Comments on: Lawyer sues Google over unfruitful ads

An attorney has sued Google over ads placed on the Internet's low-rent district, such as error pages for nonexistent Web sites. The ads cost $136.11 but were a bust.

[annoyingpractice]

This is one of Google's more annoying practices. We do a lot of advertising on Google, and we have never had one conversion from a parked domain or an error page. Once we could turn these off we did. I'd bet that Google has made millions off this practice, and if there's any place for a class action suit, this would be it.

[The_Decider]

This lawsuit wouldn't have happened if Google didn't place ads in places it should not. i.e parked domains, error pages...

If the ads showed up in relation to legal searches like they should have done Google wouldn't be getting sued.

It is only a small claim, but a case like this has the potential to blow up in Google's face since they do a ton of bad ad placements.

[as2319]

The word "Tool" comes to mind. Conversion Rates come with compelling offerings. Obviously visitors did not find his Call-To-Action. But look at all the press he's getting now. If I spend a grand, can I get news coverage like this?

[NestoJones]

This is great, click on the designed by link at the bottom of his page. On the designer's page he claims to have been "into computing" since 1994, and apparently has been building websites exactly the same ever since......wow. His other sample pages are just as bad, if not worse than Levittes. Honostly I think the only thing Levitte is going to accomplish with this lawsuit, is putting his poor, lost, Croatian web designer back on the boat to Eastern Europe.

[mrchaos102]

ROFLMAO yup that is why right there.

[michaelo1966]

Wonder how many people would've signed up for whatever he was offering if he paid $136 for a TV, or how many people would've wandered onto his website? He could have adjusted his campaign to only target search results, or to preclude sites he didn't like; he just chose not to.

[winstein]

I think too many people want Google to be the fall guy for the cost of the inefficiency of Internet advertising. How many people sued the mailing list company back in the days of direct mail? Back then, advertisers were happy to just get 1% response. Those were not even considered as "conversion". I mean parked or error pages are not at fault here. If people who find products or services on the parked page ads, they should click the link and advertiser should pay. But the bad conversion rate has more to do with copywriter than where the ads are being displayed.

[zeroplane]

Woah! Hello 1994, my god look at his site and the 'designer/programmer" website is even more horrible. At least the designer/programmer doesn't claim he has a BS/MS/Phd in computer science.

Sad, real sad. I would say poser comes to mind.

[spark9991]

having placed google ads and received more than 500,000 impressions...not one of them resulted in any business for me...google ads aren't that great it turns out...more and more it's just spam in a different can

[t8]

This guys business plan is to sue Google, and it was probably thought up beforehand.
Google led the horse to water, but the horses didn't drink. Not Google's problem. Need to change the website or sell something else. Not every business sells a product just because a customer walks in the store. You could place your store on a busy street corner, and still not sell your produce. People will buy if the product is compelling.
Anyway this guy is probably getting heaps of traffic to his website because of this story. I think he is just an opportunist.

[t8]

This guys business plan is to sue Google, and it was probably thought up beforehand.
Google led the horse to water, but the horses didn't drink. Not Google's problem. Need to change the website or sell something else. Not every business sells a product just because a customer walks in the store. You could place your store on a busy street corner, and still not sell your produce. People will buy if the product is compelling.
Anyway this guy is probably getting heaps of traffic to his website because of this story. I think he is just an opportunist.

[Dalkorian]

by t8 July 16, 2008 3:47 PM
Anyway this guy is probably getting heaps of traffic to his website because of this story. I think he is just an opportunist.
-----------------------------------------------
Thanks, I didn't even think of that. So many people were laughing at how bad this website is that my curiosity almost got the better of me - until I saw your comment. No traffic from me for loser lawyer scumbag!

[t8]

Another thing.
Why is an ad on a parked page less effective on a parked page than a page with real content.
People click ads because they appear to advertise something they are interested in. It doesn't matter where the ad comes from.
When I hit an error page or a parked page, I will only click an ad if I want to, it is no different to a website with content.
Both parked pages and web sites with content can make people click ads in the same fashion.

[berock]

Couldn't get anybody to click to his website by his ad, but he's getting them through the publicity over a lawsuit for $136.11 out-of-pocket. All we get out of it is Reason #10 for Letterman's bottom 10 stupid lawyer tricks.

[gabbadoo]

As one who is not the biggest fan of attorneys, I must say that on principal, this guy has a point. Most buying into the google advertising programs have little internet knowledge. They are likely successful in their own businesses, but rely on paid ads to deliver traffic. Otherwise, they would create website to be SEO friendly and not need to rely on ppc type games. That said, most of the clients I deal with think that when they advertise with google, their ads will be on google. They dont begin to comprehend that google has the adsense program where OTHER websites place google ads on them and google displays those ads and shares revenue with the website owners. Often (very often), these ads are placed on "parked" domains. The parked domains typically contain ads for a viriety of subject matter so they can be a "catch all" for any visitor, offering something that most visitors might be interested in. It is arguable that these are as valuable visitors as if they were "regular" websites or standard google results, though I would argue there should be a discount. If I place an add for a waterfront house for $30,000, there will likely be a higher clickthrouh than if I place an ad for a $2,000,000 waterfront house. Point is, it is easy to entice folks to click on ads when you in the business of getting them to click on ads instead of in the business of actually selling the product they are seeking. Where the problem lies (some pun intended) is that many of the major search engines are part owners or investors in these parking comanies that deliver the ads. To suggest that a lawyer (using one example) who pays google $2.00 per click to be listed as a "sponsored advertiser" atop a google result gets the same benefit, the same quality of advertising, as when someone comes across a "404" bad page and clicks on it, is a stretch. Google, and the others, need to make it much more clear to the average advertiser that the ads they are paying for might not actually be on google at all. Truth in advertising. Ironically (or at least disturbingly), many times you have the "parked" pages paying google to be listed atop google results for a certain subject matter. Then, when the visitor goes to that parked page and clicks on a link supplied by google, google is paid again. So one "action" takes place, yet google has two parties paying for it. Double dip. That means that more than one party is sharing in the profit for that single click. That CANT be fair to the paying advertiser. To suggest that an ad on MSNBC is equal to relevant value as an add on a 404 page are equal, just doesn't ring true. Don't get me wrong, they have the right to utilize the best model they can. But folks should be aware of the dynamics of the equation. Google makes hundreds of millions a year for those ads that have nothing to do with google other than the code and arranging for the seller to pay, not the buyer that the selling is seeking. Of course, I care less for lawyers (generally) than I do for google (generally), so let the best man win.

[gthurman]

Suing for non-performance is a great idea. Now we'll see how many clients sue because he lost their case.