Google Revises Trademark Trigger Policy

[ChrisBishop]

Tweet

Very intriguing day and discussion - especially with the likes of Lastminute.com bringing in the legal teams.

I think the steady but "sit and wait" mentality is the most sound however, it is disappointing to see a few green-eyed affiliates dreaming of millions trying to abuse or manipulate T&C's.

And how will lawyers get their heads around broadmatch, expanded match, automatic match, synonymn match, embedded search, contextual when so many merchants, networks, agencies & affiliates don't even partially or fully grasp their similarities & differences. Blimey some can't tell if something is sponsored link or an an affiliate link or neither.

To "appear" or to "actually bid" that is the question.

- Qui Gon Jinn - Training has started at House of Fraser already!!!

[mutasim]

The much anticipated Trademark policy change kicked in yersterday - as predicted its caused quite a stir with old affiliate ad's kicking into action and other affiliates cashing in at a time of uncertainty and change.

Surely you are still bound to your Affiliates agreement, in which some merchants state that you cannot use Trademarked words or reserved words as an affiliate.

[SimonW]

As a trademark holder you can permit people to use/not use your trademark... therefore could you simply say "you are not permitted to use my trademark as a trigger" to anyone who does so? Would that be a legal situation?

I think the law is clear that you can't use the name in connection with a product in the area the trademark applies, where it might constitute passing off. But that isn't some blanket control on using the word.

Google already accept competitive claims in advertising as long as the landing page substantiates the claim. Their example for this is the phrase 'Better than AdWords' makes the point clearly enough I think.

So using it as a trigger word seems entirely legal, and I'm surprised they haven't allowed it before.

[jess1]

The Merchant ts and Cs still apply or should.. it is after all their affiliate program and even if you dont like the rules, rules is rules move on. If you are making money for and on behalf of the merchant and are have begun to flout the rules by bidding on the brand, then its conflict and expect to be suspended and have commissions removed.

[Helen]

Having chatted on the phone with Jess today and spoken about Google changes and the repercussions I agree that affiliates should still be adhereing to T&C's. Just becuase Google have dropped Trademarking does not give affiliates free run IF there are T&C's in place which state they cannot bid.

I've been in this industry a while and when some affiliates don't play by the rules merchants get nervous and this has an impact on those who do adhere to program terms.

[Qui Gon Jinn]

By the same token they should watch NON-affiliates .. ie their competitors .. less focus on the affiliates i say.

Also noting that some affiliate program T&C's actually permit it, ie clause 4.6, which i have pointed out before (though not necessarily agree).

Then we have : If it doesn't say you cannot bid on competitor terms, which ideally it should be ascertained first by affiliate on what the policy is with regard to the new changes, but in thoery it is normally taken that if T&Cs don't say anything about normal paid search brand restrictions then it is assumed an open policy and the affiliate can bid on brand, could this then be taken in the same way as previously mentioned. ie If it doesn't say you cannot bid on competitor terms then it is assumed okay.

I am not agreeing, just highlighting that in many instances no T&C's are actually being broken. Though i think networks/merchants would rush to put these in rather say if there is a BBG or non-deduping on merchants own brand related ppc.

[jess1]

By the same token they should watch NON-affiliates .. ie their competitors

Of course they should and affiliates could help them
But if a merchant does not want affiliates bidding on their name, forget if the affiliate has the legal right to do it or not, its not the affiliates company or program and thats the point. Merchants should have the right to decide who, what, where and when (within reason). Affiliates have the choice to either accept or move on or decline but I dont think its too much to ask, not to brand bid on the merchants name.

So any affiliate thinking they can ignore ts and cs and carry on regardless are going to be in for a rude awakening as some are already finding out.

Common sense is all nice and well but when you are trying to educate merchants by showing them examples and you have just about cracked it... sooooo close QGJ, inches away so that the affiliates get to actually do a bit of brand bidding on the merchant. You have indicated that affiliates have cleaned up their act, affiliates adhere to ts and cs and JUST as you are saying this, the merchant types in their name into google and sees that not only have the affiliates not adhered to TS and Cs, you cant contact them, the network now has to get involved, they cant contact them. One affiliate was contacted admitted to bidding on the name then next day, he is at it again. So tell me... I really wanna know, how how great does this industry look today? All of us? Networks included? From the outside looking in, answer me that?

How great does it look when a big wagging finger affiliate on this forum decide they are going to see how much they can get away with? Well not on my watch. I suspended six affiliates yesterday and one today. Merchant ts and cs, they are not harsh APA dont work that way, but no bidding on the merchants name means no bidding on the merchants name, regardless if it would keep competitors at bay, if the merchant doesn't get it, that's the merchants problem not mine and not yours, some people have to learn through trial and error, the goal is not to change the merchants mind but break through if you get them thinking about it eh?

I hear you Paul but please accept that not all affiliates are like the majority.

[bapages]

Just recently there had been a couple of threads about merchants closing accounts of inactive affiliates, have they now effectivly shot themselves in the foot as you cannot get thrown off a program you are not party too?

[retrolink]

There must be a lot of Network activity going on regarding affiliate compliance to the brand-bidding, and negative-matching, parts of T&Cs at the moment.

I did a search for just a few discount code type terms, including the brand terms Dixons or PCWorld, and quickly saw a mixture of all the following Affiliate sites pop-up in the Adwords results, seemingly going against the T&Cs:

- VoucherCodes.net
- DiscountCodes.co.uk
- CrazyCodes.co.uk
- PriceDash.co.uk
- UKDiscountVouchers.co.uk
- VoucherCodes.com

I wonder how long it will take Networks to take action on these type of breaches?

I accept that some Ads may be a result of old campaigns that have re-activated, but these type of campaigns would have been quite easy to spot since May 5th...

Cheers,

Nick

[Maxafi]

We run one of the sites listed there, and I can categorically state that not a single one of my keywords includes a brand term.

However, if you're search term was something like 'dixons discount codes', then we'll be shown because the phrase discount codes is there (which, obviously we do bid on).

Try it for a fictional company and you'll see exactly the same thing.

[retrolink]

We run one of the sites listed there, and I can categorically state that not a single one of my keywords includes a brand term.

However, if you're search term was something like 'dixons discount codes', then we'll be shown because the phrase discount codes is there (which, obviously we do bid on).

Try it for a fictional company and you'll see exactly the same thing.

Are you saying that you negatively match against the term "Dixons" but still show up for a search on "Dixons discount codes"?

I bid on discount codes too, but negatively match as requested by the relevant T&Cs. Dixons is one of them and my ads do not appear.

[confuscius]

Are you saying that you negatively match against the term "Dixons" but still show up for a search on "Dixons discount codes"?

I bid on discount codes too, but negatively match as requested by the relevant T&Cs. Dixons is one of them and my ads do not appear.

Good point, well made - should lead to some interesting responses!

[retrolink]

Good point, well made - should lead to some interesting responses!

Or no responses at all!!

It's interesting to see that Dixons now seems to be being outbid by www.VoucherCodes.net on some of the discount code terms that affiliates have not applied negative brand matching to. That is quite amusing, and I know that AW are aware of the issues, but nothing seems to be being done.

[ian-d]

How strange, i've just received a 'approval status' email from adwords suspending a campaign that has use of a trademark term (didn't realise the word was a trademark). I thought adwords had stopped getting involved in this?

[retrolink]

How strange, i've just received a 'approval status' email from adwords suspending a campaign that has use of a trademark term (didn't realise the word was a trademark). I thought adwords had stopped getting involved in this?

I have seen the same - It seems as though some trademarked terms have remained in place.