Google Revises Trademark Trigger Policy

[pistol101]

Just to let you all know, we have no intention of changing our policy over brand bidding and will continue to work towards a network, where there are no brands being bid on or any merchants using local cookies on the brand to overwrite affiliate commissions.

We will be helping those merchants that need help to protect their brands.

[figleaf]

Steve - a list of negative keywords in my policy would not prevent an affiliate selling for another merchant bidding on our trademark. I could only request our affiliates do not do it, not the other way round.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

Figleaf,

What is your reasoning behind negative keywords? Are you saying that if an affiliate is promoting another lingerie / swimwear merchant & NOT bidding on your brand, that they should put in negative keywords of your brand incase it broadmatches.

If so tsk tsk.

[adamski]

Click here to download AW's reaction to the policy change.

Feel free to contact me with any questions/concerns.

Adam

[figleaf]

QJG - I'm not saying that at all, so no 'tsk tsk' required. Steve was suggesting that I can put negative keywords in my policy but my point was that I can have all the policies in the world, if an affiliate is representing another merchant, my policies would be rather redundant.

An affiliate not driving traffic towards us and not affiliated to us can do what they like, can't they?

Simon

[Tel]

Morning,

Just a quick thanks to AW for the email regarding the change and advice/options for merchants. (I'm also aware of the link above.)

Particularly like the 'Don't Panic' advice..!

Any other formal network literature available?

Cheers,
Col.

[morleymouse]

An affiliate not driving traffic towards us and not affiliated to us can do what they like, can't they?

yes. i guess your only fal lback then is the network (if the affiliate is operating via the same network that you are with)

[Shane]

Yup "Don't Panic" is the best advice at the moment

Google is opening up the TM arena however you can bet they'll turn the screw up on the bid prices so affiliates and competitors are only got to appear there if they are willing to pay the amount requested.

I'd say wait and see although It's probably best to have a plan in there for a worst case scenario if you wake up on the 5th and your top ten competitors are crawling all over your brand.

A brand bidding group is the option that seems to be most mentioned So if that's what you end up doing then how about rewarding your best performing generic/content affiliates with Brand bidding rights instead of the usual "brand specialists" some networks will suggest....

Yup..those brand affilaites who don't want to touch your program much normally yet are only too happy to bid on [your brand] and at a push.. [keyword your brand] so if you are going to do a brand group then give your brand bidding rights to your hardest existing workers.. not those that wouldn't bother with your progam before.

Brand bidding is the easiest of all PPC work.. it's a no brainer.. I could let my 9 year old set up a campaign so don't let anyone kid you that you need brand specialists.. or "strategic support" from those who have a proven history of brand bidding! (proven history just means they've had lots of BB campaigns before!.. doesn't mean they are any more capable than any other affiliate out there!)

this "proven history" spin is just crap .. sure.. you want guys who know what they are doing but if you leave it up to some networks they will farm it out to their favourite brand bidders whilst anyone with basic PPC experience can do a brand campaign to the same standard as 95% of those who get most of the brand groups already.. very few of them go the extra mile and it's often not the usual suspects who do.. some of the ppc brand work out there is shameful, some merchants are paying out tens of thousands per month in commission to "affiliates" adding zero value.

Here's an alternative suggestion : Sharing the Wealth - The Solution to Brand Bidding Groups » Affiliate Marketing Blog

[mainlime]

That didn't take long : Channel 4 - News - Lastminute prepared to sue Google

[drivetowin]

But I'm not sure what they could actually sue Google for?

Surely if Google owns the space and is willing to sell it to the highest bidder then they should be able to - otherwise is that not a bit like there being a bus stop outside Tesco and then Tesco suing the bus stop operator because Sainsbury's pays to have an ad on that bus stop.

Personally I think the whole reason for Google making this change is so that they avoid the danger of litigation by making no claim to police brand names.

Interesting to see the spate of merchants issuing revised ppc policies on Friday afternoon - a bit of a knee jerk reaction by most of them to something which may or may not prove to be a problem in the long term.

[Brigadoon]

Agree with you Keith on the knee jerk reaction. I made the same remark on another thread.

Too many people have gotten into a blind panic about an issue that may or may not seriously inpact on their business or brand. Ultimatly if a competitior places an advert on your brand term, then the company offering the best value or service will win the business and prosper. However if you just want to stop competitiors advertising near your pitch for no valid reason, then you should give up and go home because you can't compete in the open marketplace!

On Friday, merchants were issuing revised terms, stating that they do not want affiliates to bid on the brands of the competition, as they have no intention of doing it themselves. Lets see how long this anti competitive stance lasts!

[Brigadoon]

That didn't take long : Channel 4 - News - Lastminute prepared to sue Google

Strange how lastminute have been bidding on the term "First Choice" & "Thomas Cook" for a couple of days now in view of their concerns. It doesent look like an affiliate link either!

[bapages]

Just a thought, would not Google and other search engines come under the eye of the Advertising Standards Agency?

[Brigadoon]

Just a thought, would not Google and other search engines come under the eye of the Advertising Standards Agency?

Not sure what you mean?

[drivetowin]

Just a thought, would not Google and other search engines come under the eye of the Advertising Standards Agency?

Why would they?

If a bad advert gets printed in a newspaper or magazine or a bad advert is shown on TV it is the advertiser who gets pulled in front of the ASA, not the publication or TV station - they merely provide the conduit to deliver the ad to the consumer - as far as I can see the same would be true of Google - they just sell the advertising space, they don't produce the ad itself.