Sphinn - Bidding On Competitors’ Branded Terms: Moral Dilemma Or Business Decision?

42
Sphinn It!

Bidding On Competitors’ Branded Terms: Moral Dilemma Or Business Decision?

Went Hot: August 14, 2008 - 9:46 am
Posted By: kevgibbo 326 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com)
Category: Paid Search

"Admit it. You know you’ve thought about it. Yet you hesitate. Chances are, you’re probably conflicted, wondering if it’s morally right, or if you really want to “go there” – even if it is legal."

9 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from DarkMatter 326 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

good article! this is no different than Starbucks deciding to put up a store across the street from a local cafe. It's fair competition.

from SFGreg 326 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I've seen mixed reports about court rulings where the issue is bidding on a competitor's brand. Is there a recent court case that addresses this issue. Last I heard the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit came out against bidding on a competitor's brand, but one judge wanted to have the full court review the decision.

from DarkMatter 326 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

so far, it seems that advertisers who use this tactic are ok as long as they are not intentionally misleading the searcher into thinking that they ARE the trademark holder.

here's a great post on PPCHero about the issue:

http://www.ppchero.com/ppc-tradmark-copyright-laws-how-to-play-fair-and-win/

from TTellijohn 325 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I've heard someone from Google refer to the Coke/Pepsi example in a grocery store--if you walk down the soft drink aisle, you see Pepsi products and you see Coke products. I always thought that was a stupid analogy, though, because if I ask someone where the Diet Mountain Dew is, I don't expect them to take me to the Coke display at the end of the aisle, just because Coke paid them for the end cap.

I typically recommend against bidding specifically on competitors names, mainly because I'd rather not open a can of worms--especially if the can of worms has some competitors with bigger budgets than I have.

However, if the can is already opened by a competitor, I'd definitely recommend the same back.

from DarkMatter 325 days ago #

Votes: 2 | Vote:

+ -

I think that analogy works well. You're walking down the soda aisle to get your pepsi and you can see all the other drinks there. you might decide you really want the pepsi, or you might see batman on the new coke bottle and decide you want that instead. as long as the coke doesnt have the pepsi logo on it, it's fair competition.

from sandiegan 325 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Depending on the goal of your search marketing efforts, I usually find that bidding on competitor terms is simply a bad idea because of the extremely low ROI it yields. Makes your bounce rate go up like whoa.

from DarkMatter 325 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

are you kidding? im getting very good conversion rates otherwise I would not be doing it! much higher than the average adgroup.

from adamap 325 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

It is all about intent of the searcher. If someone is searching on your competitor's name; they are a prospect for that product/service. If the searcher has such an affinity for that brand then they won't visit or purchase your alternative. If they are open, then one is missing out on opportunity.

from KevinCheng 324 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

I've just gone through the "report trademark infringement" process with Google, and I must say that they are making as tedious and complicated as possible. Not only I had to submit all the trademark info for all the areas affected, which is fine with me as I knew I would need to prove that my company owns the trademark, but they also needed someone (not just anyone from the company) to file the claim. And I'm not even talking about competitors using our trademarks as keywords, but using them as ad text!