Affiliate Redirected Products in Google Base

[DanielCoe]

Hi,

I think I have mentioned this before, but it really annoys me when affiliates get their products into Google Base intentionally (old Froogle).

Sometimes Google does put links into base without us knowing which is great. But I have found there are lots of sites with urls of .cn (China) which just redirect to merchants such as Play.com, Littlewoods and many others. This is against Google Base listing policy.

Have a look here at the various examples:

voice control dalek - Google Product Search

What does everyone else think?

[cyates]

i personally say fair play ..

i never thought about it but isnt that what affiliate marketing is all about and why some are making more than others ...

i would never have thought of that ... good idea i think

can you copy the paragraph where it says its against their terms ?

too lazy to go searching myself

[drivetowin]

From the Google Base t's and c's

Posting is not permitted for the promotion of affiliate sites or products sold through an affiliate marketing relationship. This includes item pages that are made up primarily of advertisements, or pages where advisements obstruct the view of the item.

__________

Just report the offending sites to Google and they will be removed pretty quickly.

[cyates]

ahh yeah they do seem to make it extremely easy to read lol

ok cool .. i think its a good way of promoting products though ( not that im going to use google lol )

[John Jupp]

Hi,

I think I have mentioned this before, but it really annoys me when affiliates get their products into Google Base intentionally (old Froogle).

Sometimes Google does put links into base without us knowing which is great. But I have found there are lots of sites with urls of .cn (China) which just redirect to merchants such as Play.com, Littlewoods and many others. This is against Google Base listing policy.

Have a look here at the various examples:

voice control dalek - Google Product Search

What does everyone else think?

They don't. Didn't you notice the time delayed redirect? It goes to a landing page and then redirects. Nothing rule breaking there. However didn't know about the snippet concerning affiliate marketing relationships. Even that is ambiguous as we as affiliates don't SELL anything.

[cyates]

ahh well spotted john.. didnt notice that myself ...

agree nothing wrong with that and may now consider testing a few see what happens

[drivetowin]

It's still rule breaking as they are affiliate links - redirected immediately or with a delay.

[Travel Pixel]

obviously against the google base t&c's. Desperation stakes if you are prepared to try and hoodwink google by using redirects on there.

[chs]

i personally say fair play ..

i never thought about it but isnt that what affiliate marketing is all about and why some are making more than others ...

i would never have thought of that ... good idea i think

can you copy the paragraph where it says its against their terms ?

too lazy to go searching myself

This is not ethical in my opinion as it breaches Google's T&C's and it was this kind of spamming that prompted Newitts to remove their product feed. Networks usually clamp down on reported affiliates for this and ask them to remove their links

[Gjmacd]

I got nailed for this. I had a bunch of products in Google Base and was removed. My domain that I had these links going to was "Disapproved" and I'm now no longer able to submit a data-feed with my affiliate links to Google Base.

Here's the problem with this.

#1. The TOS and conditions are brand new. Google recently added "language" that says you can't do this. When I looked into doing this, there was NO terms violation. In October or November, they added the language. Did I know this was wrong? No, actually, when I did this, I thought "wow, this is going to be great, it'll drive concerted traffic to my site for my affiliates, and I'll get a much higher chance of success." I really did think this was OK. But I realize, thats moot now.

#2. They are not being fair about the rules because there are BIG players doing the same thing that are still in Google Base.

#3. A keen SEM / SEO person will note what Google has done in the last 120 days with Google Base products. If one notes that the prior to Google Base, Froogle was really a JUST a product search engine, and nothing more. Google Base has grown into a HUGE player because of two main reasons. The first, they are adding product links to Google Base in the Natural Search results, RIGHT AT THE TOP of the search engine result pages. That means, if you've got a product that someone searches for in "normal Google", and you're doing your job in Google Base by optimizing your products, you have a very, very good chance of showing up in that list. Remember, AdWords and Natural Search aside, your listings will show -- for free.

I have a HUGE problem with removing people form Google Base based on Affiliate linking and redirecting if they do not have "fair rules" for everyone. Case and point in a couple examples...

- Ebay. How is it that Ebay can post feeds to Google Base for products on Auction in Google Base, but small players like me can't push affiliate links in? Ebay makes money on a listing fee, and when someone purchased the product (note: they have Buy Now, not all of Ebay is auctions), they make a percentage of the sale.

- Shop.com. This is a company that is very similiar to Amazon in that you put your products into their site, they process the order and take a percentage. Since they are doing the checkout and credit card capture, I have no problem with them being in Google Base -- they are the merchant. However, I've seen links that redirect back to the merchant on products they are feeding into Google Base, the merchant in Google Base will say, "Shop.com", you'll click on it, and it'll go back to Shop.com, put up an Ajax dialog that says, "Redirecting to Merchant", and boom, you're on that merchants page.

- Other CSE's. I've seen other CSE's (Shopping.com, PriceRunner) in Google Base. To me thats just as bad, if not worse than pushing in affiliate links.

My final thoughts on this.

I'm very concerned Google has become far too powerful in the e-commerce space. They already control 80% the search traffic and now it appears they are bringing out products and services that allow for merchants and e-commerce operators to promote their products and services "within" Google. Things like Google Base and other "Beta" and Lab tools are only created to further promote Google as THE source for all things Internet.
That's all well and good, but this is killing the small player. If only the big companies can afford clicks with AdWords, or be allowed to market in Google Base, it will create a system of the "haves" and "have not's", and this is exactly whats happening.

I fully realize that Google is about "quality" information and I actually have NO PROBLEM with them scrubbing their data and making sure people are not "spamming" their services as in the case with affiliate re-directing and Google Base. However, you can't claim that its fair right now when you have clear examples of violations to their TOS by players who have a far bigger bank account than people like me.

My take on this is that if you're spending big money in AdWords, you will not be touched in Google Base, no matter what you do.

Since I spend ZERO in AdWords, I was removed. Even though on some of my feeds, they were not affiliate links and were for products and services that only I sell from my site.

The other problem here is the concept of Google Base and what its responsibility is to the consumer market. Is can't be "free" and continue to be based on rules that are jaded by the customer's bank account and how much they spend with other services. Its really collusion to have a service be labeled "free" and then remove people from the service who are not paying you for another service you offer. It smacks of a "class action" suit in the making.

Further more, someone earlier in this post said, "I say fair play..." I can't agree more. First off, you have to think about a couple points here:

1. If you have links that redirect someone and the product is sold to the person who clicks on that link, what does it really matter? I had a 60% hit ratio from Google, which means 60% of the people who clicked on my links and were brought to my affiliate PURCHASED. How is this "bad" for Google Base, the merchant and the affiliate. I would agree that removing all redirecting links would be better for the "quality" of Google Base, but the point is finding the "best price, product, service". How can you start making distinctions based on someone else making money off redirecting them to a merchant? There's a reason that person clicked on that link vs. another one... This rule is broken and should be amended or clarified.

2. Affiliates who get mad at this sort of "gray" area of promotion into their affiliate campaigns are fooling themselves. They are not only benefiting by getting the sale, they are benefiting by getting the customer. One would argue (if you were an affiliate), "I already have Google Base feeds to my products, why do I want to compete with my partners and have to pay them?" This is such a load of crap. What do you care if you get the sale and the customer. The only "competitor" you should be concerned about is the competitor that can take your sale or customer from you. Customer aquisitions are critical to e-commerce success, and everyone knows that if you gain a customer (new one), the likely hood that they will re-order from you and not your competitor is HUGE. It shouldn't matter that you paid an affiliate to aquire that customer or how that affiliate got that customer to you. If you're worried about that, you should get out of the business.

3. Any merchant who has affiliate programs and markets in Google Base, AdWords, Overture, and all the other CSE's are competing with ALL their affiliate partners. If you've done any of this for a while, you know that once your affiliate marketing is buzzing along, its very possible that you'll be in AdSense, or some other network "competing" with your affiliate partner at some level for the "click". With that in mind, I see Google's rule about this to be wrong.

Thats it for now.

[Hero]

what google base do not allow, and which had been disallowed from its previous version (it's not new), is affiliate links sending the traffic directly to the merchant. However, GB is happy for affiliates to list products from their pages, send the traffic to their site and then those customers to be sent on to the relevant merchant. Those listings are treated as any other advertiser and there is no problem loading those up.

[drivetowin]

Sorry Hero but you are wrong on that one - from Google's terms and conditions:

Posting is not permitted for the promotion of affiliate sites or products sold through an affiliate marketing relationship. This includes item pages that are made up primarily of advertisements, or pages where advisements obstruct the view of the item.

[John Jupp]

Google Base Help Center - Google Base Program Policies

Your URLs must link directly to the webpages that contain information about your items. We do not allow links that redirect. An affiliate's datafeed contains information about the product. That's why description content is supplied.

Posting is not permitted for content borrowed from other websites. You must own the content you submit, or you must be submitting on behalf of the content owner. We are submitting on behalf of the content owner. They gave affiliates the product information in the form of a "spreadsheet" or datafeed.

We do not permit duplicate posted content, or the promotion of mirrored sites or products. Posting using automated software programs or "robots" is not permitted. Now THAT is possibly where there is a problem.

Google Base Help Center - Google Base Terms of Service

impersonate another person or entity, or falsify or delete any author attributions, legal or other proper notices or proprietary designations or labels of the origin or source of software or other material; So DONT say you are the merchant.

So where does it say affiates may not post cos I can't find it?

[Hero]

Keith, I am very well familiar with what Google state on their pages. I am also very well aware of what they have directly stated to affiliates I work with who list their sites on the directory, and they have been told that listing their pages is absolutely fine.

[drivetowin]

Fair enough Hero, I was only going by what they publish on this page:

Google Base - Programme Policies

If that doesn't apply then great...........wagons roll.........