Published: May 15, 2008 - 12:07 am
Story Found By: Aussiewebmaster 1837 Days ago
Category: PPC
15 Comments
15 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:


Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Digital Marketing Depot. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
I can appreciate the irony, but to be fair, this isnt apple to oranges.First, thats not a "Google Checkout" box thats appear. Its Google Shopping results, like here. Just like regular Google web search, you have paid and unpaid results in shopping. Notice in that link I gave how there are no paid results.Now that box showing up in Googles web search results thats "promoting" particular vodka sellers? Thats just Google Universal Search integrating the unpaid results from shopping search. Googles not selling those products, nor are they being advertised.If you want to consider unpaid listings as advertisements, then a general search for vodka on Google should bring up no merchants in the unpaid results at all, right? But thats not the case -- and hasnt ever been the case despite the no ads policy being in place. So whats the news now? Nothing has changed -- in fact, weve even had shopping results inserted even before Universal Search just like now.You could argue that if Google wants to ban things in ads, they should ban the same things in editorial results. But Googles never claimed to be consistent here, when Ive talked to them about it in the past. Some things they dont want ads for (some things they also by law cant take ads for), and thats it.I suppose you could also argue that aside from Google Shopping, theres the completely separate Google Checkout payment system, and Google shouldnt allow vodka or alcohol to be sold through that system. But that might be the case already. I havent checked there terms, but if I restrict a vodka search on shopping to just merchants that sell also through Google Checkout, I only seem to get things like books and posters.
http://www.buycostumes.com/Category/0/Product/21166/ProductDetail.aspx?REF=SCE-froogle
Heh. But not actual alcohol.FYI, I did check the actually Google Checkout policy, to see if they accept merchants that sell alcohol. They dont. So not only are the Google Shopping Results being discussed not ads, but Google Checkout merchants (a subset of those listed with Google Shopping) are specifically prevented from using that to sell alcohol.
Okay but they are promoting the sale of alcohol and other advertisers cant.
Why has Google banned advertisers from selling alcohol via Adwords, whereas Yahoo and MSN have not done so via the YSM or Adcenter program? Is it that Yahoo and MSN cannot afford to take the hit on the lost revenue?
No, theyre not promoting anything. Look, you cant advertise cigarettes on Google, right? So do this search:http://www.google.com/search?q=cigarettesThose are 10 web-wide listings. Not paid, just 10 listings that come from crawling the web, some of them from places that sell cigarettes. Are they promoting anything in there? Not to me -- its standard ranking.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earthquakeThat gives you a news unit at the top of the page, news results that are being inserted because theyre deemed relevant by the universal search algorithm. Its making an automatic decision to insert the unit there, and an editorial one. Its not a paid thing.So here:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vodkaSame algorithm decides to do a special unit to show editorial links out of Google Shopping Search. If thats "promotion," then Google had better not be showing the news results I pointed out earlier (cause theyd be promoting news content) or listing anything from the web about cigarettes as I pointed out, because that could be argued as promotion as well.Bottom line to me -- these arent ads. These arent listing Google is selling to anyone. So I just dont get the idea that some advertisers are being treated special much less the idea that Google itself is selling alcohol.
Great debate, thanks for your input Danny, and, Danny, thanks for commenting at Search Engine Watch! http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080514-014838 Feel free to post the balance of your comments over at SEW Blog
Ironically, I need to buy some more vodka :)
@dannysullivan Its on me! For you that is, not the whole 4th of July shindig...
It wouldnt just be vodka for the record, try adding "buy" before your alcohol of choicehttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA233CA233&q=buy+rum&btnG=Search
Im with Danny on this one - those are Product results. Not ads. No-ones promoting anything (although why Google stops people bidding on booze terms is a whole other discussion)
Hey, what about these ads?http://www.marketposition.com/blog/archives/cheap_tobacco.gifThe first one, perhaps since it is promoting a place rather than a product it glides through? Second one, dynamic insertion perhaps, but still...
The way I read the article was that Frank thinks that it is inconsistent that Google wouldnt allow one thing in AdWords that they do allow in the product listings. As Danny said, there is inconsistency here and that is the argument. I do not think Frank ever suggested that these were AdWords ads, but rather that the rules should be consistent. Make no mistake about it, the listings generated here are from Google Products (formerly Google base). What irks me is people are turning this into a "right and wrong" about the listings being AdWords. That was not the intention. The intention was to focus on the inconsistency. Everyone agrees, Ciaran, that these are product results, so you are both "with Danny" and with Frank.
To be clear, I dont think Googles being inconsistent. I think some people might want to argue that, but Im not. Im saying the opposite. The consistently do not try to enforce their ad policies on editorial results in web wide search, and they are not trying to do the same with editorial shopping results.
Its not accurate, sorry. See my comments in the main story.