Google & Affiliates - Rumor?

[5starAffiliatePrograms]

There is a rumor circulating on some boards about Google possibly banning affiliates from 3rd party trademark bidding. This could put a serious damper on some affiliates earnings.

Have you heard about this? Any thoughts or guesses on what will happen?

Google Rumors on Cutting Trademark Bidding [11/12/2004 ]
http://www.revenews.com/wayneporter/...es/000277.html

Linda

[AussieWebmaster]

Depending on how the creative is done and the landing pages etc. there are ways to still advertise for trademarked terms.
Google gives an overview:
http://www.google.com/tm_complaint.html

Comparison for competitors is one method...

[Nick W]

Danny just said somthing interesting about it being unlikely on the SEW Blog.

[AussieWebmaster]

Figured someone would debunk this one fast.

[5starAffiliatePrograms]

Hadn't read Danny's blog about it. Good to know, thanks.

[AussieWebmaster]

Okay here is the report about what is going to happen according to Google: Search terms that are populated with numerous affiliates (and a parent corp listing or not) are going to be cut down to one single advertiser.

The decision will be based on the best ad rank - not just who is the parent.

It does not really directly relate to TradeMarked terms - but since many of these terms are used by affiliates the associtaion has been made that way.

How will an affiliate be determined? Basically for now if the landing pages are going to the same site - say LLBean shopping cart page or any such companies ecart.

Guess the work around is to have the initial link stop at a page independent of the sponsor's website.

[OptimizeOnline]

Originally Posted by 5starAffiliatePrograms

There is a rumor circulating on some boards about Google possibly banning affiliates from 3rd party trademark bidding. This could put a serious damper on some affiliates earnings.

My understanding, here in the UK at least, is that Google will not allow any advertiser to bid on a trademark they do not own if a) the trademark owner has asked Google not to allow any advertiser to bid on their trademark and b) the trademark owner has not given specific permission that an affiliate, reseller, partner... can be excepted. I believe this also covers the use of a trademark in the copy of an ad.

[bradbyrd]

AussieWebmaster,

Is this confirmed in the US? I havent called contacts there to discuss yet, but several folks from my company were at a meeting at the Googleplex last week and as I understand it there was some discussion then about Google looking to "solve" the affiliates problem. Basically, their argument is that it's a bad user experience, which makes sense to me -- multiple advertisers bidding on a keyword where all point to the same destination site is no different than old fashion SEO spam in my book, from a user's point of view... confusing and useless.

If they are really going to limit listings to one single advertisers per URL, then it would be a MAJOR policy switch -- and quite I would think it would cast a damaging blow to revenues of the affiliate service companies (Linkshare, BeFree, Performics). I would also suspect that it would point to some major changes in the affiliate contracts of major advertisers (ie. restrictions on which keywords they let affiliates bid).

Can you re-explain your understanding of these potential new rules again?

[Jeff Martin]

Originally Posted by OptimizeOnline

My understanding, here in the UK at least, is that Google will not allow any advertiser to bid on a trademark they do not own if a) the trademark owner has asked Google not to allow any advertiser to bid on their trademark and b) the trademark owner has not given specific permission that an affiliate, reseller, partner... can be excepted. I believe this also covers the use of a trademark in the copy of an ad.

I dont have the article(s) handy but G basically said (after being sued a few times) that if you have a TMed name that others are using as triggers for ads then its up to you and your army of lawyers to get the 'offenders' to stop. Of course that means C&D letter(s) and then when that fails you take them to court. Better hope their not in India....

[OptimizeOnline]

Originally Posted by Jeff Martin

... but G basically said (after being sued a few times) that if you have a TMed name that others are using as triggers for ads then its up to you and your army of lawyers to get the 'offenders' to stop.

Yes, I heard that too. However, it does appear that Google may be dealing with these issues on a regional basis and/or case by case basis.

One of our clients is an agent for a 'big brand' company that is very protective of its trademarks. Since our client is a de facto agent the 'big brand' company needed to send Google (in California) an official letter proving they were the trademark owner (stating registered number and country of registration etc...) and that they gave permission for our client to use their trademark in their keyword list AND in the ad copy itself. I gather it is possible to be specific as to whether an agent or affiliate can use a trademark in their keyword list only, in the ad copy or both.

[OptimizeOnline]

As a caveat Google also said:

"Please note that the above procedure applies only to the use of trade marks in advertisements. We do not process trade mark claims for sites that appear in our search results."

[Jeff Martin]

Im all for trying, however, I have a major travel client whose name is being used by Travelocity, Cheap Tickets, and many others to trigger their PPC ads. I wouldnt expect much from G.

[AussieWebmaster]

Originally Posted by bradbyrd

AussieWebmaster,

Is this confirmed in the US? I havent called contacts there to discuss yet, but several folks from my company were at a meeting at the Googleplex last week and as I understand it there was some discussion then about Google looking to "solve" the affiliates problem. Basically, their argument is that it's a bad user experience, which makes sense to me -- multiple advertisers bidding on a keyword where all point to the same destination site is no different than old fashion SEO spam in my book, from a user's point of view... confusing and useless.

If they are really going to limit listings to one single advertisers per URL, then it would be a MAJOR policy switch -- and quite I would think it would cast a damaging blow to revenues of the affiliate service companies (Linkshare, BeFree, Performics). I would also suspect that it would point to some major changes in the affiliate contracts of major advertisers (ie. restrictions on which keywords they let affiliates bid).

Can you re-explain your understanding of these potential new rules again?

I was told about this yesterday... and it is something that the Google people are making their clients aware of. Exactly when it will start I was not told but as has been mentioned the impact on Affiliate advertising area is going to be huge.
I guess the small search engines are going to become very popular soon.

[andrewgoodman]

Originally Posted by bradbyrd

AussieWebmaster,

If they are really going to limit listings to one single advertisers per URL, then it would be a MAJOR policy switch -- and quite I would think it would cast a damaging blow to revenues of the affiliate service companies (Linkshare, BeFree, Performics). I would also suspect that it would point to some major changes in the affiliate contracts of major advertisers (ie. restrictions on which keywords they let affiliates bid).

Can you re-explain your understanding of these potential new rules again?

Way to work Performics in there, Brad.

You might also mention Chris Carpenter, whose followers are legion. (Recommends an affiliate strategy in his ebook Google Cash.)

[AussieWebmaster]

I wish I had something to shameless plug!

[dannysullivan]

Thread closed due to fresh discussion here: AdWords - 1 affiliate per merchant to be announced tomorrow.