would you like me to remove the ad for your name doug? please feel free to email or PM me if so.

[Elisabeth]

I also find it interesting that you are not targeting:

Danny Sullivan

hmm.

but I like that RED BULL is targeting danny for a second career here's the first google ad I get for "danny sullivan" -

Open qualifying 3/15
Red Bull Driver Search
Go-Kart Drivers Wanted
redbulldriversearch.com

HEHE. what's with that??

Anyway, Aaron, with regards to people targetting your domain name, and not caring about it - I would think you simply can't, because your domain is a very generic phrase, and that also prevents you from Trademarking it, does it not?

the name thing has got to be tricky - personally, I would stay away from anything without prior permission to do so.

SO that said, take any of the personal / legal issues offline to PM please.

[seobook]

but I like that RED BULL is targeting danny for a second career here's the first google ad I get for "danny sullivan" -

Open qualifying 3/15
Red Bull Driver Search
Go-Kart Drivers Wanted
redbulldriversearch.com

HEHE. what's with that??

Anyway, Aaron, with regards to people targetting your domain name, and not caring about it - I would think you simply can't, because your domain is a very generic phrase, and that also prevents you from Trademarking it, does it not?

the name thing has got to be tricky - personally, I would stay away from anything without prior permission to do so.

SO that said, take any of the personal / legal issues offline to PM please.
"seobook" is a generic phrase? before I created that domain I do not think there was a single existance of that term on the web.

Yes, that's obvious
I have removed your ads. it will take a while to propigate through the various Google data centers.

[Elisabeth]

"seobook" is a generic phrase? before I created that domain I do not think there was a single existance of that term on the web.


aaron, I'm not trying to be arugmentative here at all - but when i said phrase, i meant "SEO book" -

and surely there were a few "seo books" out there before you bought that domain in 2003- like Search Engine Visibility by Shari Thurow, Publisher: New Riders Press; 1st edition (December 30, 2002)

and buying a domain is not the same as trademarking a product/service - i'm just trying to make the distinction on that here. a domain name does not entitle a person to be the only one using the phrase within it. that's all.

[ihelpyou]

Thank you.

I would like to see views on this subject however. I think it's highly relevant in this industry.

Do people like the idea of anyone targeting names to help sell products?

Can I target:

Larry Page ?

How about Fred Flintstone? :D

[seobook]

aaron, I'm not trying to be arugmentative here at all - but when i said phrase, i meant "SEO book" -

and surely there were a few "seo books" out there before you bought that domain in 2003- like Search Engine Visibility by Shari Thurow, Publisher: New Riders Press; 1st edition (December 30, 2002)

and buying a domain is not the same as trademarking a product/service - i'm just trying to make the distinction on that here. a domain name does not entitle a person to be the only one using the phrase within it. that's all.
I know that there are tons of domains with certain words in it. I was speaking of "seo book" or "seo books" or anything like that, but I was stating that "seobook" (all strung together as one word) is a unique phrase that is usually associated with some of my usernames or my domain name.

my point was not that I cared or thought that it was any sort of big deal, more along the lines of the fact that bidding on other terms that may offend some is probably rather common and best if it is kept as a private issue :)

[seobook]

Thank you.

I would like to see views on this subject however. I think it's highly relevant in this industry.

Do people like the idea of anyone targeting names to help sell products?

Can I target:

Larry Page ?

How about Fred Flintstone? :D
I think it depends on how into PPC stuff you are. like if you are a pay per click junkie you probably want to be able to bid on everything under the sun ... and cite newspapers placing ads next to articles as an example. if you are some huge corporation who is in fear of competiton and whatnot you think it is evil...then everyone else is somewhere inbetween.

in the end the courts will probably decide what is right and wrong on the particular issue.

[mcanerin]

Actually, I'm just upset that nobody targetted MY name.

AND I've not been attacked once by TP/1P (or whoever is behind it). <sniff> :(

I guess I'll have to go get into some trouble.... ;)

Ian

[Jeff Martin]

in the end the courts will probably decide what is right and wrong on the particular issue.

Absolutely, you can rest assure G has said it wont be them.

I see no issue with using a name or phrase that isn't trade marked. If its not trade marked than no one has a legal right to prohibit others from using it.

However, out of courtesy and respect I would ask the named person if I could have their blessing, give appropriate time for response then carry on if no response or a favorable response is given or comprise if the response is negative.

Also, lets all refrain from finger pointing and take all issues with individuals to private discussions. Lets talk about the issue rather than an individual.

[mcanerin]

Even trademarking is an issue, since two people can have identical trademarks at the same time if they are in different geographic areas, or even in the same area but different businesses.

The general (and highly simplified) rule of thumb is that if it's likely to confuse the public, it's bad.

In this case I don't think anyone is likely to mix Aaron and Doug up. But if Doug had a book and Aaron had written an ad that made it sound like he was actually selling Dougs book (without permission) then there would be serious issues.

Restrictions also kick in during non-competitive uses where the reputation is being messed with.

I would be VERY unhappy with letting the courts handle it, in that the only court that would count would be the one in Googles headquarters jurisdiction - and they are likely to rule in favor of trademarks registered in that geographic location over "foreign" ones, even if the foreign one was better positioned and had existed longer.

This is an international issue, not a local one. Trademarking is local legal protection in almost all cases (some exceptions exist, like IBM, Coca-Cola, etc).

This is a fairly easy to read article on it:

http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3289421

My opinion,
Ian

[I, Brian]

If its not trade marked than no one has a legal right to prohibit others from using it.
I believe this was recently determined in the US courts, over the name of "Diana, Princess of Wales". The Diana Memorial fund took a US merchandising company to court for using the Diana name, but the objection was rejected. This week, the US courts gave permission for the US company to issue a writ against the Diana Memorial fund for damages:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3709388.stm

I am very much under the impression that you would need to trademark individual names to protect them from commercial exploitation.

[Jill Whalen]

actually Dan does not care. he and I emailed back and forth joking about it. I have recently PMed back and forth with Jill and she has said nothing about my ad. thanks for interjecting your opinion on the subject though.

would you like me to remove the ad for your name doug? please feel free to email or PM me if so.

I actually do believe that it's probably trademark infringement, but until or unless the courts agree, it's apparently open season on people's trademarks.

I don't particularly like Aaron bidding on my name, but I know that if I asked him not to, he would remove it. I don't think someone should have to ask in the first place though.

The ads Dan and I placed were a joke in response. I personally thinking bidding on others names is kinda stinky (for lack of a better word!). And I hope that GEICO wins their lawsuit that they have out there about this.

[polarmate]

However, out of courtesy and respect I would ask the named person if I could have their blessing, give appropriate time for response then carry on if no response or a favorable response is given or comprise if the response is negative.
Jeff, I'd say that is bad advice. Lack of response is not the same as approval. Read this thread again where Aaron thinks lack of response is approval whereas it is actually considered 'stinky'.

I don't think this is the same as the Diana case though. Diana is dead and everyone involved is a third party. Whereas the ones whose names are being bid on are very much in the scenario.

[Quadrille]

my point was not that I cared or thought that it was any sort of big deal, more along the lines of the fact that bidding on other terms that may offend some is probably rather common and best if it is kept as a private issue If it's causing offense - and you know it is, but don't care - I'm not surprised you'd prefer it were kept behind closed doors; personally, I'm very glad this kind of behaviour is being discussed openly.

Your honesty is much appreciated.

It's always nice to know the kind of people that one may be choosing to do business with. Or not :rolleyes:

[seobook]

Jeff, I'd say that is bad advice. Lack of response is not the same as approval. Read this thread again where Aaron thinks lack of response is approval whereas it is actually considered 'stinky'.

I don't think this is the same as the Diana case though. Diana is dead and everyone involved is a third party. Whereas the ones whose names are being bid on are very much in the scenario.
1.) as soon as someone dies it does not mean their family no longer has rights over their names.

2.) if people care they can mention it to you. do you ask every time before you send a link at someones site?

3.) I advertise more in hopes of article adsense distribution. if my ads were not there and a "submit blaster submit your site to a million search engines a month for only $9.99" ad was there would it be any better? do people endorse that product because it shows up on ads where their articles are?

[Jill Whalen]

if people care they can mention it to you. do you ask every time before you send a link at someones site?

I don't get the comparison.

How is linking TO someone, the same as using their trademark to sell your products?

[seobook]

I don't get the comparison.

How is linking TO someone, the same as using their trademark to sell your products?

I am not actively using your trademark, simply the ad space near your articles and search results.

certainly if you thought it was wrong you would have just let me know instead of doing it to me?

would you feel better if there were submit blaster ads next to your articles and whatnot?

[polarmate]

do you ask every time before you send a link at someones site?If I were to profit from it, yes I would.
I advertise more in hopes of article adsense distribution. if my ads were not there and a "submit blaster submit your site to a million search engines a month for only $9.99" ad was there would it be any better?What allows you to decide for a publisher in general? Google allows them to not list about 200 URLs. If they don't like submit-blaster and its likes, they can add the URLs there. Or they can pull AdSense from that page.
do people endorse that product because it shows up on ads where their articles are?No but you are trying to profit from other people's names and their reputations. You need to ask before you do that. Else...you're just stinky! :D

[polarmate]

I am not actively using your trademark, simply the ad space near your articles and search results. Wake up, kid!! Put on the thinking hat. Why did the ad show up in the first place? Because you bid on the author's name. That's not active????
certainly if you thought it was wrong you would have just let me know instead of doing it to me?LOL! This is just too funny!! :D

[seobook]

If I were to profit from it, yes I would.
if you link to related resources you can improve your relevancy scores & show up in more search results. if your site is for profit you are profiting from it.

What allows you to decide for a publisher in general? Google allows them to not list about 200 URLs. If they don't like submit-blaster and its likes, they can add the URLs there. Or they can pull AdSense from that page.
Google decideds for the publisher. The publisher does not. I do not. I am just giving the publisher another option which is not submit blaster.

No but you are trying to profit from other people's names and their reputations. You need to ask before you do that. Else...you're just stinky! :Dare you telling me that this is abnormal in the business world? or the SEO community? if you think it is you are out to lunch.

what about when affiliates target other people's names? for example currently a nitty gritty report affiliate is advertising for Mike Grehan. is it in Jill's affiliate terms that people should not advertise for SEOs names? what makes it ok in that situation?

how do review sites advertise and make money?

what is the basis of affiliate marketing?

once you break away from idealism and head toward a bit of reality you might figure out just how wrong that last statement was.

[polarmate]

You really are confused. Esp if you are going to draw a parallel between affiliate marketing and bidding on a person's name. Affiliate by its very definition means associated with. You aren't associated with most of the names you bid on. Which is very obvious from this thread. Additionally, you are not promoting them - which is what affiliates do - you are promoting yourself.

[seobook]

You really are confused. Esp if you are going to draw a parallel between affiliate marketing and bidding on a person's name. Affiliate by its very definition means associated with. You aren't associated with most of the names you bid on. Which is very obvious from this thread. Additionally, you are not promoting them - which is what affiliates do - you are promoting yourself.
the affiliate is an extension of the sales force. if you affiliates bid on your competitors name and trademarks and you think other people are bad for bidding on your name it is a bit hypocritical.

my point is that a ton of SEO and the web is all about making money off other people's names.

if people have a problem then they can send me a PM or email and it would be resolved. thusfar the only email I got from any of the parties mentioned was one telling me that it was a fun game.

[NFFC]

>I would certainly prefer that seobook would not try to sell his ebook using my name. If I had ever read it and then endorsed it or whatever, I can see him targeting it, but I've never read it and won't read it. Just don't have the time.

>Thoughts?

If it were me I would be flattered.

If I was a search engine user looking for good information I would be grateful.

Win, win.

>Just don't have the time.

Sure you don't.

[polarmate]

the affiliate is an extension of the sales force. if you affiliates bid on your competitors name and trademarks and you think other people are bad for bidding on your name it is a bit hypocritical.Yes it would certainly appear so. But neither you nor I have the facts for the example you cited so we don't know - at least I don't know - if one has the other's explicit permission to do so.
my point is that a ton of SEO and the web is all about making money off other people's names.I guess I wouldn't know cos I am not an SEO by profession or calling. We do have a couple of large web sites in a niche market for which we have very aggressive PPC campaigns. We don't bid on our competitors' names nor do we bid on names that are not associated with our web sites. This goes for individuals as well as companies. We're making excellent profits and we also sleep well at night. ;)

The thing to take away from this thread would be a huge learning lesson. If you are going to be defensive about something that has been met with disapproval and which raises issues for the marketing industry as a whole, you're at a dead-end. Learn. Grow. Be more successful. Make a difference.

Best wishes to you. Really! :)

[bragadocchio]

Trademark might not be the appropriate legal theory to approach an issue like this one for all of the reasons stated above.

But when someone uses a celebrity's name for an endorsement without asking the celebrity, there may be a remedy in state courts. The same may be true with noncelebrities who have a reputation and expertise that is being used by someone else for commercial purposes.


The right of publicity protects individuals from the unauthorized use of their name, likeness, identity and voice for commercial purposes.

from CyBarrister Page: Rights of Publicity on the Net (http://www.ssbb.com/rights.html)

Not all states in the US have statutes on the books involving a right of publicity. But, the states that don't might have common law remedies in court against the unauthorized use of someone else's name for commercial purposes. The US Federal Courts have also looked at the issue in some cases. This white paper discusses some of them:

The Right of Publicity and Cyberspace (http://www.pattishall.com/pdfs/Publicity-Cyberspace.pdf) (pdf) (favorite case name from that paper - Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets)

The paper brushes lightly on the concept of secondary liability, which might involve taking legal action against a party which enables people to take advantage of someone else's likeness. The example they use is a suit against an adult verification system which allowed people to sign up to view models on unauthorized websites without the original publisher's authorization. Would secondary liability apply here? I don't know, and I don't have to make the argument. But someone could.

I would be VERY unhappy with letting the courts handle it, in that the only court that would count would be the one in Googles headquarters jurisdiction - and they are likely to rule in favor of trademarks registered in that geographic location over "foreign" ones, even if the foreign one was better positioned and had existed longer.

A suit against a corporation with a principal place of business in California, and an incorporation in Delaware might have a choice of venues. While I agree with Ian on the trademark issue, California would seem to be a pretty good place to bring a right to publicity case considering the large number of celebrities who call the State home.

I don't know what the chances are of the success of a right to publicity case, but I wanted to point out that when sometimes one legal theory doesn't seem to fit, sometimes another one might be a closer match.

[MrMackin]

edit out post
and I don't do that much

[projectphp]

<edit>What I was complaining about went away. Props and respect to the person for their decision</edit>

[seobook]

If it's causing offense - and you know it is, but don't care - I'm not surprised you'd prefer it were kept behind closed doors; personally, I'm very glad this kind of behaviour is being discussed openly.

Your honesty is much appreciated.

It's always nice to know the kind of people that one may be choosing to do business with. Or not :rolleyes:
From your comments on my personal blog I doubt I would ever do business w you.

I think people are forgetting that issue of honesty that you bring up (and those bringing it up are perhaps a bit dishonest or ignorant). I did nothing dishonest. When asked to remove ads I do. The dishonest route would be to sign up as my own affiliate and advertise for whatever I like without letting people know who I was.

The funny thing is Doug started this rant because I had an ad near his name. I removed that ad. The thread kept ranting. There is still an ad next to his name. That is not my ad, but is one of Jill's affiliate ads.

Dougs problem still exists. The rant thread goes on, but it focuses on me instead of the problem.

Jill is another person who has been a bit critical of my ads and has ran her own ads for my name using my name in the ad. <--- I have yet to complain. And if people really do care then people in glass houses should not throw rocks.

Yes it would certainly appear so. But neither you nor I have the facts for the example you cited so we don't know - at least I don't know - if one has the other's explicit permission to do so.
Right, but since this post is intended to be on the general problem instead of just me why should we give up when there are problems outside of my control.

Why not make a post focused on a solution to the problem instead of focusing on me?

The thing to take away from this thread would be a huge learning lesson. If you are going to be defensive about something that has been met with disapproval and which raises issues for the marketing industry as a whole, you're at a dead-end. Learn. Grow. Be more successful. Make a difference.
I am not getting defensive here. I took the ad in question down. What I am focused on is an effective solution to the problem. It appears many are not.

There is a ton of knowledge in these forums...that is why I come here so often. I can learn a ton; however, if you think a dozen or so people (many of whom are friends) posting in a thread is a fair reflection of the marketing industry as a whole then you need to broaden the scope of your vision a bit.

Trademark might not be the appropriate legal theory to approach an issue like this one for all of the reasons stated above. ...
Thanks for providing useful and interesting feedback, unlike much of the stuff posted above.

[projectphp]

What I am focused on is an effective solution to the problem. It appears many are not.
That is perhaps what you want in this isolated instance.

What others are perhaps more interested in, and what is a much more interesting discussion, is discussing the issue and ramifications in further detail, with a view to influencing the eventual outcome when a legal decision is made. Kind of helping to defien the rule.

I agree, between profesionals and individuals, a resolution should be possible. but we don't know everyone on the web, and rules are probably a more effective means of "policing" this issue.

[seobook]

in this isolated instance.
sounds familiar to the underlying theme of the thread...

What others are perhaps more interested in, and what is a much more interesting discussion, is discussing the issue and ramifications in further detail, with a view to influencing the eventual outcome when a legal decision is made. Kind of helping to defien the rule.

I agree, between profesionals and individuals, a resolution should be possible. but we don't know everyone on the web, and rules are probably a more effective means of "policing" this issue.
my point was that generally beyond flaming me only a few post (such as Bill's) were focused on that idea.

today I could still sign up as an affiliate of my own product and market it for whatever I want and people would be none the wiser. the lack of desire to discuss that particular concept indicates to me a lack of interest in the thread for its stated purpose and that many were more interested in a general purpose flame.

[seobook]

can we rename this thread to...

a thread about Aaron :D -or-
why I do not like Aaron :eek:

[mcanerin]

Well, *I* hate Aaron because.....

Actually , I don't :p - this is a very good topic though, and I *really* doubt that it's gonna go away as a tactic anytime soon. It's good to discuss this and the strategies and issues involved. But I agree that it should be about the tactic, not the person - the person is just the current example. I think both Doug and Jill got their point across and kept it non-personal, and they are the ones who had the most reason to get upset.

This raises the larger (and separate) issue of bidding on related words and competitors. I can see how it would be annoying to have a competitor bid on your product or company name, but at the same time, is it really good for consumers to not be offered a choice?

Here is the example I'm thinking of. I had a client a while ago who had been banned for spamming (multiple domains, etc). I worked long and hard to get them cleaned up and unbanned, and then we set about making a good site even better (the irony was that he never needed to spam in the first place to get good rankings). At one point, he asked me if I could get him top rankings for something like "wine gifts".

He sells coffee. Good coffee, but coffee. No wine. This after I had gone through all the trouble of getting him unbanned and ranking again.

He must have noticed the increasingly murderous look on my face, because he explained:

It turns out that many people buy wine for certain occasions, such as new homes, etc. But it has numerous drawbacks compared to coffee as a gift. For one thing, if you don't like or approve of alchohol, you are unlikely to give it to someone else, but almost everyone knows someone who drinks coffee, and there is no stigma attached to it. Also, it's a lot easier to ship. He very quickly listed about a dozen really good reasons to give private label coffee instead of wine as a housewarming or other gift.

In this manner, it was clear that focussing on wine gifts WAS relevant. So I suggested a set of pages outlining what he had just told me, and optimized them for wine gifts, easy to do on comparision pages between coffee and wine gifts.

Now, I know that this is different from focussing on a person's name, but frankly if I was looking for some gift wine and saw a listing called "Why Coffee is a better gift than wine" or something like that I'd be tempted to click on it and educate myself.

It would be a shame if I never even had the opportunity to find out it was even an option.

On the other hand, there is an issue, of course, of relevance. You simply *can't* have a search engine return 30 coffee sites when someone looks for wine and still call it relevant. One or two, maybe, but where do you draw the line?

<sigh> looks like I'm on a fence again - getting awfully uncomfortable up here...

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I think there are a few things about this issue that haven't been discussed yet ...

1) This is not just about trademarks but also about bad (and possibly illegal) marketing. In Scandinavia I believe the examples in this thread of names being abused will fall under the marketing laws as "bad intention".

As with all marketing laws in Europe it dosen't matter where you are but what people you target. If your ad shows here it falls under our marketing laws - like it or not. Off course, if you have no assets here it could be very difficult for me to actually collect the compensation if I win a case but just think about what it will do to YOUR brand if you loose cases of marketing abuse.

2) What kind of agressions do you trigger when you abuse other peoples names or brands without asking them? You never know. What will people you abuse do? Some of them might come here and complain. Some might write articles about how unethical you are and some might promote those articles using AdWords. And some migh even go further. I know people that would say: Hey, if he abuse us we will abuse him - any way WE find reasonable (and that may not be the way YOU like - actually, most likely not)

My point is: Don't start a fight unless you know you can win. Just because you pick the initial arena for the battle it may not end there. Don't go to war if your army is too small or weak or if you have too little recourses to fight it to the end. Don't expect people you abuse not to fight back, hard and in ways you don't expect them to or like.

In my personal oppinion: If anyone abused my name I would get really mad! I am not sure right now what I would do about it - and even if I did I would not say it in a public forum - I would just do it. The question is: Does anybody really want to fight me? :)

[sem4u]

I like this ad for the 'aaron wall' search on Google:

Discount Aaron Wall
New & used selection. aff
Aaron Wall for sale.
www. ebay .com

;)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Honestly, don't play games - thats too stupid. You chose to target other peoples names in AdWords as well as natural results. Don't refuse that or tell me you did nothing to target those names. The question is if that is right or wrong. I think it's wrong and I also think you may not have thought about the possible consequenses well enough before you did it. If I am wrong, and you are ready for any of those names to fight you back in whatever way THEY find right then I'm fine. I just think it's important that other people that read this thread understand that there is a alot of very real risks in this kind of brand abuse.

[dannysullivan]

So the issue of targeting names is really interesting and important. Let's please keep that as general as possible, however.

ihelpyou said:

I also find it interesting that you are not targeting:
Danny Sullivan
FYI, others have in the past. We had a session on trademark issues where someone pointed this out to me in the middle of a panel: Leggo My Trademark: A Search Engine Legal Update (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000175.html).

My response was that if I didn't like it, I'd go back to Google (or the other service) and ask first if it was relevant for the ad to be showing up for my name.

I actually do believe that it's probably trademark infringement, but until or unless the courts agree, it's apparently open season on people's trademarks.
I think it's entirely unclear. A person's name may not always be a trademark. And those rules can be really strange on a country-by-country basis.

Can someone not run an ad linked to Bush, to Kerry? Now that's a harder issue, because I think many would agree that there are plenty of good reasons why someone would want to key ads to those names.

FYI, Google itself has been happy to key its own ads to names: Google, Amazon in a war of search words (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5082848.html).

[seobook]

FYI, others have in the past. We had a session on trademark issues where someone pointed this out to me in the middle of a panel: Search Engines Turning Trademark Law Upside Down (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3354411). My response was that if I didn't like it, I'd go back to Google (or the other service) and ask first if it was relevant for the ad to be showing up for my name.
that is my belief of what one should do. if you find something that bothers you then point it out.

marketing has never worked to where it assumed the most conservative things until laws guided the way. if that were the case there would not be a bunch of the sketchy ads there are today.

[dannysullivan]

Actually, I should clarify this:

My response was that if I didn't like it, I'd go back to Google (or the other service) and ask first if it was relevant for the ad to be showing up for my name.

Pretty much any time I've seen my name linked to an ad, I haven't liked it. I've felt, as many trademark holders do, that someone's just trying to cash in on whatever branding or interest may be associated with my name.

Gosh, here's one from Vivisimo for my name that's a good example of that:

Danny Sullivan in folders
Learn all about Danny by clustering
his search results into folders.
Vivisimo.com/query=Danny+Sullivan

It's also probably not relevant under Google's standards. I could probably get it pulled if I wanted to spend the time and energy on that (I don't). But I also know that it's not too hard to then come up with an ad that IS relevant.

Personally, I don't spend a lot of time searching for my name. I'd probably be most concerned is someone were running an ad linked to my name that I thought was somehow misleading consumers, say trying to suggest that I endorsed something. Then I would not only dislike it, but I'd probably feel compelled to take legal action. Maybe a trademark case wouldn't work, but there might be other legal paths to follow.

I suppose another recourse is just to go to the advertiser directly and say knock it off. That may even work depending on the advertiser. But ultimately, there's going to be some who simply don't care and will wiggle through enought not to be misleading, not to violate any laws and yet still be annoying to the person whose name is being targeted.

[JohnScott]

A lot of times, targeting a public figure's name is relevant, and relevant advertising:


http://www.google.com/search?q=George+Bush

http://www.google.com/search?q=John+Kerry

[Marcia]

I definitely have an opinion, but in matters like this I always like to go to an impartial, authoritative source for background.

If we're talking actual trademark, that doesn't apply here; it's the value of the personal branding that matters - the kind of branding that takes a long time and a lot of hard work to establish and that isn't based on a "trade name" but a person's own name.

The question is whether we want to go by the letter of the law (which doesn't apply) or the spirit of the law, which is probably more important because it reveals and relates to the level of integrity and intent. I think that's more of what Mikkel was referring to.

One of the most authoritative sources available on this type of topic is

Chilling Effects Clearninghouse (http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/faq.cgi#QID53)

From the infringement FAQ:

> proof of actual confusion
> strength of the established mark
> proximity of the goods in the marketplace
> similarity of the marks’ sound
> appearance and meaning
> how the goods are marketed
> type of product and how discerning the customer is
> intent behind selecting the mark
> likelihood of expansion in the market of the goods

Aside from similarity of name, which techically doesn't apply, how do the other criteria stand up under examination in the light of using this as a check-list for the spirit of the law and intent - intent being the prime factor looked at when deciding what's infringement, whether or not it's deliberate.

[ihelpyou]

Getting back to my original post and reason for posting about this; I believe there two issues here, with one being the targeting of personal names "outside" this industry, and the other being the targeting of personal names "within" the sem industry. I think there IS a difference. It does seem to me to be an ethical issue. Of course it may be legal, but that's not the point. I would think "we" in this industry have some kind of obligation to have a higher standard... for instance, regarding the advertising in Adwords, than the average joe out there.... for instance, others outside of the industry. We are "IN" this industry and directly drive the industry. That's what I see as the bigger issue.

Where does this all end if every personal name is up for grabs? It's okay for our names to be used by 10 different advertisers on the front page that all target our personal names? It's okay for these advertisers to have a link to their latest SEO software scheme, or link pop scheme, or SEO book scheme, or anything else relating to SEO or SEM? I don't think so.

First off, what if all of you were targeted by some kind of software advertiser that all of you do NOT like something about? I know that's far-fetched, but it's relevant to the issue. You see, it's a matter of a regular Google searcher associating that book or software with the personal name they "typed" into the search box of Google. We all know the average person does not understand the in's and out's of seo, so why would they not associate our names with the product being advertised? That's where I have a huge problem with this "within" our industry. Let's say you never tried the "software" or "read" the book, but you have "Heard" that the software did things you "do not" agree with, or that book has things in it that you do "not" approve of for SEO? You see, I simply think it's very wrong and "stinky" (lol) "within" our SEM industry. That 'stinky' word is great!@

[JohnScott]

Where does this all end if every personal name is up for grabs?


I think you're using "personal names" in an incorrect sense. Nobody is getting personal. It's a public figure name. And it is being used in a commercial application. It goes with the territory.

[Marcia]

It's okay for our names to be used by 10 different advertisers on the front page that all target our personal names? It's okay for these advertisers to have a link to their latest SEO software scheme, or link pop scheme, or SEO book scheme, or anything else relating to SEO or SEM? I don't think so.

No, actually it isn't all right - I was wrong, I hadn't read further down. Doug, scroll down that page at Chilling Effects. Technically, there is such a thing as "common law" trademark - actually a service mark in these cases, and there is protection. Selling adverts if someone complains of infringement - even common law trademark rights - is contributory trademark infringement.

But aside from the legal aspects Doug, what I think I hear you saying is more on a personal level about what you feel is unfair, someone exploiting someone's "branded" name for personal gain. It kind of looks and seems different when expressed that way, but I still think looking at the "spirit" of how the law is written and how infringement is defined can help interpret, even on personal level.

[dannysullivan]

I believe there two issues here, with one being the targeting of personal names "outside" this industry, and the other being the targeting of personal names "within" the sem industry. I think there IS a difference.
I disagree. I think the general issue of whether someone's name should be targeted by an advertiser is pretty much the same regardless of the industry. It's actually more likely a case of prominence. Frankly, I'm sure there are far, far more names of people being targeted who have nothing to do with SEM and which involve ads seen by many more people. Just think of any celebrity, for example.

It does seem to me to be an ethical issue. Of course it may be legal, but that's not the point. I would think "we" in this industry have some kind of obligation to have a higher standard.
So Google itself, which has targeted names, would be at a lower standard than those involved with SEM. Now that makes me smile.

I agree there's an ethical issue involved. I think that if you're going to target someone's name, it would be nice to first consider why you are doing it. Just to cash in on their name? But realistically, those ethics are going to vary. And honestly, if you were selling a book about someone, some celebrity, how else might you target it?

First off, what if all of you were targeted by some kind of software advertiser that all of you do NOT like something about?
Well, what if a politician is targeted by someone they don't like? What if a celebrity is targeted for some product they don't like (imagine a keyword linked to Britney Spears for a marriage guidance course: "Don't make Britney's mistake -- Succeed in marriage").

You see, it's a matter of a regular Google searcher associating that book or software with the personal name they "typed" into the search box of Google.
And that probably brings you back to your answer. If someone were to defame your character with an ad or an association with a product, that's something you can take to court and fight. And that sort of thing can happen outside of search engines, as well.

[ihelpyou]

Yes, and I disagree with that. My concern is not with the bush/kerry ads or anyone else outside of this industry. My concern is within the industry and all I really care about. I just think there is a difference in the two. Adwords and Google are in this industry. kerry/bush are not. joe/mary are not. coke/pepsi are not in it either.

seobook/doug heil "are" in this industry and are directly involved. jill/seobook is as well. I did not want to get specific but it's only to make my point. I think it's ethically wrong when looking at this from within our circle. I would be just as upset if Jill whalen were targeting my name in order to help sell her newest subscription based something or other. I would be just as upset with danny sullivan targeting my name as well. It's "all" within this industry. I see a big snowballing problem with all of this.

[mcanerin]

OK, lets try this: when would it be OK to target somene's name?

For example, last year several people at another forum targetted Mike Grehans name. Sounds like suicide, right? :D

It's said something to the effect of "Happy Birthday!" along with some tongue in cheek comments on the aged decrepitude of the poor old Mike..... LOL

Banned for targetting a personal name? Of course not! But why? Well it was all in good fun and was non-commercial, I suppose. So I would argue that is one edge of the spectrum. Good humored teasing of your friends is OK.

On the other edge of the spectrum would be libel or a smear campaign, I think. Targetting the individual personally and attempting to ruin their reputation. I think most people would agree that's bad.

Ok, that was the easy part - now for the hard one - the middle ground. Should you be able to bid on a product name? That's iffy for me. I personally feel that if the Ad would possibly confuse the buying public into incorrectly thinking that the advertiser was an authorized rep or something, the answer would be no.

But I'm not so sure about clearly marked competition. You ever notice that whenever you see a free standing McDonalds restaurant that there is always a Burger King, KFC, or Taco Bell right beside it?

I used to do some work for Canadian McDonalds HQ. It annoyed them to no end that they would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing traffic surveys, buyer analysis, growth predictions, etc, then buy a location - only to have one of their competitors come in and do a "monkey see, monkey do" on them without needing to go through the expense of actually doing research.

The competition knew that the research had been done and that the big Yellow M would attract customers to the neighbourhood, and that once they were there those customers would excercise and appreciate choice. McDonalds HATES that. But doesn't sue people over it. If they did, they'd probably lose anyway.

I don't see much difference between land real estate and SERP real estate, honestly - other than the second is much more fluid, focused and dynamic. Should that be allowed? Should McD's be able to tell it's competitors to tear down their buildings and move away because they are trading on McD's research and marketing power?

I don't think so. Not unless they were making McD look bad while doing it. Personal opinion, of course.

I think trademark law has begun to run wild on the internet. There are many cases (like domain squatting and misrepresentation) where it was properly applied, but if you go to a supermarket and see cans of one brand of soup next to their competitors, should the first brand be able to attempt to use their trademark to prevent the competing brand from being associated with them? What's the difference between a SERP and a shopping aisle?

If I ask the clerk to show me where the Campbells soup is and they take me to the aisle that also has Campbells competitors, should Campbell be able to sue the store or their competitors? What if they just asked for the "soup" aisle? Is there a difference?

I know there is the practical difference in that you can't physically rearrange a store to suit a visitor the way you can online, but is that the only difference?

The next issue is personal names, of course. At a certain point a person's name stops being a name and starts being a brand. It's bigger than the person, and often the public image is very different from the private person. Really different, in some cases.

At that point, the name should be open to standard rules of competition, whatever they happen to be. Once it goes back to the personal arena, then the personal rules should apply.

But if you are trading on a public status, whether it's Danny Sullivan, Britney Spears or George Bush, then the aspect of that which IS public is open to public scrutiny. What those people do as people is no doubt relevant only to their friends and family, but what they do as public figures is open to public scrutiny.

Should they like it? I wouldn't. I doubt Danny, Britney or George do. I know McDonalds doesn't. I'm sure Traffic Power, Bin Laden and Michael Jackson don't like things brought up in relation to their name.

But in order to protect the ability to comment on the bad guys, you have to give up some protection as a good guy. The whole free speech issue - it protects your right to hear things you want to hear, but also protects things you DON'T want to hear. One comes with the other.

I think if someone searches for Doug Heil the person then trading on that name is crossing the line. But searching for Doug Heil as part of trying to learn all you can about SEO, then SEO books, forums and other training tools would be a relevant result.

Of course, there is also the issue that commercial interests are less important that political and social statements. Perhaps it should be OK for a spammer to target Doug to complain about his opinions on spam but not to try to sell spam software. Where does the line get drawn? Is there a line?

Some random (early morning) thoughts,

Ian

[ihelpyou]

Agreed.

But I come back to this:

"Within" our industry I think it's very wrong. It's simply not right. It's certainly not right to do so without permission "within" our industry. It's associating the name with the product being advertised, no matter if the name is in agreement with the product or not. It all goes back to "our" industry for me. It's just not a Professional way for "our" industry to act in regards to the middleman of Adwords, which is also in our industry.

[Nick W]

Personally, unless proved illegal in the courts i think all is fair in love and war.

Marketing is marketing, it's a cut throat business, always has been, always will be...

Nick

[ihelpyou]

I could care less about the legality of it. I even don't see a clear-cut reason why it is legal... is it? That's to be proven as fact at a later time.

If people don't see the ethical issues of this within our industry, then nothing I can post will help you see it either.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Everyone seems to be focused on trademark laws - not on marketing laws and the personal level.

In Europe I believe, this issue would most likely fall under the marketing laws and if it does, it will hit anyone that show their ads here.

On a personal level I would just never start a fight, or a marketing war, against someone I don't know I can beat. I have seen how strong individuals can, and do, react if someone attacks them like this. It can get really, really ugly. When YOU chose the cross the line there IS no line anymore and no way for you to control how others will react or what actions they will take to fight back. Is that really worth a few extra sales? I don't think so.

[Nick W]

>>then nothing I can post will help you see it either.

That's okay doug, i forgive you...

>>ethical
Yeah, whatever. In business the only thing ethics are really any use for is as a platform for opinion and broadcast of said opinion. It all marketing..

Nick

[rcjordan]

> Is targeting personal names okay?

Sure it's OK. Just be aware that the SEO guys know what PPC is and usually have a friend-of-a-friend that owns a clickbot.

BTW, I'm relaying this message from a well-known SEO consultant as a public service announcement.

[Elisabeth]

> Is targeting personal names okay?

Sure it's OK. Just be aware that the SEO guys know what PPC is and usually have a friend-of-a-friend that owns a clickbot.

BTW, I'm relaying this message from a well-known SEO consultant as a public service announcement.

that is so funny RC. so true too...

[rcjordan]

>true

VERY true. Trust me on this one. I know (through idle conversation) one of our intrepid blog reporters names went to 'lock-and-load' status in a clickbot just yesterday. My guess is his ROI ain't going to be so hot if he decides to bid again.

[seobook]

seobook/doug heil "are" in this industry and are directly involved. jill/seobook is as well. I did not want to get specific but it's only to make my point. I think it's ethically wrong when looking at this from within our circle. I would be just as upset if Jill whalen were targeting my name in order to help sell her newest subscription based something or other. I would be just as upset with danny sullivan targeting my name as well. It's "all" within this industry. I see a big snowballing problem with all of this.
see the irony of that ... I would be upset if and reusing the same example is a broken concept (which in this case it is). not only do I act quickly when asked and not only did some of the "stinky" people who were hypocritical call me names under some guise of ethics, but currenlty when I search for your name I still get an ad
http://www.google.com/search?q=doug+heil

Top Your Competitors Rank
$49 book shows how to soar to the
top of search engine rankings, aff.
www.highrankings.com

as the same when I search for trademarks such as lycos insite
http://www.google.com/search?q=lycos+insite

Free HighRankings Secrets
Learn meta tags, page rank, SEO,
linking, writing for search engines
highrankings.com/search-engine-help

what makes those types of moves any less stinky or any more honest than what is done by many many other marketers? or like when webproworld targeted any name near the seo field and used their names in the ads or when other seos have done similar stuff. mind you moderators at this forum are still using other seo trademarks as bid terms this very day.

the whole conversation is a bit self serving IMHO

[Marcia]

Mikkel, it isn't so much the legal aspect, other than that the laws are based on generally accepted ethical principles and as a general rule were passed to combat unethical practices.

"Within" our industry I think it's very wrong. It's simply not right. It's certainly not right to do so without permission "within" our industry.
Doug, you're talking professional courtesy here, but that can be a fuzzy concept sometimes.

It's associating the name with the product being advertised, no matter if the name is in agreement with the product or not.
It could. That's why the SEO Directory won't accept sites that run AdSense - because of the association with some of the ads that are run.

[rcjordan]

> generally accepted ethical principles

Nope, the boyz I know operate more on the principle of "you started it, I'm going to finish it."

[Papadoc]

OK, lets try this: when would it be OK to target somene's name?

Finally some common sense from Ian. SEO will find out the same thing that business has understood for decades and that is that when you are well-known and/or your personal name is celebrity, it can and will be used and not always to your benefit.

Some people are terribly confused on the purpose of trademarks. It is not to protect your hinny from competition offering their similar or complementary services as an alternative to yours or from mentioning your name. Quote from the TM office: "Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark."

Note that there is only one criterion and that is a clearly different mark that does not confuse the public. Neither does it say anything about any rules about how to or how close you can get to your competitor. If I place my ad next to my competitor based on his name but do not create an ad using his name (mark), then my purpose cannot be said to confuse the public, it is to say... look at me too! Sure, someone COULD get confused, but they also put directions on soap for these idiots! Bidding on someone else’s name is the surefire way to get your ad next to theirs, just as it is to wait until MdD plants a restaurant to build yours.

A person’s name can either be a public name (celebrity) or a private name and how you can use it varies. I can put out a television commercial, publicly calling a politician a half-whacked, twisted pile of putrid yak vomit and there’s not much the politician can do about it. If I do this to my neighbor, he will probably own my house.

Your public name doesn’t prevent someone from using it other than in a false derogatory manner or if in a way that would infer an endorsement. The “reasonable man” terminology comes in here. You don’t have to prove that NOBODY would EVER be confused, just that a reasonable person would not be. Anyone ever heard of a biography? Most biographies do not have the participation of the person written about. They just cannot call it an AUTObiography because that would be deceptive. Does anyone think that the National Enquirer gets permission to print stories or use paparazzi pics of movies stars? How about the cola challenge commercials. I wonder if Pepsi likes Coke saying they beat Pepsi in a taste test? I bet not. All these are done for commercial purposes and they are trading on someone else’s brand.

Having your name used by others is the downside to becoming "celebrity", however you wish to define that. If you do, then you lose the protection of someone trading similarly on it as defined by TM law. In other words if Danny says that his name IS celebrity, then someone attempting to trade on similarity to that name is also protected such as Daniel Sullivan or Danny Sullavan. If he petitions and the court agrees and says that his name IS NOT celebrity, then he loses the "similarity" protection but gains the protection of a private citizen. You cannot have both the protection of celebrity AND a private citizen. You may not like the law, but it's still the law.

The court has held that if you effectively trade on your name, it is public. This is not meaning that it is even under your own control. It is whether your name is recognized for trade purposes. Bill Gates does not trade under his name, but it is nevertheless a celebrity name and hence, he cannot do anything about billgatesisdead.com

Business by default is a public entity and public entity rules apply.

Bidding on someone else's name or even trademark most certainly is using their branding efforts. But that isn’t illegal. The ONLY thing that is illegal is to use a “using a confusingly similar mark.”

Courts may not as of yet have decided on Internet cases, but given the magnitude of the issue, the fact that the courts have not is a pretty good indication that they have no interest in creating NEW precedent and are willing to let it lie as is. Changing things for the Internet would make everything roll backwards to every other medium and completely alter the way business is done. Since other laws in other countries are similar to the USA, it also becomes a global issue.

With that said, if someone uses your personal name, capitalize on it. Be smart, spin it! I like nothing more than having my competition use my name because it sets me up for claiming that I am the standard-bearer to which all compare themselves. When competing against another SEO for a contract, draw client attention to the fact that others in the industry also think you are pretty spiffy and see if the competitor has the same acclamation.

[steve sardell]

Putting the legal and moralistic issues aside for a moment, Mikkel made IMHO some excellent remarks.
names being abused will fall under the marketing laws as "bad intention"...but just think about what it will do to YOUR brand if you loose cases of marketing abuse...The question is if that is right or wrong. I think it's wrong and I also think you may not have thought about the possible consequenses well enough before you did it

The type of advertizing, "preying on celebrity status", or as I like to term it parasitic, being discussed may work, and at times extremely successful. However, in any marketing campaign, common sense should be employed. Questions like what are the long term effects of the campign; will it be an image maker or an image breaker need to be asked. Successful marketers apply a litmus test before any campaign is undertaken, and if it fails the test it should not be used. When a marketing effort is failing the long term goals, it is yanked. It is pulled not because of a complaint, but because it is not working and could turn into an image destroyer.

It is a myth, all advertizing is good. It is a fine line between notoriety and infamy. JMTs

[ihelpyou]

the whole conversation is a bit self serving IMHO
Self-serving for who?

Aaron; you are missing the point completely. First off, neither Jill nor Dan would have bid on your personal name if you had not started the ball rolling. I just don't happen to agree with the tic-for-tac thingie. I would rather discuss the big issue in public, exactly like this thread is doing. You keep trying to bring it back to a personal and private issue. It ain't. It's much bigger than that and something this industry needs to look at closely.

I for one don't wish for this to end up in court. That ain't good for anyone. I just think it's naive to think that this type of targeting could be good in the long run. You had to know that some people would not like it one bit. Others would not mind at all..... partner-type people to you. There is a difference between you and a partner or you and someone else who does not mind. Some of us do mind and have never been in communicatiion with you about anything in a business sense. Why not target the names of people in that thread that your friends started about your seo book? Why target a name like mine who has zero to do with your book at all? But anyway, let's keep the personal stuff out of this. Don't keep bringing it back again and again.

[Papadoc]

Putting the legal and moralistic issues aside for a moment, Mikkel made IMHO some excellent remarks.

The type of advertizing, "preying on celebrity status", or as I like to term it parasitic, being discussed may work, and at times extremely successful. However, in any marketing campaign, common sense should be employed. Questions like what are the long term effects of the campign; will it be an image maker or an image breaker need to be asked.

I am no fan of the tactic myself, but primarily because it is very limiting. It puts you in the proverbial shadow of the party you are getting next to. I think there are other more successful ways of getting there. But honestly, when it comes to comparative (or parasite if you want to call it that) advertising or placement of your facility, the only party that really cares about it is your competition.

In fact, if you do it right, you might just be considered clever! Anyone seen the Geico ads that virtually copy Old Navy, Mountain Dew, and Chevy ads? I think it's hilarious that they are the ones screaming about Google letting people keyword their name.

[seobook]

Putting the legal and moralistic issues aside for a moment, Mikkel made IMHO some excellent remarks.
names being abused will fall under the marketing laws as "bad intention"...but just think about what it will do to YOUR brand if you loose cases of marketing abuse...The question is if that is right or wrong. I think it's wrong and I also think you may not have thought about the possible consequenses well enough before you did it

However, in any marketing campaign, common sense should be employed.
same thing with complaints about marketing. IE: stinky people living in glass houses should not throw stones.

Questions like what are the long term effects of the campign; will it be an image maker or an image breaker need to be asked.
IMHO few things are maker or breakers.

as far as long term effects I fail to see how any competent / intelligent person could make it a long term personal grudge because someone advertised in advertising space near their name. If a person was to hold that sort of grudge long term then others would be best off to define that person as useless from the go and then just move on.

Successful marketers apply a litmus test before any campaign is undertaken, and if it fails the test it should not be used. When a marketing effort is failing the long term goals, it is yanked.
obviously if marketing is failing then it should be altered / fixed / removed.

It is pulled not because of a complaint, but because it is not working and could turn into an image destroyer.
I disagree with that statement. I think you can have respect for others and not try to walk on peoples feet. If they politely ask you should usually respond kindly.

My opinion is that there will always be conflict between some parties (especially in a field such as marketing). Smart people usually handle their problems at the lowest possible level.

Some people lacking in intelligence feel the need to escalate things and make their whole industry look muddy for their own personal gain.

As long as they are ethical hypocrites working for the good of the industry as a whole... all is well. :rolleyes:

[seobook]

Self-serving for who?
those who brought up and complained about the issue using specific examples, especially those who ignored that they themselves were already doing it too.

Aaron; you are missing the point completely. First off, neither Jill nor Dan would have bid on your personal name if you had not started the ball rolling.
right, but some of you were already bidding on trademark terms. is any of this is bad then bidding on trademark terms is far worse than bidding on names.

if we are to look at the issues in general we should keep personal stuff out of it. IMHO you did a rather poor job of that with your first post...and that was your intent.

I just don't happen to agree with the tic-for-tac thingie. I would rather discuss the big issue in public, exactly like this thread is doing. You keep trying to bring it back to a personal and private issue. It ain't. It's much bigger than that and something this industry needs to look at closely.
why use a specific example in your post then. something doesn't smell right there?

what course of action could one take from stopping a blind affiliate from advertising on their name?

[steve sardell]

This is not intended to be a marketing lesson. Just to clarify a few points
Seobook quoteIMHO few things are maker or breakersSince you are a sports fan recall Roberto Alomar.
My opinion is that there will always be conflict between some parties (especially in a field such as marketing). Smart people usually handle their problems at the lowest possible level. If you take out the parenthetical statement I would agree with the first part. The second part has zero to do with the discussion at hand.
IE: stinky people living in glass houses should not throw stones.Have no idea where or why this statement is derived.

To reiterate my stance on the issue. Historically, the syle of marketing under discussion will work. If employed correctly, it can be effective, and not taken offensively. But, if not thorougly thought through, it can backfire. JMTs

[ihelpyou]

Ya gotta be joking, right?

I'm done with this non-sense. It appears that you fail to grasp the issues and continue to think it's personal.

You have now made it personal with me Aaron. You will get absolutely zero respect from me, or others with the attitude you are taking. It took good people to alert me to what you were doing. I did not seek out anything at all. In fact, it was conveyed to me through my "private staff area".

My first post gave an example. I feel it's an important issue to take up in this industry that has everything to do with PPC ads, etc. You can spin this all you wish, but you are not looking good in the process.

[seobook]

My first post gave an example. I feel it's an important issue to take up in this industry that has everything to do with PPC ads, etc. You can spin this all you wish, but you are not looking good in the process.
but you kept running with that example. if you search for your name my ad is not there. there still is an ad there.

why not look for a solution to the problem that still exists. it is apparent that you are not interested in one.

this is like the 5th time I have asked, what suggestions do you have for affiliates bidding on your name?

[seobook]

Seobook quoteSince you are a sports fan recall Roberto Alomar.
spitting on the ump is always a bad call.

[polarmate]

what course of action could one take from stopping a blind affiliate from advertising on their name?Most affiliate programs have terms and conditions that the affiliate has to agree to. The person whose name is being bid on can contact the company/web site whose affiliate is causing him grief. The company/web site can suspend the affiliate's account without any further notice if it is in breach of their terms or take the appropriate action.

[Papadoc]

If people don't see the ethical issues of this within our industry, then nothing I can post will help you see it either. Or... maybe someone sees exactly what you are saying but just doesn't agree with you. Ethical people can disagree as to what is an ethical issue as well as to what side is the right side of that issue. It's a matter of opinion Doug and everyone is entitled to their own, even if they disagree with yours or mine.

[Jill Whalen]

see the irony of that ... I would be upset if and reusing the same example is a broken concept (which in this case it is). not only do I act quickly when asked and not only did some of the "stinky" people who were hypocritical call me names under some guise of ethics, but currenlty when I search for your name I still get an ad
http://www.google.com/search?q=doug+heil

Top Your Competitors Rank
$49 book shows how to soar to the
top of search engine rankings, aff.
www.highrankings.com

Aaron, if you're trying to imply that I bid on Doug's name, you know better. That is an ad from an affiliate of my book, which is not in my control.

as the same when I search for trademarks such as lycos insite
http://www.google.com/search?q=lycos+insite

That is an ad for my free newsletter, which has in the past and may in the future discuss Lycos Insite, which makes it relevant to bid on.

what makes those types of moves any less stinky or any more honest than what is done by many many other marketers?

If you don't see the distinction between that and your ad for YOUR book when someone is searching for ME, which as far as I know doesn't discuss me at all, then I don't know what else to say on the subject!

To me, what you were doing with the ads wasn't a huge issue, which is why I didn't ask you to remove it; but it did tell me a little bit about you...which I simply file away in my memory banks for future reference as necessary.

[seobook]

Aaron, if you're trying to imply that I bid on Doug's name, you know better. That is an ad from an affiliate of my book, which is not in my control.
you do control your affiliates. so I should just post my ads under an affiliate link then?



If you don't see the distinction between that and your ad for YOUR book when someone is searching for ME, which as far as I know doesn't discuss me at all, then I don't know what else to say on the subject!
oops

from the writing page content part....

Don't Be Generic:
If your keyword is "eat cheddar". You can look for the word cheese and try to replace it with cheddar. A good idea in Jill Whalen's "The Nitty-gritty of Writing for the Search Engines" [sidebar: ( <-- non affiliate link now too by the way)] report is to play detective. Ask who what where when and how. Try to avoid stuff which is generic.


I am not certain but it may have mentioned you elsewhere too...need to do a major revision soon. I like revising it as I learn more and more. it is fun.

[Jill Whalen]

I don't even know who my affiliates are! Anyone can get an affiliate link at clickbank and be one. So how can I control them?

[seobook]

I don't even know who my affiliates are! Anyone can get an affiliate link at clickbank and be one. So how can I control them?

use a program which interfaces with clickbank to collect enough data on them to know who they are. <--- really not that tough

the program I am using will not credit payment to users unless then sign up with my site too.

I have a program where I can check everything out. you can use something like
http://www.cbmanager.com/

[Jill Whalen]

I have no desire to police my affiliates.

[seobook]

I have no desire to police my affiliates.
then there was probably little reason to ask
So how can I control them?

[Jill Whalen]

It was a rhetorical question.

[Marcia]

I'm fairly new to it, especially shareasale - it's a lot of fun. I've got a few little things with them, and I like them a lot so far. You can make it so you automatically approve upon application or can choose to review the sites first. Payments are done through them wth a $50 minimum payout, and the merchant gets the IP number on sales, etc.

BTW, a number merchants have it put into their Terms of Service agreement that affiliates are not allowed to bid PPC on their brand name. Good idea, then select ones can be individually allowed as per personal choice.

[projectphp]

I wonder if Pepsi likes Coke saying they beat Pepsi in a taste test? I bet not. All these are done for commercial purposes and they are trading on someone else’s brand.
Excellent post popadoc, however this bit lost me. I understand the concept of using another's brand to market one's own "stuff", but PPC keyword bidding is different for several reasons.

Firstly, there is no comparison. Pepsi tasting better than Coke (the way I remember the ads ;)) discussed both brands. A keyword bid on a PPC focuses on only one, and uses that brand for another's purposes.

Secondly, this is a new legal arena. While old laws apply to a degree, they can not be used verbatim as the basis of new laws. Reinterpretting old laws in new arenas leads to great problems, and by and large, new laws are usually created.

So, while the notion of celebrity may be a factor, it surely isn't the only factor.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I think this thread is a brilliant example of how you can hurt your brand by bidding on others, unrelated, names.

Let me ask you all a question: Do you think the brand "seobook" is stronger or weaker by now?

Maybe more people know about it now but it is also very clear that some people that used to have no objections against this brand now does. Prominent people that talk to more people. My own opinion have also changed. I don't look at that brand the same way I used to - and it's not for the better. Is it good for this brand that people suddenly question the ethical standpoint of the author (I haven't seen any do that before the name bidding)?

For some brands it serves a purpose to deliberately provoke people creating groups that LOVE you and groups that HATE you. Between the two groups great and passionate discussions take place. As an example, thats what you most often do with pop-groups. But, I am just not sure thats good for this particular book.

So, a question to Aron: Did you realize the potential harm bidding on other peoples names could have to your brand and reputation? Was it part of your strategy?

And a question to you all: Do you think, in general, the upside of a few extra sales pay for the potential damage to your brand?

[Papadoc]

I think this thread is a brilliant example of how you can hurt your brand by bidding on others, unrelated, names.

Let me ask you all a question: Do you think the brand "seobook" is stronger or weaker by now?

And a question to you all: Do you think, in general, the upside of a few extra sales pay for the potential damage to your brand?

Mikkel,

You have to bring this question farther than that. Stronger or weaker with who? And... does it matter? Damage to what brand? No disrespect to Aaron, but it's a helluva marketing challenge to make "a brand" out of a single book.

As far as the consumer is concerned, who knows and who cares? There's not a single consumer that will have any idea what his marketing plan is and most would not understand or care about it if they did. If you want to take a look at it exclusively from a monetary pragmatic viewpoint, its a moot issue.

Has he hurt himself within this community of SEOs and to what extent?

Maybe to a very small degree, and probably to the extent that McD is annoyed when the BK moves in next door. If I was advising the McD owner, I'd say don't concern yourself with it. It's life, get over it. In here, it's off the record and people don't act competitively. Out there, it's business. I know F100 CEO's that will have drinks together after work but will go to the office in the morning and try to put the other one out of business. Don't confuse these two scenarios and don't take it personally when someone targets you. T'aint personal, it's business.

[Papadoc]

Excellent post popadoc, however this bit lost me. I understand the concept of using another's brand to market one's own "stuff", but PPC keyword bidding is different for several reasons.

Not really. If you put your Taco Bell next to an established McD and draw business from it, you are doing the same thing. You are using their brand, their marketing, and their reputation and you can probably get by without doing a bit of marketing yourself.

Firstly, there is no comparison. Pepsi tasting better than Coke (the way I remember the ads discussed both brands. A keyword bid on a PPC focuses on only one, and uses that brand for another's purposes.

Actually, they both had the same ad but with different results for whatever that's worth. :rolleyes: Marketers!!!

Sure they mentioned both brands, which actually goes far beyond PPC. If you searched on Allstate and an ad for State Farm came up saying, we are better than Allstate... that would be a straight line correlation to the cola challenges. PPC ads don't even discuss the other brand. Even if you count the keyword as a mention (which it isn't... it's a placement tool), how do you figure they don't mention their own brand? Whether it's their ad, their site or both, most PPC advertisers have their own brand all over the place.


Secondly, this is a new legal arena. While old laws apply to a degree, they can not be used verbatim as the basis of new laws. Reinterpretting old laws in new arenas leads to great problems, and by and large, new laws are usually created.


Nope, not a new arena at least as far as advertising is concerned. It's just a new medium and there are new technologies, but advertising is advertising and it will always be advertising. Granted, new mediums can create their own problems, but those problems are more related to delivery and distribution.

Neither is this new. Business people have been going to where their customers are and where their competitors are successful for a very long time. Advertisers and salesmen have been comparing their products to the competition and saying "look at me too" for thousands of years. A new medium changes nothing.

Second, the net may still be in it's infancy. But from a legal perspective, it's not that new anymore. In my legal experience, in the absence of statutory regulations, courts will almost always draw on other decisions. Most judges do not wish to stifle economic growth and they are almost fearful of making decisions that have no precedent to base it on. Few judges like creating precedents. It means an automatic appeal and judges to not like having their cases appealed and they hate being overruled. If there is a precedent, they stand much smaller chances of it being successfully challenged.

Few new laws have been created for the Internet and almost all (if not all) have been based on similar laws for the non-digital world. Digital copyrights, digital signatures, HIPAA, hacker laws, etc., have all been taken as extensions of previous laws. Don't expect much for changes in advertising law.

[Webvisitor]

If Jill had her book on a highway billboard and Aaron placed his book on a board just behind hers would anyone have a problem with it?

This seems to me like a perfect test case for how Google will tackle personal trademark issues. On Google pages noted literary writers like Tolstoy and Hemingway find no authors selling their books off of those authors works. Is this because no one has thought of it?

The fast food clustering example is not applicable in this case. These businesses understand that you might eat at In-n-out one day and Taco Bell the next. People need to eat every day so this is understood. How many SEO books does a person need. If I am searching for Aaron Wall's book because I heard he was the authority and I saw another person's work right next to his Aaron may lose a sale.

My legal/ethics advisor (wife) opined (non legal opinion) right away that this appeared unethical. I might agree but on the other hand it is a business decision, one supported by Google for now.

Maybe the SEO community should have guidelines and bylaws addressing these issues for members.

[Elisabeth]

You have to bring this question farther than that. Stronger or weaker with who? And... does it matter? Damage to what brand? No disrespect to Aaron, but it's a helluva marketing challenge to make "a brand" out of a single book.

Well, I have to suggest we look at the brand 'seobook' beyond the book itself. the nickname itself, as we've all come to learn in years of forum experience, is in fact a branded entity.

who here can provide the real names behind these notorious forum nicks (and it isn't very hard) :

webguerilla, oilman, webwhiz, skiguide, thejenn, jberg, - just to name a few:)

so seobook and aaron wall have become synomous, and that's a good thing from a branding perspective, despite a little bit of 'bad publicity'

but the book itself had already been given some excellent reviews and and should be judged on its merits alone - see this thread in case you missed it:

SEO book (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=1133)

Has he hurt himself within this community of SEOs and to what extent?

certainly he raised his profile very quickly;)

which many of us can agree is a big deal in this industry, no matter what side of the fence you are on. some of the biggest 'names' in the industry have ruffled some feathers at one point or another. in fact, that may well be what raised their profile to be a known player.

permanent damage? I don't think so.

I think Aarons' track record of over 800 posts here at SEW alone in just a few short months, speaks for itself, as he provided many very helpful tips to those who were seeking advice and intellectual discussions about SEO tactics - the very purpose of these forums.


For some brands it serves a purpose to deliberately provoke people creating groups that LOVE you and groups that HATE you.

I think that kind of illustrates my point about other higher profile figures in the industry;)

So, a question to Aron: Did you realize the potential harm bidding on other peoples names could have to your brand and reputation? Was it part of your strategy?

I don't think there was any intentional harm meant, nor did aaron really expect it to turn into this - though I do think he recognizes it is a hard lesson learned. It appears that he's been extremely cooperative with those who did take issue with it. that says a lot, IMO.

[PhilC]

I haven't read the whole thread but I think I've got the general idea - just about everybody, except Aaron, is against people buying AdWords/AdSense ads for searches on personal names.

I'm different. I don't see anything wrong with it. If he were advertising things that would damage the person, then Google would probably pull the ad on request, but, as far as I know, he isn't doing anything like that. He's advertising something that is relevant to those names, in just the same way that people advertise something that is relevant to words.

When a publication is producing a feature about something or someone, they phone around relevant companies looking for ads. Google is a publication - they publish search results, and they place ads according to the topic. Some names are strongly associated with certain topics, and he's placing ads according to the topic. I don't see anything wrong with that, provided that the ads aren't damaging to the individual.

[Papadoc]

This seems to me like a perfect test case for how Google will tackle personal trademark issues. On Google pages noted literary writers like Tolstoy and Hemingway find no authors selling their books off of those authors works. Is this because no one has thought of it?

I'm betting supply/demand and ROI figure in somewhere. I see a few there, but no more for Beelzebub and Satan, yet I don't think there's a legal concern here. :D

The fast food clustering example is not applicable in this case. These businesses understand that you might eat at In-n-out one day and Taco Bell the next. People need to eat every day so this is understood. How many SEO books does a person need.

A few fast food restaurant owners might disagree with you. It's perfectly applicable. A sale lost is a sale lost that you never make back. And in that business, a 20% loss is thousands per day.

[seobook]

I think this thread is a brilliant example of how you can hurt your brand by bidding on others, unrelated, names.

Let me ask you all a question: Do you think the brand "seobook" is stronger or weaker by now?
I think I am more informed of the opinions of many in my industry and have gained a ton of knowledge from the conversations in the applicable threads. For that I personally have gained a ton...even with any downside.

Maybe more people know about it now but it is also very clear that some people that used to have no objections against this brand now does. Prominent people that talk to more people. My own opinion have also changed. I don't look at that brand the same way I used to - and it's not for the better. Is it good for this brand that people suddenly question the ethical standpoint of the author (I haven't seen any do that before the name bidding)?
I have seen many others do it. Improved awareness is a big deal.

For some brands it serves a purpose to deliberately provoke people creating groups that LOVE you and groups that HATE you. Between the two groups great and passionate discussions take place. As an example, thats what you most often do with pop-groups. But, I am just not sure thats good for this particular book.
It may not be good for that particular book, but I have gained great feedback which perhaps I can even illustrate and use in that ebook. There are lots of things I want to learn about and do outside of SEO and marketing. I think these threads were great for my own personal growth.

Even I am kinda amazed at how quick some people who I think are amazing came to know my name. Some of these people have programming skills or a decade of marketing experience. I do not.

I only gain feedback and learn quickly becuase I am willing to do random different things...to perhaps take risks. If I were unwilling to take risks I may as go get a job at the local fast food chain and retire from the web. The one surefire way to fail on the web (or in life in general) is to take no risks.

The web is all about being creative, doing what you are interesting, setting up good and bad feedback networks, challenging the norms, learning fast. In the future I may make what many people consider to be huge errors (I know I have made more errors than most my age have), but so long as I am learning, I do not intentionally do things to harm people, am willing to listen to feedback, and persue what I am interested in I should do fine...as just about anyone who does those things should do.

So, a question to Aron: Did you realize the potential harm bidding on other peoples names could have to your brand and reputation? Was it part of your strategy?
I figured a few people would ask me about it. And many already have. Each time I removed their ad for the specified reason. I did not expect people to make these threads and thus it was not part of my brand strategy. A while ago on my blog (September 11th oddly enough) I stated the following after I saw what appeared to be one negative ad running on AdWords in response to my ads:

My goal is not to piss people off, but to:
extend my distribution;
build more link popularity;
build business partnerships;
and sell more ebooks.

Some of the responses you will get from other businesses will be positive...some will be negative. The good thing is that you are getting responses.

Running these ads helps you open the doors to some future business partnerships.
Running these ads helps you glimpse the motives and thought processes of others in your field.
Running these ads also help you view some of the relative branding strength of various businesses / personalities in your industry.

And a question to you all: Do you think, in general, the upside of a few extra sales pay for the potential damage to your brand?
I really have not made many sales directly from those types of ads. You can actually count them on your hands...not many. The last few days have had way more sales than normal. Of course there are factors outside of these threads which also relate to that, but these threads did cause a bunch more sales.

Based on that, the fact that the people who started the threads seem to have their problems solved, and that the threads have changed from focusing on me to an interesting conversation about the particular topic (which should be had and would possibly be not as rich in texture without close to home type examples) I think the whole experience is likely a positive for the SEO community and almost all parties involved.

[mcanerin]

An excellent way to look at it, Aaron! One thing that has impressd me throughout this thread is that it very quickly could have turned into an unprofessional flame-o-rama - and didn't.

Even at it's most heated it was pretty mild - unusual when someone is being used as an example personally. Kudos especially to Doug, Jill and Aaron. Since both Doug and Jill have years of experience, skill at forum communication and position in the industry I'm pretty impressed Aaron was able to stand his ground as well as he did. :)

I still disagree with the personal name targetting as a practice (mostly from the professional courtesy angle, rather than a legal or marketing one) from my own standpoint, but I have a much better understanding of the issues involved than I did before this thread.

Cheers,

Ian

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I agree, Ian. Real life examples and even personal ones makes sense in a thread like this when it surves a more general purpose. Personal vandettas, flamming and legal actions should take place (if at all) outside this forum.

I think this thread has been a good example of where to draw that line.

[Jill Whalen]

For some brands it serves a purpose to deliberately provoke people creating groups that LOVE you and groups that HATE you.

I actually don't think most people intentionally ever do that. People who are passionate about things may come across that way, however.

I really have not made many sales directly from those types of ads. You can actually count them on your hands...not many.

And I think that's the point, and what makes it seem like you simply wanted to capitalize off the brand name of others. Of course you're not going to make many sales off of a search on someone else's name, it's not targeted. Any sales you may have made or not made is not what bothered any of us whose brands were being targeted. (And yes, my name is one of my brands whether it's been legally trademarked or not.)

It makes it appear that the only purpose of bidding on these names would be to confuse people into thinking you were somehow associated with the brands you were bidding on, since your ad showed up when their name was searched. Whether or not that was your intent, it's distasteful, and possibly illegal, if it does indeed create confusion as determined by a court of law.

Also, you stated that you were creating ads that appeared near a person's name. Yes, that's the end result, but the more accurate statement is that you were advertising on other people's names. Phrasing it differently doesn't change what it was.

That said, it's great that you've obviously learned a lot from this thread, and I'm sure many others have too. :) Business is business and we all have to try to determine whether the risks of anything we do are worth the rewards.

[rustybrick]

This turned out to be an excellent thread. It touches on so many points from trademark issues to common courtesy.

I am not sure if this was mentioned in any of the posts in this thread (I've been away for 3 days). I remember Garret French, when he was over at WebProNews at NYC SES conference last March/April. He was bidding on many SEM's names to drive traffic to the WebProNews site. I think Danny called him out at the trademark session, I covered it at my blog under the name of Leggo My Trademark (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/000175.html). I did not note the point Danny, I believe, made about Garrett. At that time it was funny and Garrett was promoting a news site.

Just very interesting...

[PhilC]

"HighRankings" is your brand, Jill, not your name. Like many others, your name is strongly associated with seo, but it's not a brand.

You are saying that there's something wrong with advertising on the same page as information about you. I disagree. The serps are effectively a page that is published about you (and others with the same name, or partial name). All the ad is doing is saying "here is something that has to do with that person". I can't see anything wrong with that.

If somebody wrote an article in a newspaper about you, and the newspaper specifically sold ads to people who had something relevant to sell, would you object to the ads? I don't think so, and I don't think you should.

[rustybrick]

I feel a personal name can turn into a brand over time. Actually, that is the goal for many marketers. If that was done over time on purpose or not is a different story.

Legally, I am not sure there is a problem with bidding on a name. And Google allows it as long as you do not use it in the text of the ad (in the US). But we are all in the same industry, so it is not just a legal debate.

[Marcia]

I don't agree on that point, Phil. High Rankings may be the domain and "business name" but people will look for it because it's Jill Whalen. High Rankings got the branding secondarily because it belongs to Jill. Some may possibly not even know the domain, but might just have read something or heard the name mentioned. Fact is, Jill could totally change to another domain altogether and the name would still be searched for.

People's names become known in many ways, even nowadays through forums, mention at or being at conferences, and being referenced in articles and blogs, conversations, etc. People are quoted by name - not company; even if it's mentioned it's secondary. For example Mike Grehan - off the top of my head I can't recall his "company" - his name is his branding.

Not to digress, but speaking of branding and forums, what would be the scenario in a case like this for someone with a handle like Nacho. ;)

[PhilC]

There are certain personal names that are brands, but not in this industry.

That's a side-issue anyway. It's exactly the same thing with a proper brand name. If the ad is relevant to the brand, print it. Why should it bother anyone if ads appear on the same page?

<added> I was writing this post as you posted Marcia. As you can see, I say the same thing about proper brands </added>

[Marcia]

>>There are certain personal names that are brands, but not in this industry.

Of course in this industry, Phil. Why else would anyone buy adverts to come up for searches on some people's names?

[PhilC]

I think that whether or not a personal name is a brand name is a side-issue, Marcia. I was thinking of brands like "John Lewis" and "W. H. Smith" in the UK, "Stella Artoire", etc. that are brands. We don't have anything like that is this industry. We have some well-known names that are only known inside the industry, but that's all. As I said, it's a side-issue.

I'm merely stating that I see nothing wrong with placing relevant ads on pages that are about individuals or companies - personal names or brand names. It's common practise.

[dannysullivan]

BTW, a number merchants have it put into their Terms of Service agreement that affiliates are not allowed to bid PPC on their brand name. Good idea, then select ones can be individually allowed as per personal choice.
Indeed, this has always come up at the Search Engine Marketing & Affiliates sessions we have at SES. Here's a write-up of one of those sessions from last year: Affiliate Programs: Moneymakers or Brandbusters? (http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3324901)

There's no "right" answer on how to deal with affiliates other than that you should have some type of policy.

If it's "I don't police them," that's fine -- but you have to then understand you might get called out from people who confuse the actions of your affiliates with you.

Others don't want affiliates bidding on their own brand terms or other certain words. The flipside is that the affiliates may chose to work then for a competitor that won't have such restrictions.

I haven't read the whole thread but I think I've got the general idea - just about everybody, except Aaron, is against people buying AdWords/AdSense ads for searches on personal names.
Don't count me among everybody. I dislike ads linked to someone's name when there's no good reason for doing so, such as just trying to cash in one someone else's fame or the interest in that person, at the moment. But my dislike rapidly decreases as a see a relevant reason to do so.

Scenario 1: Britney gets married, divorced in 48 hours. Someone buys her name to pitch a video on wedding planning. The relevancy is somewhat there, but it mainly feels like the person figures they'll capitalize on the interest in Britney for a so-so product.

Scenario 2: Someone buys Britney's name to T-shirts and other products with her picture. The relevancy is much higher -- how else are you going to describe these products? I'd find this much more acceptable, personally.

Scenario 3: Britney runs for US Congress. Pro and Anti Britney sides of the campaign buy ads linked to her name. Even much more acceptable to me.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

I very much agree with that last part, Danny: It's got everything to do with relevancy!

Let's take the examples a step further (or narrow it down, if you like). Lets use a newsletter as an example. As Jill said, she do (or did) bid on Lycos InSite for her newsletter - let's look at different scenarios for that:

Scenario 1. Jill never actually wrote about Lycos Insite
In that case even though Insite is about search and the newsletter is too I don't think it's fair use of Lycos trademark.

Scenario 2: Jill have written an article (or more) in the newsletter about Lycos InSite
If the AdWords are targeted directly to one of these articles then I thinks it's perfectly ok to use Lycos trademark. However, if the adds are targeted to the front page of the newsletter, with no way for me to directly go to the Lycos Insite articles then I don't think its ok.

Scenario 3: Jill is thinking about writing that article about Lycos InSite but haven't got araound to it yet
This is to me the same as case 1. As long as it is not published and targeted its not relevant. If it's not relevant then I think it confuses the users and abuse the brand.


This is off course just an example. I actually have no idea of how Jill did run those AdWords and it's not important. My pont was just that direct relevancy have to be there for it to be ok, i my opinion. Just because a publication is about a certain subject or trade dosen't automatically make it relevant for all names within that trade.

[PhilC]

We're almost in agreement there Danny - and I did say "just about" everybody ;)

Personally, I'd be as happy with scenario 1 as with scenario 3. I don't see anything wrong with capitalising on somebody's wedding to promote a product to do with weddings. If a newspaper ran a feature about the wedding, they would be actively seeking wedding-related advertisers. It's normal.

[seobook]

We're almost in agreement there Danny - and I did say "just about" everybody ;)

Personally, I'd be as happy with scenario 1 as with scenario 3. I don't see anything wrong with capitalising on somebody's wedding to promote a product to do with weddings. If a newspaper ran a feature about the wedding, they would be actively seeking wedding-related advertisers. It's normal.
people were even marketing dolls of Saddams sons with bullet holes in the head using their names as triggers. some ads may be in completely poor taste, but people will do it.

people create sites to capture gambling addicts and when I first got on the web I was such a horrible person that I created a site about cigarettes (and i hate smoking - that makes me at least a slightly bad person in my own opinion). the funny thing is that I do not actually sell any cigarettes but make it easy to contact me. many people do and I never reply so I am hopefully ruining the brand experience of companies that are profiting from addiction while profiting from it :)

as long as people believe profit is available or want to express their opinions people will run ads and / or create sites about anything.

intent is probably the single hardest thing to judge, and come to some sort of standard on.

the thing I am not certain about targeting stuff that you covered in the archives may not be any more legit than stuff that you are not covering at all (but I generally think it is usually fine no matter what - unless the owner has a problem - hence the fact that these threads came about). I could make a post on my site saying that these people / companies liked me running these ads and these people / companies did not and then satisfy the archive requirement to throw up those same ads again. those ads were pointing at my site and not directly my ebook. not only did I mention some of the people in my ebook, but many also existed in the archives of my blog.

my opinion is that there is no general one size fits all answer and that people should usually contact one another or the ad server network if they have a problem.

[PhilC]

How about this for an example...

Dolly Parton is known as a country singer. How could anyone object to her name being targeted by a retailer of country music albums? So when a search is done on "dolly parton", an ad for country music is displayed with the results. How can that be in any way wrong?

An ad for bras might be debatable, but I doubt it ;)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

and that people should usually contact one another or the ad server network if they have a problem.

This is what I was trying to adress earlier on in this thread, and I hope it came out right: You can't be sure people will play that game! Once you open the ball game it's out of your hands. You don't set the rules of how other people might respond. Some may just call you and thats all fine, but some may take legal actions - or illegal actions against you. The point is that, in my mind, you have to consider and evaluate those real dangers before you go into things like this.

I have actually heard of people that was attacked by real people with guns because of marketing those guys did not like. That is off course extreme and not acceptable at all but the question is do you really want to trigger such aggressions? I would not. I once had a client that went to those extremes, not actually bringing the gun but he said he would. I dropped that account :)

I am not a big "moralist" - you should do what you think is right and what makes you sleep well at night. I just urge you to be well prepared if you go to (marketing-)war :)

PhilC, I think both your examples are way off what I think is fair use. Also, I am pretty sure it is not legal in most of Europe - not due to trademark laws, but under marketing laws.

[PhilC]

One more things - sorry.

Aaron targets my name. I discovered that after reading some of this thread and before I joined in. Judging by the forums he uses, he may well have something negative to say about me in his book. I haven't read it, so I don't know. My guess is that, if he mentions me at all, it will be in a negative way.

But he's entitled to his views and opinions, and he's entitled to publish them. My name is associated with seo, and his book is about seo. Regardless (almost) of what he may say about me in his book, he's perfectly entitled to target my name because of its association with seo. I can't see any objection to it, and as long as the content doesn't step over the line, I don't see that anyone has a 'right' to ask him to stop targeting them. He's stopped targeting those who asked him to stop, but that's because he's being nice about it, and not because he should do.

[PhilC]

PhilC, I think both your examples are way off what I think is fair use.
Can you explain why you think they are way off?

[seobook]

Also, I am pretty sure it is not legal in most of Europe - not due to trademark laws, but under marketing laws.
could you explain a bit more about the marketing laws you frequently reference? are they country by country and generally overlapping in various countries?

[PhilC]

In the UK we have TV ads that state competitors' names and the reasons why their services are worse than the advertised service. E.g. "our bank's rates are xxx, whereas that bank's rates are yyy, and that one's rates are zzz" - all with the banks' names.

It's not the same as what we're discussing - it's much worse. So I seriously doubt that that there are any Europewide marketing laws that prohibit what you are doing.

[seobook]

In the UK we have TV ads that state competitors' names and the reasons why their services are worse than the advertised service. E.g. "our bank's rates are xxx, whereas that bank's rates are yyy, and that one's rates are zzz" - all with the banks' names.

It's not the same as what we're discussing - it's much worse. So I seriously doubt that that there are any Europewide marketing laws that prohibit what you are doing.
That is one thing I found exceptionally interesting about the small part of the UK I saw. It seemed as though stuff was really direct.

[PhilC]

Btw, Aaron. If there's anything negative about me in your book, Phil Craven isn't my real name. My real name is Ronnie the Dodger. You might want to correct it :D

[seobook]

Btw, Aaron. If there's anything negative about me in your book, Phil Craven isn't my real name. My real name is Ronnie the Dodger. You might want to correct it :D
I do not have any direct problem with you. I have a friend who obviously does have problems with you or someone you know, but I do not know enough about you first hand to have first hand negative comments toward you in my ebook. Ronnie on the other hand... ;)

goes off to edit...

[rustybrick]

Maybe I am wrong, but after catching up on this thread, I think there are two issues to this thread.

(1) Is targeting personal names a smart marketing move?
(2) Is targeting personal names, in an industry you are intimately involved with, a smart marketing move?

Aaron, is no doubt, very active in this industry. He deals daily with most of the people he bidded on. (Side note, and maybe builds some non-bias to the thread: I found and willing allow Aaron to target rustybrick (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=rustybrick&btnG=Search), not that I think he makes sales on it.) If I was him, I would have asked each individual person that I wanted to bid on, for their nod of approval before taking up such a campaign. I feel that it is a smart move to target personal names in question number 1. But since Aaron is so involved in the community, IMO, he should have taken the route of asking for approval first. To me its a matter of respect.

[I, Brian]

How about this for an example...

Dolly Parton is known as a country singer. How could anyone object to her name being targeted by a retailer of country music albums? So when a search is done on "dolly parton", an ad for country music is displayed with the results. How can that be in any way wrong?

An ad for bras might be debatable, but I doubt it ;) My personal take is that Aaron is doing exactly that - and by equivalence, would be setting up AdWords for any well-known country music singer.

I've no real experience in PPC, but my impression is that the ones who know what they're doing, set up campaigns for an extremely wide base of keywords relating to the targeted subject.

In this case, Aaron as simply figuring that people searching for names in SEO will be searching for information on SEO, hence including the names in what is almost certainly a very comprehensive keyword list.

I seem to recall that he also recommends a lot of other resources in his book - including by people he targets for AdWords.

But - just 2c from someone whose name has never been worth bidding on. :D

[seobook]

But - just 2c from someone whose name has never been worth bidding on. :D
I did miss a few names here and there. please state your rejection before this afternoon if you do not want your name added to the list Brian Turner. :)

there were initially many hundreds of seo related words in the keyword triggers. I really was not so much trying to get direct searches for names though - more like wanting my ads to show up on every seo related article showing adwords on the web. I have the data to support the fact that there are extremely few name searches within the seo industry.

I chat on a bunch of the forums and can only think of maybe a few dozen names off the top of my head. Dan Thies is one of the bigger names in SEO and I remember when I told him his search volume it was not some huge number and at that point in time it had 0 clickthroughs.

[PhilC]

I do not have any direct problem with you. I have a friend who obviously does have problems with you or someone you know, but I do not know enough about you first hand to have first hand negative comments toward you in my ebook. Ronnie on the other hand... ;)

goes off to edit...
LOL!!!! Yer getting there :D

[sem4u]

Dan Thies is one of the bigger names in SEO and I remember when I told him his search volume it was not some huge number and at that point in time it had 0 clickthroughs.

Bet he was thrilled with this ;)

Anyway I wouldn't bid on names in this way for this sort of campaign - just my personal opinion.

I doubt the ads would get accepted on Overture either.

[seobook]

Bet he was thrilled with this ;)
he didn't really care. I would not expect to get high clickthroughs for any name but my own. I think there is a college football guy that has my name...despite whatever popularity he has (if he gets super popular my personal blog turns into a fan site for him ;)) I still get very little searches for my name.

[dannysullivan]

FYI, last week I removed a post about a tangental issue in this thread that I'm dubbing namebombing. I thought it should go into its own discussion, which I've now created. You'll find it here: Namebombing: Linking To Influence Results For A Name (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=2111).

[andrewgoodman]

Also, you stated that you were creating ads that appeared near a person's name. Yes, that's the end result, but the more accurate statement is that you were advertising on other people's names. Phrasing it differently doesn't change what it was.

Obviously people look at this issue differently. I'll give you this, Jill, you're consistent, if wrong, on the "trademarks and names advertising" issue.

Back to the point above: the more accurate statement is that he was advertising NEAR search results. So ping-pong back to you.

I have been following this kind of advertising closely since its earliest days, and it has always fascinated me.

A long time ago I stumbled across the fact that Metacrawler was one company that used to sell keywords -- not in the same way as they do today, but a proto-version of keyword-targeted advertising -- links that would come up near SERP's. I asked for some price quotes (that's how they did it then), and you'd get a CPM-based quote. They would even give you a quote on a trade name, like "coke." Why not? The whole Internet is full of ads that are targeted to keywords. Technologies that read pages for meaning, and serve ads near them, are not new. Google AdWords is a subset of that. It would be fun to comb the hard drive of that "four computers ago" computer to find the email from Metacrawler about the pricing on keywords like "coke." I think you could probably get some much more recent such emails in connection with AltaVista.

I've been consistent, too, in the way I describe this type of advertising -- at least since May 2002 (http://www.traffick.com/article.asp?aID=88) I've been trying to suggest they be called "ads near search results" rather than, say, "PFI" or "PFP," etc.

Anyway, ads *near* search results: that's the more accurate way of describing it. They're not ON the search results. The search results are the search results, and a reasonable consumer must be trusted to see that the paid sponsor links (or "advertising results") or whatever are separated off, and you can take 'em or leave 'em. *No one is holding a gun to the consumer's head.* As to whether they are being deceived, this is for a court to decide in individual cases.

Speaking personally, at first it bothered me that some were advertising "on" my name, but then it stopped bothering me. There does need to be a distinction made, though. Those whose wares and pitches look too similar to my own must cease and desist, or at least reword their ads. Those who are just taking a risk and bidding on keywords of various sorts to get their message out? More power to them. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot tell people to be quiet and to not embrace the power of search engine marketing to get the word out about a small growing company... if we did, we would not be truly representing the experimental ethos that has always guided online marketing.

In the meantime, while figuring this out, I bought an ad on my own name, and after talking about the whole issue with Bob Tedeschi of the New York Times, he decided that being a cheeseball enough to buy your own name was an interesting part of the story. They even ran that caption "Andrew Goodman buys his own name on Google" under my photo. So as usual in a world of shades of grey, the only "right answer" was what some editor thought was an interesting lead angle for an article. There really was and is no "right or wrong" on that one. Just minor squabbles barely worth anyone's time.

Here's the thing. Nobody here -- not Aaron, not Jill, not me -- has the money or time to fight out these kinds of legal battles in court, so why not just admit it up front? More money has been handed to lawyers due to sheer arrogance and pigheadedness over the years than any of us can shake a stick at. Silly saber-rattling does nobody any favors. Let's leave the huffing and puffing for the egomeisters with the very deep pockets. Poor seobook deserves his role in this business and has certainly earned a place in it -- as with EVERYONE ELSE IN HERE, through a mix of guerrilla tactics, hard study, hard work, and ingenuity. When seobook gets all mild-mannered like you and me, Jill, it will be a sad day but that's what happens when you become a member of the "establishment." And then some young hotshot will be gunning for him.

Yes, it's a professional courtesy to not advertise near competitors' names, but that's as far as it goes. I usually practice professional courtesy if asked directly and nicely, but professional courtesy amongst SEO's has its limits. Many competitors would happily tell a potential client they're better than me, and that's what I might tell them. Not all participants in the marketplace will show professional courtesy at all times. That doesn't mean it's a war of all against all, just that not all interlocutors can be trusted to be fully disinterested in this debate.

I'm saving my saber-rattling for people who directly thieve my intellectual property (and other things), but that's another thread. If someone has the guts to step up and pay for an ad, then they're taking a risk and adding to available consumer information, and that's healthy for the economy. Only if it is deceptive and really causing consumer confusion should it be considered off limits, legal or otherwise.

[andrewgoodman]

Scenario 3: Britney runs for US Congress. Pro and Anti Britney sides of the campaign buy ads linked to her name. Even much more acceptable to me.

Please don't give her ideas... :eek:

[NFFC]

Mr Goodman, what a great post [the first one not the Britney one]. I tip my hat and hit your rep.

[andrewgoodman]

Scenario 3: Jill is thinking about writing that article about Lycos InSite but haven't got araound to it yet
This is to me the same as case 1. As long as it is not published and targeted its not relevant. If it's not relevant then I think it confuses the users and abuse the brand.


This is off course just an example. I actually have no idea of how Jill did run those AdWords and it's not important. My pont was just that direct relevancy have to be there for it to be ok, i my opinion. Just because a publication is about a certain subject or trade dosen't automatically make it relevant for all names within that trade.

Creating consumer confusion is wrong and illegal, agreed. But I am not sure that very many ads in the margins of Google SERP's -- on your example or others -- would meet the legal tests for confusion.

Mikkel, isn't it also the case that AdWords judges relevance based on CTR's? In other words, isn't it possible to leave aside subjective determinations of how relevant an ad is, since users vote with their clicks? Google disables ads that don't get clicked on.

I've had some interesting experiences in this business... such as finding a really strong ROI when I accidentally bid low on a broad match for an extremely common term. It lasted on Google only about two or three days (I'm not even sure how), and then ultimately sunk to 0.3% or 0.2%. The point is though, even here, the ad was not totally irrelevant. The types of users it targeted were in a buying mood often enough that the ROI for the client was very strong. Advertising works, and there are plenty of folks who would prefer that it *isn't* allowed to work -- for their competitors.

At some point, to change a consumer's mind, you have to be introduced to them, or interrupt them. The "power of incumbency" is so strong in the business world as in the world of PageRank, etc. -- is it not fair to leave some cracks of opportunity for advertisers to experiment and to attempt to *test* what will prove "relevant" to consumers?

Who are we as outside judges to decide what's relevant? If ads don't work, they won't run forever, one would think.

I am far from a disinterested observer but I do believe it comes down to "what is fair commercial speech," not just "which ads are 'relevant'". It's nice to talk about relevant search, but we are also talking about the advertising world here, of which online advertising is a subset. I have never found Pepto Bismal ads particularly relevant to my experience watching a baseball game, and the Rolaids Relief Pitcher of the Day may be cute at best, and far from relevant to my life, but I don't make the rules for what sponsors do to pay for the free TV I watch. And have I mentioned that after reading a story in the newspaper about a car bombing, I really find it banal and trivial in the extreme to see a full-page ad for the Mercedes C230 Coupe with the caption "Don't Wet Your Lederhosen?" It's not only irrelevant to most readers, but insulting and brain-numbing.

I'm glad search advertising is a lot better than that most times, but there's no law that says it has to be.

[Jill Whalen]

I wondered when you'd chime in on this subject Andrew, since you're the only other SEM person I know who's bid on one or more of my trademarks at some point! ;)

Personally, I couldn't say whether it's illegal, or even immoral. I imagine some day the courts will decide on the legality.

Like I've already said, I just think it's kinda stinky is all.

[cline]

I've been targeting personal names for PPC for years. Many of them work very well in terms of traffic and conversions. The reason they work is that the offers are relevant to the people searching on those names.

Some people think there is a harm to this. There may be, but it's not the consumer who is being harmed. Consumers are getting greater access to what they want. IMHO, that's the trump card here. It's really hard to have sympathy for a business that might lose business should consumers have better access to that business's competitors.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Personally I don't buy that argument. It's the exact same argument e-mail spammers use and I find it just as wrong for that. Just because some people react and convert to "spam" dosen't change it much in my mind. Spam that dosen't convert goes away - only spam that "works" stay around, but it's spam nevertheless (however, only e-mail by law).

[cline]

That's odd that you think the argument is similar to one being made by email spammers. I see the argument as being essentially opposite the email spammers' argument.

The email spammers's argument is that it doesn't matter how many people the message is irrelevant for, as long as it is relevant for a tiny number. In fact, this more than anything else defines it as spam. If the conversion number was relatively high, it would mean that the message was relevant -- and if it's relevant it is the exact opposite of spam.

Sure, targeting an ad that has nothing to do with Britney Spears on the keyphrase "britney spears" is spam. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about, say author A, who writes about SEO, advertises targeting the name of author B, who also writes about SEO. It's pretty likely that people searching for info about author B are going to be interested in author A's works. This is the opposite of spam.

[PhilC]

I agree with you cline, except in one point. Why would it be spam to advertise a totally unrelated product on a page of serps about Britney Spears? I don't see the logic in that. Spam (untargeted) emails are an utter pain and are intrusive, because they cost the recipients either time or money or both. That's what's wrong with them - not the fact that they are untargeted. But advertising washing up liquid in the Britney Spears serps isn't intrusive at all. If people aren't interested in the ad, they don't click on it. The word "spam" doesn't come into it.

Advertisers want their ads to be seen where lots of people are, and it may well be that so many people search on 'britney spears' that it's worthwhile advertising an unrelated product there. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Britney Spears does not own serps that are produced when somebody searches on her name. The publishers own them - Google, for instance. She has no right to have any influence on normal advertisements that appear on those pages.

Methinks that some people are just being silly.

And whilst I'm here - some(?) people in this business imagine that they are well-known enough to be "in the public eye" - they are not. There isn't a single person in seo who is in the public eye. None are famous. It's self-delusion. Some people are well-known in a very very tiny pond indeed, but that's all.

[andrewgoodman]

I wondered when you'd chime in on this subject Andrew, since you're the only other SEM person I know who's bid on one or more of my trademarks at some point! ;)

Personally, I couldn't say whether it's illegal, or even immoral. I imagine some day the courts will decide on the legality.

Like I've already said, I just think it's kinda stinky is all.

I should probably just migrate this off thread, but let's be factual. There are probably quite a few advertisers who have tried bidding on your name (and mine) -- you just haven't seen them all. There is a good reason my ad didn't come up at SES when Danny typed in example queries (or at other times and places) when this issue came up. I don't make extensive use of the tactic and I want to be clear about that.

Just typing your name into Google now I saw this ad:

Master Search Marketing
Free Expert Advice On How To Get
The Most Out Of Search Optimization
www.basiclingo.com

Clearly, I'm not the only one who has experimented with this. I just happened to be one of the first to try a lot of techniques so I could more fully understand AdWords, which I'm supposed to know a lot about. Surely you've tried things in the SEO game as well, "stinky" stuff even, to figure out what the impact might be. Speaking personally, I have scaled back the practice. But I'm not declaring a moratorium on the practice. Like anything else in business, you need to use common sense and not go on absolutes. I'm not going to die on principle, at least not where a client is concerned. One stands down if it makes sense to do so, i.e. if someone takes it personally. I've noticed a lot of people do.

And let's be clear -- just because someone steps up and pays for ads on certain keywords is not enough reason to imply that they lack business ethics. This is a slippery slope we get on when we start throwing stones in glass houses (and mixing metaphors), so let's not. The day you try to manipulate a site higher in the rankings, you're whupping somebody else's ass in some way, so as for "unethical," etc., let's not even go down the road of casting even implied moral aspersions -- in a public forum yet -- on those who are participating in a keyword auction in a way that doesn't sit "quite right." Most of the good people on this forum have had to figure out what ethics means for themselves, and it usually means turning down certain types of business, not misleading people, and lots more besides. Indeed, it's very tough work to navigate the corridors at SES conferences what with all the halos bumping into one another... clunk, sorry, clunk, sorry... :eek: and here on this topic we've gone from discussing one issue (of a minor nature about the keyword auction) and it's been spun to the point where comparisons are being made to EMAIL SPAMMERS, the absolute lowest of low-lives. Yeesh!!!

Do email spammers put one penny in the pockets of the R&D departments at companies like MSN and Google? So search engines can stay in biz? Advertisers, one must once again remind, pay the toll so the search can continue. Email spammers are purely parasites.

In any case, I practice what I preach. I've taught folks to think outside the box as far as keywords are concerned, so I have used all the tricks I suggest, and a few I don't reveal.

Authors' names are going to become increasingly important in lists of keywords on certain subjects as all keywords on all subject matters get bid up. Don't take my word for it. Thousands of advertisers see the white space on Google, and the keywords, as simply ad inventory. And they will dispassionately test all the ad inventory they can to see how it works. This is simple mapping and stretching of a campaign based on linguistic relationships, nothing more. Google's own suggestion tool (or Wordtracker) might show you those relationships, practically daring you to exploit them, also. If Google's keyword tool suggested "yo mama," someone would probably bid on it.

Today it's basiclingo.com, tomorrow it will be the Harvard Business Review, alibris.com, amazon.com, Amazon affiliates, or somebody trying to sell personalized t-shirts. There are many potential reasons for targeting name keywords. I see no particular cause for alarm.

Recently I have bid on the names of certain public officeholders to direct people to books denouncing them. Obviously this is another legitimate example; it is quite factual to advertise a certain book (near SERP's triggered by a search which includes somebody's name) with the synopsis of that book as the ad copy, take it or leave it. A certain % click, and a few buy. Case closed.

If you were an author and had a book on Amazon.com, that service would use matching and personalization technology to put links in the margin that told the reader "you might also be interested in..." some different book or product, even if they had searched for your name. They might also display AdSense ads nearby. And as far as I'm concerned, that user might well indeed be "also interested in" the related item. Remember, this is Gen. 1 of Adwords. Yes, this generation is clunky, and participants in the ad program have a weird amount of power, which makes it a fertile playground for edgy marketers, & a great outlet for free speech. Just type "john kerry" or "george bush" and see whatcha get. If you don't like Kerry, says this advertiser, you can buy "W Ketchup." - http://www.wketchup.com/ - it's America's ketchup.

As more quality advertisers enter, "Amazon-style" recommendations might actually be very useful to people. Who knows. What is clear is that the technology will not stand still, and your name (and anyone's name) is just ad inventory as far as many advertisers are concerned.

This is something that I don't care all that much about, to be honest, but the principle seems worth defending because one shouldn't let one's personal preferences (I don't like it when someone advertises next to *my* SERP's) determine a whole position on an issue. Early on I noticed various categories of keywords people could bid on, and pointed it out, as any keen observer would want to do for clients in a competitive auction situation where one is playing to win. Having pointed this out, I am agnostic as to whether I actually adopt all of these various tactics at any given time. Not adopting some of them just means a lower ROI for clients, so I can't take the decision lightly. That doesn't mean it's now acceptable to start making analogies to the lowest of the low, like email spammers.

I will always adopt a mixture of these tactics and at some point, when one is being tactical, someone else will come along and call one or another of these tactics "stinky." Maybe day-parting, or bid-jamming, or some other particular tactic is "stinky" as far as various people are concerned. But why?

Not so long ago, all SEO's thought all paid search was evil and corrupt. But life goes on and everyone will continue to state their case as best as they can and hope their argument finds a willing audience (let's all run to the FTC shall we?).

So, it's not a major issue to me that I can advertise on "Jennie Finch" (currently only a single ad, BTW -- five-cent clicks anyone?). But when someone tells me "thou shalt not," it does give me an itch to continue to do it, since I tend to think it's my legal (and moral?) right.

Speaking of Jennie, her name brings up this ad:

US Fastpitch Softball
Learn from the pros at
US Fastpitch Camps this summer.
softballcamps.com

Is this wrong? You say tomato, I say tomahto, and the lawyers get our money.

I guess we'll continue to see debates on these things at SES and in the courts, because someone can *always* claim material harm in almost any situation. If certain companies and their lawyers ruled the planet, linking would be illegal. It would be illegal to breathe.

There are many disputes in our litigious world, but many are needless overreactions, IMHO.

[McFox]

While I was busy stuffing lots and lots of 'names' (not seo) into one of my PPC on Adsense, I did happen to notice that Adsense now gives the option of running a campaign on a) Search Network, b) Content Network, or both.

McF

[seobook]

While I was busy stuffing lots and lots of 'names' (not seo) into one of my PPC on Adsense, I did happen to notice that Adsense now gives the option of running a campaign on a) Search Network, b) Content Network, or both.

McF

Where to show my ads:
Show ads on Google and the
search network (check box)
content network (check box)

AdWords does Google no matter what. you cant just buy content.
its Google
or Google + content
or Google + search
or Google + content + search

[dannysullivan]

Indeed, it's very tough work to navigate the corridors at SES conferences what with all the halos bumping into one another... clunk, sorry, clunk, sorry
I'm offtopic, I know -- but what an image! Andrew, you've got me laughing out loud :)

[McFox]

AdWords does Google no matter what. you cant just buy content.
its Google
or Google + content
or Google + search
or Google + content + search

Ah. Ok. I only noticed the option yesterday when I was adding to my list of keywords. Thought I had discovered something new. :rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

McF