Comments on: Google change could stir more advertiser angst

Policy reversal on trademarks in ad text could anger companies already sensitive about use of trademarks as search keywords, but could also allow retailers to make better ads.

[kenstech_com]

These advertisers are short sighted. First of all, it's not necessarily best to be in the number 1 position on google adwords for your search term (your copyright name for example). Often number 3,4, and 5 will convert better because of click happy surfers who have no intention of buying anything (though you have to test for your particular market). Second, people who are using the copyrighted name as a bidding keyword aren't taking money from the name holder. In reality they are giving that company more exposure and more sales. In fact I expect this tempest will die out in a few years as that fact becomes obvious.

Ken
http://www.kenstech.com

[monkeyfun14]

Uhm why not?

Why should a site like kohls come up in the advertising area before nike?

If I were to search Nike in the search box.

[Pete Bardo]

Hey, Ken, it's a trademarked name. You can't copyright a name. As for the other whiners about this new policy, it's not really Google's responsibility to police the use of trademarks in AdWords. Just as TV networks aren't responsible for trademark infringements by their advertisers. Not all uses of someone else's trademark constitute infringement. That's what make it a matter for the courts. Why would anyone expect Google to police and/or prevent the legal use of trademarks, anyway?

[eltoro2827]

if only they can get their services to work without outages.

[_Jae_]

At first I was worried, until I realized it was talking about advertisements, not search results. Then I wondered that this wasn't the policy from the start. For *advertisements*, I'd rather see Kohl's sales than Nike's website in the ads. I want Nike's website in the search results.

[clynx]

Another reason I like and use Google. When is the US going to do this with patent owners. USE IT OR LOOSE IT.

[limefan913]

As an AdSense publisher, I'm thrilled about this. Revenue dropped pretty harshly (read cut to 1/4th) after they restricted trademarks. I'm hoping bidding will become more competitive for keywords, leading me to make some cashola. :)

Hurrah money.

[flickrz]

Google should tell those advertisers, do whatever you can. We are the search. We don't care what you think as long as user experience is not being affected and we are gaining market share.

[AudrinaLowe]

Google needs to be careful here in that it's not the only gig in town anymore. Advertisers have the choice of a growing presence for online advertising in yahoo and msn along with a host of second tier operators. Yes Google is the biggest, but if it carries on upsetting those that pay the bills, it's going to loose out in the long run. If nothing else its actions will encourage it's loyal users to try other options....be careful!

<a href="http://www.discountdigitalcameraheaven.com/Discount-Nikon-D5000-Digital-Camera.php">D5000</a>

[Renegade Knight]

You are mixing loyal users and advertiers. Advertisers flock to where the users are. If Google keeps the users happy with search results that work for them. Advertisers will follow.

There are more options. That will keep everone doing a better job for us all.

[ewhisper]

First off, it seems every news system got the first part of their article wrong.

You could not use a trademarked keyword in an ad copy only if the trademarked holder had asked Google to not allow it. The default is that it could be used (in the US, Canada, UK, and Ireland - this list was just expanded).

In many ways this makes sense. If you open a Best Buy flyer, do you want to see generic products or the ads for Apple iPods and Dell computers?

There are so many pending lawsuits, that this might change yet again.

[Bob Kakis]

This is ridiculous! I had spent $5,000 in legal fees to get Google to stop allowing my trademark to be used as an Ad Word. Now, it was all for nothing.

I wish Google would die. Better yet, I am going to start calling my company Google - See how they like it!

So what about brands like Virgin - They have a full spectrum of wares and services - How will Google police that? Trademarks can encompass many, many products and services, not just pop or a shoe!

[paintshield]

Google are playing a very dangerous game here given that trademark infringement is a CRIMINAL offence in the UK and they would potentially be facilitating a criminal act (not just a civil matter) I cant wait to see who might be first to cotton on to that one and haul their backsides into criminal court!