Who Says Users Don't Want Competitors' Ads in Search Results?
from the complex-markets dept
A couple of years back we noted that the Utah legislature was considering legislation that would have banned companies from buying search ads related to their competitors' brand names. EFF and others said the law was likely unconstitutional, but the legislature passed it anyway. The legislation was such a disaster that last year the Utah legislature repealed it. Incredibly, despite all the negative publicity the 2007 bill received, and despite assurances from legislators that they'd learned their lesson, the backers of the legislation haven't given up. This year they introduced yet another bill restricting keyword advertising that passed the Utah House but died in the Utah Senate a few days ago. Given the tenacity of the bill's sponsors—1-800-Contacts is reportedly the leading backer of the proposal—the proposal may very well come back in future years.
Proposals to regulate keyword advertising have come in for a lot of criticism, but one person who's willing to defend the Utah proposal is Harvard's Ben Edelman. He argues that the Utah bill is necessary to avoid consumer confusion. He suggests that when consumers search for a trademarked term (say, "Hertz"), they're expecting to see search results related to that company, not to the company's competitors. He argues that if a consumer really wanted results from a variety of different companies, she would have chosen a generic term like "car rental" rather than a specific brand name. But James Grimmelmann points out a couple of problems with this reasoning. First, it shows an awfully low opinion of the intelligence of the average consumer. More importantly, there are circumstances where a consumer wants to see ads for a firm's competitors. For example, a consumer may be considering buying a particular company's products, but might want to check out that company's competitors before making her decision. Searching for that company's name is a quick and easy way to find out which other companies consider themselves to be in the same market. In contrast, the customer may not know which generic terms precisely describe that company's market. In Grimmelmann's example, it might be easier to ask for all companies in the same market as "Godiva" or "Hershey's", rather than having to describe precisely which segment of the chocolate market we're interested in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, trademarks, utah
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if someone types hertz rent-a-car, it would be more than acceptable to buy ads on rent-a-car or rent AND car, or some similar scheme.
If I can't use a company's name in the meta tags or keywords of my site to attract business, why can I buy ads when people are very specifically looking for their brand?
If the consumer wants more choices, why not type "companies like hertz" or "rent cars like hertz"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not? That's called effective advertising... being able to compare yourself to competitors when people are looking for competitor's products. That's why it's perfectly legal to have a supermarket offer coupons for competing brands near one brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is that fair marketing?
In the supermarket, the brands are together (all soups in the same area). There isn't an "only Campbell's soup aisle", so it doesn't work. I am sure that there would be issues if those coupons were stuck right on the competitors cans, or on point of sale material provided by the company.
Again, shading something to make something else look right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Is that fair marketing?
Hell, yes. So long as the other guy isn't standing on McDonald's actual property. But if he's on public sidewalk or something, then it's absolutely fair marketing. Why do you think companies are allowed to put billboards up directly in front of competitor's buildings?
In the supermarket, the brands are together (all soups in the same area). There isn't an "only Campbell's soup aisle", so it doesn't work. I am sure that there would be issues if those coupons were stuck right on the competitors cans, or on point of sale material provided by the company.
Wrong again, Harold! I should start keeping a WH is wrong counter. Actually, most supermarkets these days print out direct coupons in response to certain purchases. I bought some Liquid Plumr recently and I got handed a coupon for Drano on the way out.
Again, shading something to make something else look right.
Nope. Just pointing out how you're wrong again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would also say for a college graduate, you don't have strong reading skills. You got handed a Liquid Plumr coupon on the way out, fine. I said " I am sure that there would be issues if those coupons were stuck right on the competitors cans, or on point of sale material provided by the company."
Your example is neither of those. Many stores coupon when you pay to influence your NEXT purchase, but not your current one.
So sorry, you are wrong. Next time read my post, okay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This would rig true if the customer were at the McDonalds franchise but by searching on a engine the customer is effectively looking down the street and has yet to decide to go into McDonalds. If on his look down the street he sees Burger King or any other it is his free choice to go in and have a look. If BK happens to look more attractive due to there advertising then good for them.
D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a result I go for Hertz, get only Hertz rent a car ..
By the same logic each advertiser should also get their own separate 2 page spread in the yellow pages. After all you don't want to see Joe's Plumbing when you're actually looking for Kym's Plumbing, do you ? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was THRILLED!!
Yes, I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about but this technically was like putting the competitor in the search results since the rental site was not an ebay seller. This was the most helpful thing I've seen from ebay in forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Searching
I didn't think so.
In fact, they intentionally group like products for your convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Searching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They try harder - or at least they spend money advertising they do
Giving consumers competitive information only increases consumer knowledge and, therefore, buying power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My $0.02 (bailout money spending)
Me, that's who.
I don't want to see competitor results when I add a specific search criteria (and I'll dismiss the electrical unit relevance this time).
If I wanted competition results, I would type "car rental", not a specific brand.
This reminds me of the generic use of "Coke". When I type in "Coke" using Google, I see no competition ads for Pepsi, 7up, etc.
Nor would I want to. When the use of keywords by competitors is allowed, Google takes one less step of becoming a less useful product when it's going to spend more time displaying competitor ads, rather than relevant information.
But what the hell does my opinion matter. If Google is true to its word by returning results based on user input, then this should clearly show just how fucking stupid people really are when using the search engine as a tool.
It's just a matter of time before Google because less useful to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abusive "Search" Tactics
Competition is good, but trying to entice you to visit a site when they don't even have the product being searched for is plain wrong. It defeats the whole purpose of searching! Besides, if someone pursues an unethical business tactic to get you to buy, they are probably unethical to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competitors' Ads Benefit the Consumer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Asking consumers what they want isn't going to get you very good answers most of them time, because they usually want to pull the blanket to their side of the bed as much as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
keywords in advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I search for "foo site:example.com" I'm clearly stating that I'm only interested in hits from example.com, numbskulls-at-Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]