When you are not brand name bidding?

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Tweet

Today we received a call from a network who represented merchant X, who were persistent with their accusation that we were bidding on the brand name of the one of their competitors names merchant Y.

Which we were NOT, merchants Y's name is a singular word & there is no derivative of that word or phrase for merchants Y's brand anywhere within our account what so ever, whether it be part of a phrase, broad or exact match.

However, the ad did appear for that term.

The network chose not to believe to us and were quite forthright saying that they had no alternative but to suspend us.....guilty until proven innocent? My partner Julie was extremely put out by the attitude and unwavering incorrect opinion of Mr Z.

Duly wishing to sort this out, we contacted Google who on this occasion responded quickly, confirming what we initially had said all alongd & sent a couple of emails confirming our claim, that there were no variation of brands name (merchants Y) or misspelling appearing within our account & that we were not violating any trademarks pertaining to merchant Y.

It's admirable that merchant X goes to the effort of ensuring that affiliates are not bidding on competitors brands like merchant Y in order send traffic to them merchant X. Even if it's simply, in their own interests, to protect themselves legally, when affiliates & a number of merchants appear to probably do this regularly.

I say probably, because now this becomes an even greyer area as you can never be 100% sure whether someone is brand name bidding or not like in this instance. An advertiser like ourselves are certainly not psychic as to terms they are appearing on, especially if they don't appear within their account.

But, the network should also believe the affiliate instead of pandering to the merchant and give the affiliate due credibility rather than trying to ride roughshod over them. Which with regard to this merchant has been continual over a number of months.

I personally think it's wrong that Google should display my ads for a term I am not bidding on, potentially jeopardising my relationship with the merchant & network. The only correlation between the two merchants X & Y was that they were in similar areas of business. Especially when our ads appear on there without our knowledge or doing it.

Even though we appreciated the quick response from Google to clear our name, they seemed more concerned about merchant Y, registering their mark with Google.

This is not the first time this has happened, the last and only time we have witnesses it was about two years ago with another merchant & network. But we have never noticed it since, but how could you know anyway.

Is Google doing some kind of contextual advertising on their own site for phrases not bidded upon?

Also, it's definitely suggests that any merchant or network cannot be absolutely 100% sure that any affiliate or competitor merchant is bidding on their brand.

Being quite defiant, we informed the network on our communication & they agreed there was no need to suspend us as it was sufficient proof for the network & merchant.

In a telephone conversation, the network said that because we had the proof from Google, we wouldn't be suspended & that it would be acceptable enough to the merchant knowing we are not bidding on a competitors term.

Lets see what happens tomorrow....

[bapages]

I have had similar experiences in the past of ads appearing on other words not associated with any of the keywords I had inputted. The content generator is, I believe monitors other similar ads from others account and can choose to place yours with associated successful keywords inputed with in others ads to give you optimised performance.

This also begs a further question of brand name bidding, for example is it fair that a merchant bans brand names when they have a generic word in their name such as example "john Screwdriver, the famous hardware store" (fictional). You may have the keyword screwdriver or screws or can even have diy and google probably will pitch your ad on the merchant above, as you will have the content generator on to optimise your ad.

[Paul Wright]

For the same reason you'll find X amount of clicks registered on your adwords campaign but when you count up the clicks for each individual keyword the two don't tally. I'm guessing these "extra clicks" are your ad being displayed on terms you never knew you were reaching. Sometimes this will work in your favour and you'll make extra sales, other times you'll be pouring money down the drain or as in this case stepping on other peoples toes (albeit non intentional).

I agree that this is a crazy situation. I'm sure the merchant will see common sense and back down once all the evidence is there but as you rightly put it, should you have to prove your innocence? I think not. If they had gone straight to google and reported it, presumably google would have replied with "sorry merchant X, i'm afriad they're not bidding on that".

Result : One merchant looking rather silly and not so keen to shoot from the hip.

p.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Following on...today has arrived....

Because we had proof from Google yesterday we were informed on the phone yesterday from the network we wouldn't be suspended from the program.

The network called this morning when I wasn't around.

Then when I started work this afternoon, we found out our links were not working.

Upon a phone call, they claimed had had told my partner Julie this morning...untrue...when I told her she informed me they hadn't. She called them back & Mr Z denied he had said that to me.

We didn't even receive an email saying we were suspended.

I requested an email from the network accepting that we were not bidding on the competitor brand, Mr Z felt no need & would pass it on to whoever.

Upon conversation Mr Z had with Google, we had to place negative singular word terms into our account...now just imagine having to do that for every scenario we don't know about because of a Google flaw & an unreasonable network. If we do that the terms now appear in our account albeit negative, when reiterating no terms for that merchant Y previously existed..

What is a little odd is that ads appear for the mispelling for this merchant Y too.

I said I would do that only when the network could have the courtesy to send an email accepting that we were right. Mr Z felt they didn't need to that or even inform us our links would not be working because we were suspended. Mr Z felt the phone call was sufficient...when any last conversation about suspension was yesterday saying that we were informed wouldn't be suspended....now you may say only a letter...this is not the first time the network has messed up on this merchants program....it's been a few times...so there is a history and each time the network has been unreasonable with regard to this program, we have had to endure a lot of unnecessary aggravation from the network on this particular program, something we will take up with the new affiliate manager of the program. Previously we had direct communication with the merchant as the network failed to manage our realtionship with the merchant correctly.

So for the moment

I said to protect our backside we need this in writing.

The solution would be to place in negative keywords, but the network is failing to acknowledge we were not in the wrong in the first place.

Mr Z & the network said they were aware of this thread, and didn't seem too happy, though we haven't mentioned the network yet, which we will do a in due course. They might even come forth first knowing this will be the case and in my opinion highlights the aspects of the network we dislike and that is uncompromising.

Then we shall bring up the whole history, telephone logs & email correspondence. Something which the new affiliate manager at the merchant needs to be aware of. This program is also on another network, so they will be briefed too.

[wwwb]

could someone have made a mistake and put the wrong url in their own account?
If so would Google be able to trace the account where the offending ad came from?

[Supercod]

Google needs to sort this one, or can see Affiliates, Networks and Merchants being wrongly accused of bidding on registered trademarks.

Now I think it's fine for Merchant/Network to request that you remove certain keywords when promoting a Merchant, and you can go about it different ways. Personally I am up for the "we are having an issue with the keyword can you remove it", approach. Threats should only come if Affiliate not responding or won't action what is needed to be done, but everyone has their own approach I guess.

Of course you do have certain elements that will bid on brand names when told not to and these people should be kicked and commission removed, but I certainly give the opportunity for the Affiliate to give his case first. Kind of like spyware, I always give the spyware affiliate a chance to reply and often very comical replies they are, only do it just in-case an innocent been caught up, however I not meet one yet

[Graham@Buyagift]

Sounds like a complete joke to me. QGJ has given proof to the network that it was an error by Google, yet the network fail to have the courtesy to admit their error.

And the whole way the suspension has been handled stinks IMHO. A bit of simple common courtesy rather than finger pointing would have had this situation resolved without issue, instead things like this happen!

Also very worrying that ads are showing on keywords which are not in an account - could there be a situation where brand name ads are appearing for unsavoury terms??? Merchants wont be happy.

Graham

[Rich]

I've had a look into this and it seems Google is showing ads for terms related to the ones you enter in to adwords. This would be fine but causes this issues on brand names. I would imagine that if merchant Y requested google ban bidding on their term it would stop this (even though no one is bidding on it directly) though that doesn't help if your issue is with merchant X.

The best thing I can think is for whoever is enforcing these rules realise that this is how google are working, and be a lot less hasty.

If you perform this search you will see that Google thinks that John Lewis is related to Dixons. The ~ operator returns pages that mention the term or any of its synonyms, so ~term -term returns the pages that incude the related terms but don't include the term entered. The resuls have the synonyms highlighted for you.

This isn't a great example as both Dixons and John Lewis ban PPC bidding but If you do it with merchant X above (which QGJ let me know) it shows that Google think merchant Y is a synonym for merchant X and is the most likely reason the ads are displayed.

[Supercod]

Just so it’s clear here, I am NOT saying this keyword was in the account. What I am saying is because Google done a match and displayed it, the Affiliate didn’t know his advert was showing on the other brand, that can’t be right.

While the Affiliate can add negative keyword in to stop it, he can only do that when he knows about it and that’s why should not be kicking folk form programs until they have had a chance to put their case across.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Now Mr MD joins in... yep guess who...

Saying along the lines of my staff have have told me (meaning Mr MD) that i was firm with them. Excuse me Mr MD, do you think we are just going to sit here and not stand up for ourselves...with persistant finger pointing at us and raised voices.

After inserting negative keywords in, we were permitted back into the program..which was just prior to Mr MD caling, however on this subsequent call from Mr MD of the network.

Mr MD speaking to both me & Julie, insinuated we are liars and the Mr MD of the network is threatening unless we are abide by their rules...for which we are not breaching...we shall be kicked off the network & our account closed, claiming we knew about it....and that the keywords were appearing.

Excuse me Mr MD are we psychic..knew what exactly?

Obviously we didn't know until it was pointed out yesterday. When the demand from the network was to receive the necessary correspondence from Google and no further action taken from the network...as that would suffice.

But they changed the goalposts and Mr MD now starts finger pointing after we had been previously suffer it all from Mr Z, proclaiming we are professionals in PPC so you would know....Ermm Mr MD thanks for thinking we are professionals, but we are the first to acknowledge we don't know everything & this is certainly one of them. Having banded this around a couple of expert PPC'ers nor did they.

Does that sound like the kind of network you want to do business with?... not at all...

If their staff are uncompromising to us, we seriously won't tolerate it & will be equally as firm in return....just like when a bully continually points a finger in your face. Or someone repeatly making false accusations like Mr Z & Mr MD have without waivering.

Let's say the exchanges have been fairly heated.

>>We therefore requested these threats from Mr MD in writing or email from him. This is not the first time Mr MD has made a veiled threat to us<<

Therefore we will pursue every avenue accordingly if the need necessitates it.

If he does follow through then one of the numerous courses of action open to us would be to communicate with every merchant on the network accordingly...who's contact details we already have collated in anticipation that this is a network we cannot depend on.

Let's put it this way, if the financial well being of your family was being threatened upon, how far would you go.....well that is how far we are prepared to go.

Only once have we seen something similar to this before. But we certainly don't want our ads appearing for keywords we have not bidded on & incur that extra expense & aggravation...Something Google needs to address.

Basically Mr MD said along the lines the evident proof provided by Google wasn't acceptable / sufficient or still seemed to disbelieve it. Again it's that scenario when somebody or a network simply doesn't get it, no matter how many times you repeat it or try to expain.

Even though we had definite proof from Google proclaiming we were innocent with no offending keywords contained within our account and that we not infringing on any trademarks for merchant Y, Mr MD's attitude didn't change saying it didn't prove anything & was quite dismissive of it all, claiming we knew....knew what exactly..

What childish petulence... it was laughable.

If we did know we certainly wouldn't be posting now....and enquiring with Google how this came about as it causes concern for us.

It's a shame Google Guy doesn't frequent these forums.

Just think of all those advertisers who are appearing for keywords they didn't have within there account.

My concern this that by judging previous behaviour & threats, either the network or certains persons within the network, will be relentless in trying to get gain kind of retribution in order to try and get one over us. Affiliates should be aware how easily they could be victimised.

I haven't disclosed the merchants name because we maintained a good business realtionship with their previous affiliate manager, we haven't yet had communication with the new merchant affiliate manager, but certainly will inform them with an accurate account of the whole history.

The saga continues..

[aly]

I personally think it's wrong that Google should display my ads for a term I am not bidding on

The google algo links words and terms related to a search word/term. Now if Coca-Cola bids for terms related to "Cola" then Pepsi-Cola should not come up because it's a registered trademark but (for example) if W&W Cola has not bothered to register their trademark then a search "Cola" or "WandW" Cola can show up. Coca-Cola havn't done anything wrong and technically niether have google. Not sure on the legalities but I think as long as the merchant has not registered as a trademark then they wouldnt have a leg to stand on. I think if google were shown to have taken "due care" by having all notified registered trademark lists filtered into their algo they have acted within the law. So I think from a legal perspective it's W&W Cola that is at fault and they can not complian if another company / affiliate or network shows up above them on adwords.

Merchants are gong to find more and more of this in the future if they don't protect themselves from other companies getting all the action. The law is available to protect them but unfortunatly you have to sign up to it.

Networks have terms and conditions for us to adhere to. If the merchant wishes to accuse someone of something to the point of then removing him from the program causeing him financial loss (not even mentioning the stigma of being a "guilty" of something) and the affiliate claims they are sticking to them then they have to act as a middle man and make sure who is right or it will backfire on them. I think if this happened to most of us we would be more than "firm" on the phone !!

If a mistake is made then it's no big deal to appologise, most of us will be happy with that. I think an appology in writing would be the only "professional" way to do that from both the merchant and the network.

Merchants are gong to find more and more of this in the future if they don't protect themselves from other companies getting all the action. The law is available to protect them but unfortunatly you have to sign up to it.

Only my opinion
Aly

[trafficbroker]

Politics aside, as Aly says if you bid on broadmatch for a keyword like 'Debenhams' you may appear on miss-spells and what Google deems as associated words, which often includes other brands.

I only noticed this when looking at the excellent keyword tracking on Trade Doubler that shows the full search string. On my bids for Debenhams I was showing for John Lewis, House of Fraser etc... Either phrase match the term or put a negative in for the brand you don't want to show for.

Cheers,
Neil

[mboxl1]

The google algo links words and terms related to a search word/term. Now if Coca-Cola bids for terms related to "Cola" then Pepsi-Cola should not come up because it's a registered trademark but (for example) if W&W Cola has not bothered to register their trademark then a search "Cola" or "WandW" Cola can show up. Coca-Cola havn't done anything wrong and technically niether have google. Not sure on the legalities but I think as long as the merchant has not registered as a trademark then they wouldnt have a leg to stand on. I think if google were shown to have taken "due care" by having all notified registered trademark lists filtered into their algo they have acted within the law. So I think from a legal perspective it's W&W Cola that is at fault and they can not complian if another company / affiliate or network shows up above them on adwords.

Merchants are gong to find more and more of this in the future if they don't protect themselves from other companies getting all the action. The law is available to protect them but unfortunatly you have to sign up to it.

Networks have terms and conditions for us to adhere to. If the merchant wishes to accuse someone of something to the point of then removing him from the program causeing him financial loss (not even mentioning the stigma of being a "guilty" of something) and the affiliate claims they are sticking to them then they have to act as a middle man and make sure who is right or it will backfire on them. I think if this happened to most of us we would be more than "firm" on the phone !!

If a mistake is made then it's no big deal to appologise, most of us will be happy with that. I think an appology in writing would be the only "professional" way to do that from both the merchant and the network.

Merchants are gong to find more and more of this in the future if they don't protect themselves from other companies getting all the action. The law is available to protect them but unfortunatly you have to sign up to it.

Only my opinion
Aly

I agree with your opinion Aly - when a company fails to protect itself - who else can it blame. If a company registers itself with Google Trademarks then it will remove other bidders (intentional or accidental) from being able to bid on Brand terms. Google, as we all know continually 'evolves' (sometimes backwards) and this is all part of the fun - it is a rule that we need to adapt to as we become aware of it. Companies/Networks (whoever) that don't adapt (like the original company it sounds) will fall by the wayside allowing the original poster to continue their ethical work.

JW

[Matthew Wood]

I was reading this just about to email Qui to find what was going on then realised it was back in 2005! pheew!

[Hero]

I was reading this just about to email Qui to find what was going on then realised it was back in 2005! pheew!

yes, but it's still very much an issue 2 years on with google contextually placing ads even if they don't have the keyword. If the affiliate has a G account manager, problem solved. What happens to the smaller guys though?