* Why the traditional thinking on “cheap” no longer applies

* Learn how savvy brands are optimizing their sites for this “cheap” searches

* Read about a fake hotel with more site traffic than real ones

Earlier this month, changes in the Google algorithm moved in favor of big business across all industries by displaying corporate websites at the top of organic results for geo-targeted, branded searches.

Over 90% of regional and national brands DO NOT optimize pages for cities and states and often cede traffic to direct and indirect competitors.  Instead they use dynamic store locator pages that perform poorly if at all in the organic results of search engines for geo-targeted searches.

Let’s review an example.  Below is a screenshot of the results for the Google search “Physicians Mutual Austin,” taken on February 13th.

Google search, “Physicians Mutual Austin,” February 13th

This screen shot displays Oodle.com as the top result.  In fact, PhysiciansMutual.com did not rank on the first page of Google results for the search “Physicians Mutual Austin” prior to the week of February 16th.

Here is a screenshot of the results for the same search query since the Google update:

Google search, “Physicians Mutual Austin,” February 26th

The reason I know the Google update occurred the week of February 16th, is because we discovered the changes while reviewing client ranking reports on Thursday, February 19th.  This was also confirmed by a client (brand marketing manager) inquiring about the changes that afternoon, which led me to research this across multiple industries.

Let’s review some additional examples.  Below is the screenshot for the Google search “Wells Fargo Tucson,” taken on February 26th.  Two weeks ago WellsFargo.com did not rank on the first page of results for the search query “Wells Fargo Tucson.”

Google search, “Wells Fargo Tucson” 

The same holds true for branded searches by state.  Below is the screenshot for the Google search “Kay Jewelers Pennsylvania,” taken on February 26th.  Two weeks ago Kays.com did not rank on the first page of results for the search query “Kay Jewelers Pennsylvania.”

Google search, “Kay Jewelers Pennsylvania” 

Another example of a brand that did not rank for geo-targeted searches a couple weeks ago is Farmers Insurance.  Below is the screenshot for the Google search “Farmers Insurance Houston,” taken on February 26th.

Google search, “Farmers Insurance Houston” 

What is the “net” effect of this change?  For one, it provides more relevant results to the prospective searcher.  If they are searching for “Farmers Insurance in Houston,” it certainly makes sense that the Farmers.com website ranks at the top of organic results.

Secondly, the brands that rely on paid search ads for their geo-targeted searches (instead of optimizing pages for the organic results), in competitive markets, may experience lower PPC costs due to the conversions of organic listings.

Is there any downside to this change?  Very little.  If I can come up with one downside it is the fact that Google is now placing the home page above geo-targeted pages for those brands that actually optimize pages for city and state specific searches.

One example of this is Jiffy Lube.  Jiffy Lube has empowered their franchisees with market-specific microsites such as Jiffy Lube oil change Atlanta, Georgia.

Below is the screenshot for the Google search “Jiffy Lube Atlanta,” taken on February 26th.

Google search, “Jiffy Lube Atlanta” 

Take note of the fact that the corporate home page, JiffyLube.com, is now ranking above the Atlanta microsite pages for the search “Jiffy Lube Atlanta.”  In this case Google is providing a less relevant page as the top result.

A final thought on this update.  Google proves once again that search engine results are a moving target. Brand marketers, search consultants, and interactive agencies need to be flexible, fluid, and responsive accordingly.

Author’s Note:  I did notice this change DOES NOT ring true for major restaurant brands like Pizza Hut or Subway.

Sound familiar?  Unless you have been living in a cave or have a PHD in DVR programming you couldn’t have missed Kay Jewelers’ highly effective Valentine’s Day campaign over the last few weeks.  Kay Jewelers, a top retail jewelry brand, started with one store in 1916 and has blossomed into a 1,402 store operation in all 50 states and employs more than 21,000 team members.

Kay Jewelers scored big with a sensational Valentine’s Day campaign and their website traffic reflects it.  Thanks in large part to their iconic Open Hearts campaign featuring the stylish and refined Jane Seymour, Hitwise reported a dramatic spike in KayJewelers.com website traffic rankings for the week ending February 7th:

“The Kay Jewelers website moved up 1,606 positions among all websites visited by U.S. Internet users (week ending February 7, 2009) to rank number 1,593 overall. Of the website’s total traffic, 72 percent consisted of new visitors. The websites contributing traffic to Kay Jewelers that increased contribution compared to the previous week were: Yahoo! Mail, eBay and AOL Mail.”

Hitwise Research

A 2007 iProspect/Jupiter Research study found that 67% of search engine users are driven to search by an offline channel.  You can bet the hacienda Kay Jewelers drove an impressive amount of traffic to Google with their Open Hearts campaign.

Let’s experience what prospective customers found using the phrases “Kay Jewelers,” “Kay Jewelers Open Hearts,” “Open Hearts necklace Jane Seymour,” “Kay Jewelers coupons,” and “engagement rings.”

“Kay Jewelers”

Naturally, the Kay.com website takes the top two organic results on their brand real estate for the search “Kay Jewelers.”

Google search “Kay Jewelers

Beyond that, Kay Jewelers experiences brand erosion above the fold with a stinging complaint by a model customer, “Help, Kay Jewelers Destroyed My Wedding Ring…”  Below the fold another negative result compounds the impact on brand equity and triggers the prospective customer to contemplate, “can I trust this brand?”

What is the solution?  The answer is two-fold.  First, engage the dissatisfied customer directly and on the message board/blog/website if the customer has a legitimate complaint.  Second, OWN YOUR BRAND REAL ESTATE IN THE SEARCH ENGINES BY UTILIZING SUB-DOMAINS.  The is a digital brand management best practice.

Everyone knows that Google, Yahoo, and MSN will display up to two results for your top level domain.  So how does a brand rank for all ten results on the first page of Google and control their “brand real estate?”  Let’s see how Google, Yahoo, and Hewlett-Packard do it.

Yahoo search, “Google” 

Google search, “Yahoo”

Google search, “HP”

The benefit for Kay Jewelers would be to push down competitive and unwanted visibility while providing a better search user experience by presenting listings of different categories that reflect how their audience searches for “Kay Jewelers.”  Recommended sub-domains may include:

Engagementrings.kay.com
Weddingrings.kay.com
Earrings.kay.com
Bracelets.kay.com
Necklaces.kay.com
Chains.kay.com
Watches.kay.com
etc…

In terms of search advertising on Google for the keyword set “Kay Jewelers,” Kay Jewelers frequently serves geo-targeted ads that feature the brand slogan and their 90-day money back guarantee.

Note that the Zales ad has a higher Google quality score than that of the Kay Jewelers ad, and thus, ranks higher in the sponsored listings.  This is due, in large part, to the fact that the Zales ad has higher coverage for this keyword set (appears more frequently, and thus gets more clicks) and may be bidding higher.

Google search, “Kay Jewelers” 

“Kay Jewelers Open Hearts”

For the Google search “Kay Jewelers Open Hearts,” KayJewelers.com takes the top position but fails to optimize the title tag for conversion or search engine relavance:

Google search, “Kay Jewelers Open Hearts” 

An optimized title tag, based on how the Kay Jewelers audience searches this product, would read like this:

Kay Jewelers Open Hearts Collection – Jane Seymour Open Hearts Design – Necklaces, Bracelets, Earrings, & Rings

This title tag would benefit Kay Jewelers by converting the scanning eye as well as ranking this page at the top of Google for multiple keyword sets.

Also note the lack of a search advertisement for this very targeted keyword set.  As a rule, the more targeted, the higher converting—especially when the search phrase is relevant to a company’s products or services.

Competitors Zales, Shop.com, Target, and OpenHeartsJewelry.net divert traffic from the brand real estate of Kay Jewelers and optimize their ads by including the keyword phrases “Hearts Jewelry,” “Heart Key Jewelry,” and “Open Hearts Jewelry.”

Because Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Kay Jewelers, has trademarked “Open Hearts By Jane Seymour” (trademark data here), the marketing/legal team (or agency managing their search marketing) should aggressively submit trademark complaints against entities using the phrase “Open Hearts” in the title or copy of Google search advertisements.

“Open Hearts necklace Jane Seymour”

According to Google Suggest, the phrase “Open Hearts necklace Jane Seymour” is a frequently searched keyword set.  Below are the search results in Google:

Google search, “Open Hearts necklace Jane Seymour” 

KayJewelers.com is a no-show in the organic results simply because they do not optimize their pages for the search engines.  If they were to optimize their title tag with the specific recommendation above they would be ranking for this keyword set within a couple months.

Kay Jewelers also misses out on low-hanging fruit because they do not advertising on this highly targeted keyword set.

Kay Jewelers launched the “Open Hearts” campaign in April of 2008 to coincide with Mother’s Day.  A look at their press release reveals some missed opportunities:

Kay Jewelers Introduces ‘’Open Hearts by Jane Seymour'’™ Collection 

From a search marketing perspective, online press releases are designed to provide two functions; convert desired actions (a retail sale in this case) and build link popularity to specific web pages (this is what increases the rankings of web pages in the search engines).

Kay Jewelers missed opportunity was to include a link to their “Open Hearts” web page with a call to action.  Here is one approach:

“AKRON, Ohio–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Perfectly timed for Mother’s Day, Kay Jewelers today introduces Open Hearts by Jane Seymour™, a complete fashion jewelry collection designed by Jane Seymour. Sold exclusively at Kay Jewelers, her new line will debut in select stores.  The collection is available now for online purchases at www.kay.com/open-hearts.”

Or, because of the size of this campaign, it would have made sense to create a microsite specifically for this campain and utilize the website address in all offline and online marketing.

“The collection is available now for online purchases at www.OpenHeartsCollection.com. (this domain was available until November 2008)”

“Kay Jewelers coupons”

While analyzing different ways Kay Jewelers audience searches for “Kay Jewelers” I came across a few branded search opportunities that stand out like a sore thumb. One example is the volume of queries for the search “Kay Jewelers coupons.”

Google search, “Kay Jewelers coupons”

KayJewelers.com has no pages ranking for this branded keyword set.  Coupon searches generally represent immediate business because the prospective customer searching for coupons typically has a product or service in mind when conducting coupon searches.

The risk here is allowing a third party to pique the interest of the prospective customer by offering coupons or discounts on similar products.

The recommendation is for Kay Jewelers to create a coupon web page, if, for no other reason, than to engage the prospective customer further.  It would certainly make sense for Kay Jewelers to create some coupon offerings—coupon searches have spiked dramatically across many industries since last fall, in light of the current economic condition.

A study released today finds that monthly “coupon” searches have spiked dramatically from December 2007 to December 2008.  According to comScore, the volume of “coupon” searches in December 2007 was around 7.6 million for the month.  In December of 2008 this number exceeded 19.9 million, a 161% increase:

comScore - Growth in Search Terms Related to Economic Downturn 

The profitability of this keyword set portends to be positive as indicated by the amount of third parties advertising on “Kay Jewelers coupons”in the screenshot above.

Who uses coupon marketing successfully in the retail jewelry space online?  Zales, Diamond.com, Gordon’s Jewelers, Ice.com, Reeds Jewelers, Mondera, and others.

“Engagement Rings”

Finally, I want to take a look at a non-branded search for one of Kay Jewelers leading products, engagement rings.  This will also allow us to identify some of the challenges and obstacles facing the online marketing team for Kay Jewelers in terms of search engine optimaztion marketing.

Google search, “engagement rings” 

Would you say that the keyword set “engagement rings” is important to Kay Jewelers?  I know, loaded question.  Kay Jewelers has a distinct advantage over online-only competitors because Kay Jewelers offers prospective customers a choice; the choice to physically experience the exquisite elegance of the desired engagement ring in person upon researching online.

With that in mind, consider this; according to the Google AdWords Keyword Tool, searches on Google for engagement rings exceed three million (3,000,000) per month.  Simply capturing the eyeballs of a tenth of a percent of these searchers would yield an additional 3,000 prospective customers per month.  Hmmm…

What is preventing KayJewelers.com from ranking in the search engines for some branded and most non-branded keyword sets?  (CAUTION: I’m about to get technical)  The first obstacle is the URL structure of web pages served by their Web Content System (WCS).

Here is the URL for the Engagement Rings “product page,” which should be the highest ranking page in the search engines for the search “engagement rings,” and be the gateway to all engagement ring inventory within the website:

http://www.kay.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category|10101|10001|-1|15057|15051|15051.15057|Y

Here is what an optimized, search engine friendly URL looks like:

http://www.kay.com/engagement-rings/

Here is the URL of the web page that ranks #1 in Google for the search “engagement rings:”

http://www.jamesallen.com/engagement-rings/

If Kay Jewelers were to rewrite the cumbersome URL’s of all product category pages with short, one or two sub-folder, keyword-rich, static URL’s, that would be a step in the right direction. If you are still awake reading this evaluation I want to assure you that I won’t put you immediately to sleep by addressing the issues with the dynamic product pages that follow the product category pages.

In terms of on-page SEO elements, the Kay Jewelers “Engagement Rings” page lacks key-word rich marketing copy and optimization of title, description, and alt tags.  They need to include text links on the home page to all product category pages which serve as anchor text to inform the search engines what the pages are about.  Currently they feature links in the form of images that lack alt tags for category pages such as “Watches.”

So who has the competitive edge among national jewelry store brands in the search engines?  Kay Jewelers, Jared, Zales, Gordon’s Jewelers, Shane Co., Reeds Jewelers, or Tiffany & Co.?  The fact is, Walmart outperforms all these jewelry-specific brands in Google for product categories such as “earrings,” “necklaces,” and “bracelets.”  That says a lot.

Kay Jewelers, as well as all the other brick-and-mortar jewelry retailers with an established online presence,  has a tremendous amount of opportunity to multiply and convert targeted traffic through strategic SEO initiatives.

Additional jewelry retailers, such as Bailey, Banks & Biddle, Fred Meyer Jewelers, Whitehall, and Rogers & Hollands, have a ways to go to develop a profitable online presence and increase market share, but they can learn pitfalls and best practices from the actions of competitors.

Nascar.com is published and managed by Turner Interactive. One reason I write this article is the sheer disappointment I have with the “face” of Nascar online, Nascar.com. When they started serving multiple pop-up ads to site visitors I stopped visiting the site and am now a fan of ESPN’s online coverage of Nascar.

Now, on to the point of this post, the search user experience.

A couple of years ago I shared some research with Norman Migglietta and Matt Bass at Turner Interactive that fell on deaf ears and I am dumbfounded to find the same mistakes rearing their ugly heads as the 2008 Nascar season kicks off.

In one instance, I explained to them that they are not providing searchers with the content they are looking for in the search engines. For example, when a Google visitor would search for “Nascar schedule,” the top result would display the 2003 schedule, rather than the then-current schedule for 2006. Let’s review why this is happening.

The screenshot below displays the current Google search results for “Nascar schedule.” Note the highlighted URL for the top listing.

Below is a screenshot of the page representing the top listing in the natural results for the Google search “Nascar Schedule.”

As you can see, the visitor is incorrectly directed to last year’s schedule. The screenshot below illustrates the obstacle in further detail. Note the highlighted URL in the address bar.

The fix is simple–the URL for the “Schedule” navigation should simply be a static link without a time stamp, that remains the same year after year after year.  For example:

http://www.nascar.com/races/cup/data/schedule.html.

In addition, note the lack of Title Tags.  The title tag for this page is simply “NASCAR.COM.”  This is an SEO 101 oversight. An appropriate title tag would look more like this:

2008 Nascar Schedule - Racetracks - TV Schedule - Radio Schedule

If Nascar would like to keep previous years’ schedules accessible through search I would recommend an archive folder featuring the time stamp in the URL and appropriate title tags.

By implementing these adjustments the correct schedule would be presented to the Google searcher every time. This is an SEO best practice.

Technorati tags: SEO Best Practices, User Experience, Nascar

But what happens when a gripe site publishes Google ads to generate revenue? How can this be considered non-commercial when the unauthorized party is leveraging the IP assets of another entity, in a disparaging way, to generate revenue? There’s a lot of gray here.

What constitutes commercial use? What doesn’t?

Let’s review an example. The screenshot below displays a search on Google for “University of Phoenix.” Note the highlighted gripe site, UOPSucks.com, ranking in the brand real estate of University of Phoenix.

The screenshot below display the home page of the gripe site:

How do I know the highlighted ads are Google ads? Below is a screenshot of the source code with the Google script highlighted.

If common sense prevails, it won’t be legal to monetize a gripe site through ad revenue.

Technorati tags: Brand Protection Online, Gripe Sites

Part of this process is to monitor the registration of domains that contain a trademark, determine if the domain is being used illegally (i.e. cybersquatting, false association, commerce), and if it is, initiate steps to acquire the domain.

Because the internet makes it easy to create fraudulent storefronts and consumers are conditioned to trust brand names and logos, this is a primary business concern that affects the bottom line and brand reputation.

I will discuss domain acquisition in detail on another post. What I want to illustrate here is how the successful acquisition of domains by the legal department has a hidden bonus for online marketing initiatives, specifically SEO efforts.

With all things equal, the one deciding SEO factor that ranks one web page over other web pages in the search engines is incoming links. It is a little more complex, but consider links from outside websites to your web pages as “votes” for your web pages in the eyes of the search engines.

This factor is known as link popularity, Google calls it PageRank, and many in my industry describe the affect of incoming links as “link juice.”

Another way to transfer link popularity is to forward a web page with a lot of “link juice” to another page using a redirect. The result when executed properly is a boost in search engine rankings.

Let’s examine a real world example using health/weight loss brand Herbalife. I did some research this morning and skimmed through some 2,000 registered domains which contain the Herbalife trademark (an essential weekly duty to protect your brand).

I soon found one that is not authorized by corporate, and is leveraging the Herbalife trademark to generate revenue. Here is a screenshot of www.fast-weight-loss-herbalife.com:

The next step is to identify the owner. Let’s take a look at Who Is information and learn more about this domain. The screen shot below illustrates that this domain has been registered since April 2001, and contact details are private. The registrar, Domains by Proxy (Godaddy), can be contacted by the trademark holder to uncover the identity of the domain owner. Their Terms of Service state this clearly.

If Herbalife were to have trouble reaching the domain owner, or the domain owner refused to transfer the domain, Herbalife’s legal team could file a UDRP to acquire the domain through legal means.

The last step is to evaluate if there is any SEO benefit by forwarding this domain to an Herbalife web asset. The screenshot below examines how many incoming links the infringing domain has pointing to it. As you can see there are over one thousand incoming links which will have the impact of transfering link popularity to which ever Herbalife web page it would be redirected to.

There you have it, your Legal department can be a partner in your SEO efforts! I have used this strategy for several clients with impressive results. Build a relationship with your legal team and enhance your SEO initiatives.

Technorati tags: brand marketing online, UDRP, internet marketing SEO tips

I’m referring to third-party websites that are negative (gripe sites) or are unwelcome (competitors) listings.

Let’s review an example. The screenshot below displays the search results in Google for “Jiffy Lube.” Note the third result.

The third result is a Jiffy Lube gripe site, Jiffylubeproblems.com, with prominent visibility in the brand real estate of Jiffy Lube in Google. Using a tool to identify the web pages that link to Jiffylubeproblems.com, we soon identify a couple hundred links emanating from Yahoo! Local.

Below is a screenshot of a sample Yahoo! Local page that links to Jiffylubeproblems.com.

This is an unethical, or “black hat” tactic used to increase the number of links to the gripe site. In this instance, Jiffy Lube needs to contact the Yahoo! Local team to advise them of this inappropriate link spam.

Why is it important to monitor third party backlinks of pages that are ranking in your brand real estate? Because links are votes! When all is said and done it is the quantity and quality of backlinks (votes) that determine search engine rankings.

With respect to this specific example, the links are very abusive to the Jiffy Lube brand because they are composed of local listings for automotive services searches in Yahoo! Local.

Technorati tags: online brand protection, gripe sites, backlinks

Google pays agencies a percentage of money back based on how much they spent on behalf of clients. The commission program is believed to be worth around $100 million (£50m) a year to agencies.

The Best Practice Funding was used by Google to encourage agencies to appropriately increase their cost-per-click spend and try out new initiatives such as Google’s new Gadget Ads.

How will agencies be affected?

According to Andrew Girdwood of Big Mouth Media:

“The announcement, whilst not unexpected, nevertheless could put in some jeopardy the financial health of some agencies involved in search, and along with them, the client campaigns. In this competitive industry, some agencies based their business model on paying the kicker directly to the client as an incentive.

In fact, there has been a growing trend amongst some heavy users of Google PPC to systematically move PPC work between agencies to benefit from ongoing growth kickers. These agencies are going to feel the pinch as they are reliant on kickers and BPF to provide their margin.”

As an FYI, Google does not provide the standard 15% commission to agencies. This is a clear signal that Google is developing their internal agency (regardless of what they are saying), which currently is building out keyword lists and putting together teams for various verticals to come up with advertising ideas and manage campaigns for select clients. Is this a conflict of interest?

Mediapost published this quote from Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, in their article, “Agencies: Google Has Put A Target On Your Back:”

“Google’s intentions relative to its planned offerings for the world’s marketers are quite well summed up by CEO Eric Schmidt, who tells the WSJ, “The long-term fantasy is we walk up to you and you give us, say, $10 million and we’ll completely allocate it for you across different media and ad types.”

The writing is on the wall. Google is planning to unseat agency mediaries. If Google executives fantasize about controlling the allocation of media spend across all online and offline channels, they certainly seem to have their sights set on taking over the media ad business.

Of course, this is just my opinion…

Technorati Tags: Best Practice Funding, Gadget Ads, Google Ad Agency

Everyone agrees that customers have the right to publish complaints, concerns, and other experiences online–it is called the first amendment and in legal terms it is frequently referred to as Fair Use, as in the fair use of a trademark.

In fact, it is often legal to use a registered trademark in the domain name of a gripe site as a legitimate non-commercial use. But what happens when the gripe site is used for commercial purposes? What happens when the gripe site is used for the commercial purposes of a direct competitor?

Before I unload I want you to note this URL:

http://www.budgettruck.com/Home.aspx?partnerid=242

On to the research. The screenshot below illustrates the Google results for the search “Uhaul.” I have highlighted two gripe sites that have prominent visibility on U-Haul’s brand real estate in Google.

The fourth result is a U-Haul gripe site using the domain www.dontuseuhaul.com, a trademarked domain. The domain was registered in August of 2003 and provides information on how to file a complaint, how to file a lawsuit, a forum for customers to share their experiences, and a page to buy anti-U-Haul bumper stickers.

What immediately caught my attention was a banner ad on the left sidebar for Budget Truck Rental. The ad states “Click Here For Quote.” Hmmm… that doesn’t look right, I thought to myself.

Below is a screenshot for the website www.dontuseuhaul.com. Note the Budget Truck Rental banner on the lower left.

Upon clicking the banner I find myself on a Budget Truck Rental page. Here is the URL and a screenshot of the page. Does the URL look familiar?

The fifth result is a U-Haul gripe site published by an individual who had a bad customer experience with U-Haul back in 2001. The domain is www.clanboyd.info, a non-trademarked domain. The individual, Richard Boyd, shares his experience and letters he sent to U-Haul leadership. I spoke with Richard on the phone, and I admit I am surprised that U-Haul has alledgedly not contacted him to resolve this ongoing issue in the last six years.

The initial reason I called Richard was to ask him why there is a Budget Truck Rental and a Penske Truck Rental banner on his gripe site. Let’s take a look at the screenshot below.

Richard confided to me that he is paid an annual fee to place the advertisements–and his sentiment was why the hell not, U-Haul is ignoring him. Incidentally, the Penske Truck Rental banner does not lead to the Penske web page. Both banners lead to a Budget Truck Rental page.

Here is the URL and screenshot of that page. Does this look familiar?

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the Budget Truck Rental URL is an affiliate–an agent compensated to generate business for Budget Truck Rental.

With my discoveries I was compelled to investigate a little more. Could there be additional U-Haul gripe sites with Budget Truck Rental ads?

A little more searching brought me to the website www.uhaul-sucks.com. Again, another trademarked website engaging in commercial use for a direct competitor of U-Haul. Here is the screenshot.

As you can see, there is another Budget Truck Rental advertisement. Can you guess which page it took me to? You got it, it’s the same affiliate link to a Budget Truck Rental page.

In all, I found a total of six U-Haul gripe sites with the same ads to Budget Truck Rental, five of them illegally using the U-Haul trademark in their domains.

Budget isn’t off the hook either. They are aware of the traffic and conversions emanating from the U-Haul gripe sites. Their conduct is appalling and they should immediately terminate this affiliate and compensate U-Haul for any verifiable business generated.

UPDATE 10-05-2007: It has been brought to my attention that Budget Truck Rental was completely unaware of this activity until reading this article. It was unfair of me to assert that they actually track website traffic and conversions, and I apologize for not validating my claim. From Corporate Communications Director, Kevin Meyer:

“The same day we contacted the operators of the sites and instructed them to remove all advertisements and links to Budget Truck from their sites immediately. To date, we received neither response nor action from either operator.”

“Yesterday, we informed the third-party agent that provided the links that we are terminating our contract with them. We are also amending our standard agreement for this type of service to prevent a similar issue from occurring in the future.”

“We hope this clarifies the situation. We also request that you either remove or amend your blog to portray this situation accurately. In the future, we would appreciate the opportunity to assist you the next time you have a question or concern about our business practices.”

Personally, I am curious why Budget Truck Rental has yet to ask me about the additional three websites doing the same thing (as I stated earlier in the article)–of course, their analytics program already displays this data… ;)

“From a legal standpoint, what are U-Haul’s options?”

I posed this question to New York trademark litigator, Ronald Coleman. Coleman is an expert in this area of law and is also the author of Likelihood of Confusion, a popular blog discussing trademark, copyright, new media and free speech issues. Here is his response:

“The issue is really tricky, because the courts have been reluctant, under the gripe-site cases, to enjoin third-party trademark use for legitimate commentary.  On the other hand, they have been somewhat skeptical – though the cases are not really clear or consistent, even internally, on this – of competitors using trademarks to “divert” traffic.  In fact, the problem here is that “diversion” is a very dubious legal theory, because it “diverts” attention from the fact that there is virtually never bona fide consumer confusion, nor a likelihood of it, in these situations.  Likelihood of confusion was once considered the sine qua non of trademark infringement, but since the rise of the Internet, judges have conveniently ignored it when, in their view, an injustice is being done.

Having said all that, U-Haul has no choice but to sue Budget and see how it falls out.”

I believe we are entering a very dark period of the web, folks. The vitriol and deceit of political players and media in the U.S. is trickling down to the culture of business. In my work I have identified and helped prosecute businesses that fabricate consumer generated media and promote malicious falsehoods against competitors in the guise of an abused customer or industry expert. Some of them are dumb enough to publish links to their competing sites.

Technorati Tags: brand reputation, gripe sites, U-Haul, Budget Truck Rental

http://www.att.net/cgi-bin/webdrill?catkey=gwd/Top/Home/Consumer_Information/Complaints/AT%26T

This section of the site publishes results from the Google directory which includes gripe sites. This gripe site is appears to have been an abandoned project a few years ago but is still live. Here is the URL and a screenshot:

http://faceatt.netfirms.com/

Technorati Tags: AT&T, gripe sites

As reported by E-Commerce Times:

“L’Oreal reportedly estimates that counterfeit sales of its products on eBay have resulted in its loss of several million dollars. The cosmetics giant’s legal action against eBay echoes similar moves by the jewelry firm Tiffany & Co. in 2004 and by French luxury goods firm LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton a year ago.”

eBay rebuts:

“We are disappointed L’Oreal has filed a lawsuit against eBay, given that we have been actively supporting their brand protection efforts, eBay said. As a responsible company that works with more than 18,000 rights owners, we will continue to act on their reports.

Lawsuits against marketplaces are not the solution to the counterfeit problem. The only ones benefiting from litigation are counterfeiters, because valuable time and money is being spent in courtrooms rather than stopping counterfeiters from producing the goods.”

Any brand marketing/compliance/legal practitioner who has ever worked with eBay and their VeRO program knows that eBay usually does everything they can to protect their listings (revenue) rather than protect brands, regardless of what they say. Yes, they do take down instances of copyright violations, but it’s funny how the same violators tend to pop up over and over and over again. 

This is a particularly troubling issue for premium brands trying to protect consumers as well as their own IP assets, reputation, and bottom line.

In terms of counterfeiting, who’s at risk on eBay?

The most vulnerable brands are clearly those that feature high end consumer and multimedia products:

jewelry = Tiffany & Co.
watches = Rolex
sunglasses = Giorgio Armani
perfume = Calvin Klein
make-up = L’Oreal
skin care = Lancome
hand bags = Louis Vuitton
accessories = Prada
music = Prince (Universal, Arista, Paisley Park, NPG, Warner Bros., Columbia)
movies = Something About Mary (Twentieth Century Fox)
games = Final Fantasy VIII (Square Enix)
software = Turbo Tax (Intuit)

Technorati Tags: brand protection online, counterfeiting, eBay lawsuit

The easiest way for me to respond to this question is to simply point out that the natural and paid results for branded searches fall into three categories:

A- Positive
B- Negative
C- Unwanted (think competitor or competitive solution)

Search engine visibility is a zero sum game. In other words, there is a finite number of listings displayed for a brand’s “real estate” in the search engines and in many industries these results shape brand reputation and loyalty, and greatly influence the actions of prospects, customers, partners, investors, creditors, etc.

A specific example would be RSA Homes. The company’s brand reputation in Google resulted in the owner’s inability to secure loans. Three different lenders declined funding to RSA Homes due to negative visibility in Google for the search “RSA Homes.”

Strategic brand management in the search engines is a primary business concern and our Brand Command methodology is a blueprint for success.

Let’s take a look at a real-life example to fortify your comprehension of the concept. Have you heard of Proactiv Solution? Who hasn’t, right? Proactiv Solution is a very successful three-step acne management system designed to treat mild acne.

The product is distributed by Guthy-Renker, the direct response television marketing company that initially brought us Anthony Robbins and his “Personal Power” program back in 1989. Today, Guthy-Renker’s roster of direct marketing products include the following:

- Proactiv Solution
- Winsor Pilates
- Meaningful Beauty
- Get the Edge
- Principal Secret
- Youthful Essence
- Sheer Cover
- Dean Martin Roasts
- Dean Martin Variety
- Natural Advantage
- Comprehensive Formula
- Core Secrets

With respect to the Proactiv Solution campaign, Guthy-Renker relies on famous celebrities to use and endorse the popular acne-fighting system, a highly effective strategy to influence demand from adolescents and young adults.

Celebrity endorsements and spokespersons for Proactiv Solution include Vanessa Williams, Jessica Simpson, Lindsay Lohan, P-Diddy, Kelly Clarkson, Melissa Gilbert, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Alicia Keyes, Elle Macpherson, Paulina Rubio, Stephanie Seymour, Brooke Shields, Britney Spears, Serena Williams, and others.

Now, on to the analysis. The screenshot below displays the search results on Google for the query “Proactiv Solution.”

I’m going to analyze each and every natural and paid result. For the purposes of this case study I have highlighted each natural result with either green, representing a positive listing, or red, representing a negative or unwanted listing, within the Proactiv Solution brand real estate.

Let’s take a look at natural results to begin with:

Natural Result #1

Proactiv® Solution - Official Site

Right where it should be, the first listing in the natural results is the Proactiv Solution home page. The description tag displays the following content:

“Proactiv Solution is a 3-Step acne management system - combining prescription-grade ingredients that work together to heal and prevent acne.”

This is an excellent description. One thing I would recommend, because it is a “direct marketing” product, is a call to action. For example:

“Proactiv Solution is a 3-Step acne management system featuring prescription-grade ingredients. Order the 5-Piece Deluxe System today and SAVE 50%!” (offer per their website)

Natural Result #2

YouTube - Look what Proactiv Solution did to my face!

Ouch! Welcome to Google’s new “Universal Search.” I have found that most brands are not prepared for this radical update to search engine results–the inclusion of images, video, and news to the standard text rankings. I will discuss Universal Search strategies and preparedness in an upcoming post.

This YouTube result is very prominent in the brand real estate of Proactiv Solution and quite damaging to the brand. One cannot help but empathize with the individual sharing their experience with the acne products. Proactiv Solution reps appear to have done nothing to address the issue except encourage the purchase of more product.

Below is screenshot of the video page, the second result in Google for the search “Proactiv Solution.”

Note the 40,322 views and 263 comments.

Many brands have learned the lesson that you cannot simply ignore prominent product or service complaints on the web. The best practice is to publicly address the issue (preferably in the form of a corporate blog) as soon as possible, investigate, admit culpability only when appropriate, quickly remedy the situation at hand within reason, and strongly advise potential consumers about any possible issues or warnings–whether or not it’s justified in the eyes of the boardroom.

Poof… it’s gone, and, you have instilled confidence and credibility with potential consumers by listening to, and showing concern for, your customers (the reason you are here in the first place).

In this specific instance, Proactiv Solution is on the way to losing a PR game, because the perception is, that Proactiv is more concerned about selling more product than addressing a painful customer issue.

The last thing Proactiv should pursue is legal action against the use of the name “Propassiv” because this is clearly a Fair Use example and the ensuing media attention would only worsen the issue.  Upon review of the Propassiv.com website I found no illegal commercial activity or likelihood of confusion–in fact the footer states the following:

“This site is NOT affiliated with, connected with, or sponsored by Guthy-Renker or Proactiv Solution or any of its subsidiaries.”

[Author’s Note: Proactiv Solution does warn of a possible allergic reaction and recommends conducting a small skin patch test prior to using the system]

Natural Result #3

QVC.com > Beauty > Proactiv Solution

QVC is a television shopping network and a major direct sales partner for Proactiv Solution. While Proactiv Solution should take steps to dominate their brand real estate to capture direct retail sales and build a brand relationship with the consumer, this is clearly positive visibility.

Natural Result #4

Acne.org - Proactiv Solution Reviews

Acne.org is the brainchild of brilliant online marketer and self-described acne sufferer Dan Kern. Dan markets his own line of products under the name, “The Acne.org Regimen.” Specific products include the Acne.org Gentle Cleanser, the Acne.org Treatment Gel, and the Acne.org Moisturizer.

Note the content in his description tag:

“However, if you currently own Proactiv Solution products, don’t throw out the benzoyl peroxide lotion. If you can handle the smell, it should work fine.”

Not only do the Proactiv keywords in the description tag aid in the search engine ranking of this page, but the content itself is designed to divert traffic from the Proactiv Solution brand. How did Dan’s site get visibility on the brand real estate of Proactiv Solution?

Dan has mastered the use of consumer generated media (CGM) to yield prominent visibility. Specifically, this page features a message board for visitors to post their experiences, positive and negative, with Proactiv Solution. The result? First page visibility on Google for the search “Proactiv Solution,” and the opportunity to divert and engage highly targeted traffic.

View the screenshot below.

Natural Result #5

FAQ on acne skin care, Proactiv Solution review

This is the second listing for Dan Kern’s Acne.org website. Dan’s website provides the visitor with everything they ever wanted to know about acne, scarring, treatments, and of course, his Regimen. How did Dan’s site get visibility with a second listing on the brand real estate of Proactiv Solution?

Dan makes use of his FAQ page to present Proactiv Solution content. Even though this is an FAQ page for the entire Acne.org site, what is the title tag again? That’s right, “FAQ on acne skin care, Proactiv Solution review.” He has optimized his title tag for Proactiv Solution keywords.

The screenshot below displays Proactiv Solution content on his FAQ page. Note the multiple links to another Acne.org page that is optimized for the keyword sets “Proactiv Solution” and “Proactiv Solution Reviews.”

Natural Result #6

Proactiv Solution – Lowest Online Prices – Proactive

This page is an affiliate leveraging the Proactiv Solution trademark to convert branded traffic for dollars. The website is www.optimization-world.com and the rest of the site’s pages appear to sell video cables.

The site owner has optimized one page to rank for Proactiv Solution and utilizes powerful calls to action to convert visitors:

- Click Here For Today’s Lowest Prices!
- Free Bonus with the 4-Piece Oil Control System!
- Nearly 50% off the 3-Piece System, Plus a Free Bonus!
- Proactiv Test Drive: Half the size at half the price!

Here is a screenshot:

Natural Result #7

Proactiv Solution - The Official Site of AsSeenOnTV.com

This is another affiliate with prominent visibility in the brand real estate of Proactiv Solution. I want to reiterate that Proactiv Solution has the opportunity to dominate their brand real estate and capture retail sales directly.

Natural Result #8

Amazon.com: Proactiv Solution Renewing Cleanser 120ml/4oz. Health

This is another Proactiv Solution affiliate. In this instance, the affiliate, Beautiful Perfumes, leverages the strength of Amazon.com to garner prominent search engine visibility for their storefront.

Natural Result #9

Proactiv Solution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ninth result brings us to the Wikipedia listing for Proactiv Solution. Wikipedia is a deeply flawed resource because the actual content is moderated by “editors” who have no stake in the finished product. The screenshot below displays the Proactiv Solution page on Wikipedia.

You can count on the editors of Wikipedia to publish links to negative websites and even competitors. This behavior is appalling and brands should do everything they can to crowd out the visibility of Wikipedia listings.

Let’s analyze the highlighted external links in the screenshot above:

Official website ~ This links to the Proactiv Solution website (www.proactiv.com)

Information on Proactiv Solution ~ This links to an AdWords site (a site specifically designed to generate Google ad revenue) that hijacks much of the copyrighted text found on the Proactiv Solution website. There is about an 80% chance this site belongs to the Wikipedia editor moderating the Proactiv Solution page.

Proactiv Solution rejected on Street Cents ~ This links to a negative review on the website of a Canadian television show.

Reviews on Proactiv ~ This links to the Proactiv Solution competitor, Acne.org. Remember, Acne.org ranks for the fourth and fifth results of the Google search “Proactiv Solution.”

Report that Proactiv infomercials are misleading ~ This is a gripe site that utilizes “complaint” content to generate ad revenue with Google AdWords.

So let’s review. Out of the five external links we had one link to a Proactiv web asset, one link to a copyright violator hoping to make some Google ad cash, two links to negative reviews on websites that are not authorities on skincare, and one link to a direct competitor who is already actively diverting branded traffic from Proactive Solution. Way to go, Wikipedia!

[Author’s Note: I inserted the nofollow tag in the above links with the exception of the link to Proactiv.com]

Natural Result #10

Acne Help Web - Acne Treatments - Acne Solutions

Acnehelpweb.com is another affiliate but the issue here is that the site showcases direct competitors. It appears that Proactiv has already intervened because the affiliate “order” links appear to have been removed and now redirect the visitor back to the home page.

Below is the screenshot.

I want to review one more natural result that is visible on the second page of brand real estate for the Google search “Proactiv Solution.”

PROACTIV SOLUTION - Featured On TV

The website for this natural result is www.proactivsolutions.com. This is an affiliate engaging in a little trademark infringement. Proactiv needs to acquire this domain via Cease & Desist or UDRP.

Here is the screenshot:

Now that we have reviewed the brand real estate for natural results, what can Proactiv Solution do to improve their marketing efforts and protect their brand in this space?

1- Create multiple web assets to dominate their brand visibility with frequently searched content and calls to action. I should point out to you that Guthy-Renker owns the website Acne.com but have yet to rank it for “Proactiv Solution.” That is step #1. To learn more about dominating brand real estate, download the Brand Command white paper or contact us about our services.

The goal is to push down negative and unwanted visibility, while engaging the consumer directly with multiple web assets that feature frequently searched content–Proactiv, Proactiv Solution, Proactiv reviews, Proactive Solution (the “Proactive Solution” mis-spelling yields around 700 searches per day on Google alone), acne treatment, teen acne, baby acne, adult acne, back acne, rosacea, acne scarring, skin care, skin cleanser, exfoliation, etc.

2- Launch a corporate blog to further engage prospects and customers, and to build and maintain a brand relationship. This is also the perfect vehicle to address the damaging second result, “Look what Proactiv Solution did to my face!” A corporate blog, in this instance, is also an ideal medium for celebrity endorses to post “updates.” These celebrity updates can serve a dual purpose–to share Proactiv experiences and promote the celebrities’ concert schedules, upcoming appearances, etc. Talk about a win-win-win. Can you say Brand Loyalty?

3- Contact Wikipedia to have the link to the direct competitor, Acne.org, removed asap! I would also lobby the Wikipedia editor for the Proactiv Solutions page to add some balance to the external links and change some of the page content if need be.

On to the paid results…

[Author’s Note: At the time of this research there were fifty-two (52) unique advertisers for the keyword search “Proactiv Solution” on Google]

Paid Result #1

Proactiv® Official Site
www.Proactiv.com

A brand’s “official site” should always get the bulk of click-throughs versus other paid listings, and I’m sure Proactiv Solution is no different. Here is the ad copy:

“Learn about the Proactiv Solution & get the great skin you want, now!”

The thing about paid listings is that unrelated advertisers tend to make grand claims or offers, and in some cases try to schock the searcher into clicking their ad. Because of this, I would use more compelling ad copy that will trigger the conversion:

“The revolutionary acne treatment. Order today and get two FREE bonuses!” (per the website)

I can assure you that most prospects are going to find out what the two FREE bonuses are!

Paid Result #2

Buy Proactiv® Solution
www.Acne.com

As previously mentioned, Acne.com is a Guthy-Renker web property. This is an “authority” domain that conveys credibility to get the conversion. Here is the ad copy:

“Proactiv® Solution 60 Day Trial, Money Back Guarantee!”

Perfect!

Paid Result #3

Proactiv ® Didn’t Work?
www.Acne-Review.com

Acne-review.com is a competitor that sells a product called Exposed Acne Treatment System. Rule #1: Do not allow third parties to use your trademark in the heading or text of a paid search ad. Google offers an optional trademark policy to halt this practice.

Here is their ad copy:

“See How Acne Products Stack Up! (Sponsored by Exposed Skin Care™)”

A competitor advertising on your IP assets in the search engines constitutes trademark infringement. Yahoo changed their trademark policy last year to prohibit this. Here is the email Yahoo sent me indicating the policy change:

“On March 1, 2006, Yahoo! Search Marketing will modify its editorial guidelines regarding the use of keywords containing trademarks. Previously, we allowed competitive advertising by allowing advertisers to bid on third-party trademarks if those advertisers offered detailed comparative information about the trademark owner’s products or services in comparison to the competitive products and services that were offered or promoted on the advertiser’s site.

In order to more easily deliver quality user experiences when users search on terms that are trademarks, Yahoo! Search Marketing has determined that we will no longer allow bidding on keywords containing competitor trademarks.”

Another point to make about this ad is the title: “Proactiv ® Didn’t Work?” This suggests to the searcher that Proactiv Solution doesn’t work. Proactiv Solution needs to monitor this activity on the search engines and take steps to eliminate this nonsense, starting with a Cease & Desist letter to the offending party.

Paid Result #4

Why Murad Over Proactiv?
www.Murad.com

Here we go again. Proactiv must not allow unauthorized parties from using their trademark in the heading or text of Google ads. Here is this competitor’s ad copy:

“Leading Authority in Acne Skin Care Murad - $29.95, Proactiv - $39.95″

In that tiny little space for ad copy Murad attempts to strike a chord with the cost-conscious consumer, and using the Proactiv trademark to do so.

The title tag, “Why Murad Over Proactiv?,” asserts that the Proactiv product is in some way inferior. Again, Proactiv Solution should address this rogue competitor.

Paid Result #5

Proactiv Acne Solution?
PricesExposed.org/ProactivReview

This one is a doosey and pulls out all the tricks to divert traffic and shave revenues. Here is the ad copy:

“2007’s Top 20 Acne Solutions! Does Proactiv Acne Solution Work?”

1- The title uses the Proactiv trademark with a question mark–a provocative tactic to increase conversions.

2- The ad purports to give the visitor “2007’s Top 20 Acne Solutions,” providing the searcher with many options they may not be familiar with.

3- The ad poses the question “Does Proactiv Acne Solution Work?,” this is content many searchers are looking for.

Below is a screenshot of the landing page.

Two of the links are affiliate links to other products, there is one Google ad, and the remaining thirty-six (36) links direct the visitor to eBay where the site owner is selling all kinds of products.

The site owner is selling the Proactiv Solution 3-step System on eBay for $5 less than Proactiv does on their order page, but then charges more for shipping. Pretty sophisticated, right?

One more observation. Because this Proactiv affiliate doesn’t drive sales directly from his landing page it is hard to determine who the owner of the affiliate account is. Why is this important? Because Rule #2 is this: Affiliates are not allowed to bid on branded keyword sets. This one has found a way to circumvent this “obstacle.” FYI, the site owner’s information is private in Whois, but even if it was available it doesn’t necessarily mean it would match up with the affiliate account owner.

By simply implementing Google’s optional trademark policy this ad loses 99% of it’s effectiveness. In fact there is a good chance this advertiser would drop ads on the Proactiv trademark entirely.

Paid Result #6

Don’t Waste Your Money
www.acne-info.us

This is the same advertiser as the #3 paid result, Acne-review.com. This advertiser is a direct competitor attempting to steal targeted traffic and convert a sale for the Exposed Acne Treatment System. Here is the ad copy:

“How Acne Products Stack Up! Compare Proactive ® to Exposed™”

Once again, the use of the Proactiv trademark in the text of the ad creates problems for the Proactiv Solution brand.

Paid Result #7

Proactiv Solution
www.AcnesTreatment.net

Acnestreatment.com is an AdWords site designed to skim revenues through search arbitrage. These sites will come and go and the only real winner here is Google. Here is the ad copy:

“Compare Effective Acne Treatments. Clear Skin - Affordable Options.”

Below is a screenshot. The sole purpose of this site is to get a click-through on the ads it is displaying.

Paid Result #8

Proactiv Solution
shopping.yahoo.com

You wouldn’t think a major search engine would get involved in search arbitrage but that is exactly what Yahoo is doing here. Take a look at the screenshot.

While Yahoo does feature a product listing, albeit a competitive product to Proactiv Solution, the obvious focus of this page is to yield a click-through on the Yahoo ads. Yahoo spends a little on a low-ranking Google ad to make a higher amount on a Yahoo click-through.

Isn’t it neat how Yahoo Shopping is advertising Proactiv Solution on the brand real estate of Proactiv Solution yet doesn’t really sell it? Hmmm…

Paid Result #9

Proactiv Solution
www.Shopping.com/Personal_Care

Another bottom feeder. Shopping.com is another shopping aggregator engaging in search arbitrage. In their defense they do present Proactiv Solution products and market them through affiliate links.

Below is the screenshot.

Paid Result #10

Proactiv Solution
www.eBay.com

Even eBay is involved in deception. Let’s review the ad copy:

“Proactiv Solution available. Don’t just Buy it - Win it!”

Now let’s take a peak at the landing page below.

Is it just me or do you also notice there is no mention of how to “win” Proactiv Solution as described in their ad copy? What they literally mean is “win” the auction–to me, this is a deceptive tactic.

Contact us today for strategic planning, brand monitoring, and campaign management.

Technorati tags: brand command, search engine marketing, online brand protection, Proactiv Solution

“The client could not longer afford to continue a solo fight against a defendant with a bottomless pocketbook and every incentive to litigate indefinitely.”

Original post:

Why would American Blind precipitously drop a four year lawsuit? Especially since Judge Fogel ordered it to go to jury trial–talk about a dream come true!

I have never seen so much power wielded by one company in my life, not even AT&T before 1984, when at it’s peak, it employed one million people and annual revenue was roughly $300 billion (in today’s dollars).

Can anyone make sense of this? Costs? Narrow argument? Coercion?

View the agreement

How did the University of Phoenix infiltrate and dominate both the Education and the Online Education Marketing space?

Started in 1976, the University of Phoenix launched an innovative teaching and learning model to provide higher education to non-traditional students–primarily working students who required alternate classroom schedules.

With the proliferation of broadband internet, the delivery of education online exploded, and the Apollo Group (parent of the University of Phoenix) had become an attractive investment.

The University of Phoenix features more than 250 campuses and learning centers across the country, and in September of 2006, purchased the naming rights to the stadium most notably known as the home for the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals and college football’s Fiesta Bowl.

What is the secret sauce of the UOP marketing media mix?

In September of 2000, the company raised $75 million for the online division and launched an aggressive marketing campaign that included a mix of television advertising, direct mail and banner advertising. That’s when enrollments really began to take off.

In this decade the University of Phoenix has consistently been one of the biggest online advertisers in the U.S., and the Apollo Group recently announced plans to acquire online advertising network, Aptimus, Inc., for approximately $48 million in an all-cash deal due to close in ‘08.

What is next for Aptimus and its customers as an acquired Ad Network?

Aptimus will continue to provide its services to Internet publishers and advertising customers in other industries. In addition, Apollo will continue to work with AOL, its subsidiary Advertising.com, as well as with other digital media affiliates and publishers.

While the exclusive management contract with Advertising.com expires over the next several months, Apollo believes that the significant investments it has made in personnel and technology, as well as the acquisition of Aptimus, will enable the company to efficiently and effectively manage Internet advertising internally, without any disruption.

Should Advertising.com be concerned?

Personally, I believe the writing is on the wall for Advertising.com as the agency of record for University of Phoenix. Common sense seems to signal that the Aptimus team will be integrated as the “internal” solution replacing Advertising.com.

Related to my expertise, there are several areas of opportunity to protect the University of Phoenix brand online and upgrade their search marketing efficacy long-term.

~~~The Evaluation~~~

This University of Phoenix evaluation is based upon our Brand Command methodology. We invite you to download the Brand Command white paper now. Below is my assessment, emphasizing some of the tenets of Brand Command: Mastering Brand Marketing in the Search Engines, and Brand Protection Online. The information provided is by no means comprehensive in scope or depth.

Brand Protection Online

A. Brand Abuse ~ This includes illegal actions such as trademark infringement in all forms (words, symbols, scents, devices, etc), copyright violations, competitors advertising on trademarks, as well as defamatory or malicious claims made against your brand.

The screenshot below displays an example of a cybersquatter (trademark infringement) attempting to leverage the University of Phoenix trademark for profit. The website is www.theuniversityofphoenixonline.com, registered in November of 2004 by an individual in Provo, Utah.

Brand Abuse - Theuniversityofphoenixonline.com

In this instance, the cybersquatter inserts Google ad serving code above the fold, attempting to convert a quick click-through and generate ad revenue.

The opportunity here is for the Apollo Group to actively monitor domain registrations utilizing their trademarks and acquire them through Cease & Desist or UDRP.

If the unauthorized party has built up a lot of backlinks to their site, the University of Phoenix has the opportunity to forward the link popularity to one of their existing web assets via a permanent redirect, as highlighted in my recent iMedia Connection article. This tactic may increase search engine visibility for whichever page UOP chooses.

In the next example of brand abuse we take a look at a couple ads on Yahoo created by the folks at Homestead.com. Below is a screenshot of search results on Yahoo for the query “University of Phoenix.”

Brand Abuse - Yahoo Search

The first domain highlighted, www.universityphxonline.com, is a pretty clear-cut case of trademark infringement–an unauthorized party using the trademark for commercial gain.

Both of the examples above use the same landing page. Below is a screenshot. Take note that I have highlighted the text to reveal the hidden “[UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX]” text on the bottom of the page. The phrase is repeated over 500 times.

The tag in the footer is the following: “Web site designed & hosted by University of Phoenix Info Group © 2006 at Homestead™” I was unable to find more information about the University of Phoenix Info Group.

Brand Abuse - Universityphxonline.com

B. Brand Erosion ~ This includes consumer complaints, customer service issues, disgruntled clients, and additional brand reputation issues.

In the screenshot below, we take a look at the results for the search “University of Phoenix” on Google. I have highlighted a particularly threatening instance of brand erosion.

The eighth result on the first page of brand real estate for University of Phoenix is a site entitled “University of Phoenix Sucks.com! - Get the facts BEFORE you enroll!” The website’s domain name is www.uopsucks.com and is a damaging gripe site which even features a forum for UOP employees.

Because the Uopsucks.com website does not engage in commercial activity, there is no trademark infringement here under the Fair Use provision and first amendment rights.

Several companies, such as Guinness Beer, have won arbitration hearings to acquire domains that feature a company’s trademark plus the word “sucks.” See Diageo PLC (Guinness Beer) v. John Zuccarini.

The problem with this strategy is that it brings more attention (via media and blog reports) to the gripe site than there otherwise would have been.

So what is a company to do?

Brand Erosion - Uopsucks.com

There are multiple techniques and strategies you can implement to dominate your company’s brand real estate on the search engines and expel negative or unwanted visibility. To learn more, download our Brand Command white paper.

C. Brand Dilution ~ This is the weakening of a brand though its overuse. In the search engines, multiple unauthorized advertisements, which are inconsistent in message and/or look and feel, flood searches for many prominent brands.

In the screenshot below, we take a look at the results for the search “University of Phoenix” on Yahoo. I have highlighted three instances of brand dilution. The websites leveraging the UOP brand appear to be authorized affiliates, but upon further review…

Brand Dilution - Yahoo Search

The second site highlighted, www.onlinelearning101.com, does some lead generation for online universities, but not in this specific case. Instead, they are leveraging the University of Phoenix trademark, as displayed in the screenshot above, to engage in search arbitrage and glean profits by serving more Yahoo ads on their landing page.

Below is a screenshot of the landing page for Onlinelearning101.com when you click on their Yahoo ad for the search, “University of Phoenix.”

This is a problem for a number of reasons–first it confuses the consumer. Second, it increases the CPC (Cost Per Click) for UOP and their agency. Third, Onlinelearning101.com and Yahoo Search Marketing are generating revenue by illegally leveraging the University of Phoenix trademark. And fourth, these unauthorized ads dilute the University of Phoenix trademark.

Brand Dilution - Onlinelearning101.com

Note: In 2005, a court decision against Google in it’s trademark infringement case versus Geico held that the use of Geico’s trademarks in the heading or text of advertisements that appear when a user searches “Geico” does violate the Lanham Act, part of the Trademark Code.

The opportunity for frequently searched brands, is to implement the optional Google Adwords Trademark policy, to eliminate trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

Because Yahoo does not offer the search engine trademark protection that Google does, they are clearly our country’s foremost violator of trademark infringement and dilution online.

SEO (Search Engine Optimization)

SEO, or search engine optimization, is the process of optimizing your web pages to rank at the top of natural results in the search engines for targeted keywords. For the purpose of our evaluation, there are two categories of SEO, Branded SEO, and Non-branded SEO.

A. Branded SEO ~ This is the process of optimizing your web pages to rank at the top of natural results in the search engines for frequently searched branded keywords, and variations thereof.

A major premise of our Brand Command methodology is to dominate the natural results of your Brand Real Estate on the search engines. Is University of Phoenix dominating their Brand Real Estate?

In the screenshot below, we take a look at the Google results for the search “University of Phoenix.” I have highlighted the results where UOP web assets have first page visibility.

Branded SEO - “University of Phoenix”

University of Phoenix ranks well above average with a total of eight web assets visible out of a possible ten available positions on the first page of Google results! Can they do better? Yes! Our proven strategies would allow University of Phoenix to completely own their Brand Real Estate and push down the threatening instance of Brand Erosion.

The University of Phoenix uses several websites to dominate their brand real estate in both the paid and natural results of search engines–here is a breakdown of sites ranking in the natural results, with Site Explorer stats:

1. www.phoenix.edu
2,043 pages, 17,118 backlinks (external/all pages)

2. www.universityofphoenix-online.com
88 pages, 690 backlinks (external/all pages)

3. www.universityofphoenix.com
15,748 pages, 1,657 backlinks (external/all pages)

4. www.uopxonline.com
823 pages, 4,968 backlinks (external/all pages)

5. www.uopxonlinetraining.com
743 pages, 2,842 backlinks (external/all pages)

6. www.uoponline.com
334 pages, 157 backlinks (external/all pages)

7. www.uopx.com
2,685 pages, 472 backlinks (external/all pages)

Utilizing all these web assets has proven to be effective in dominating UOP brand real estate, but they need to updated and restructured for long-term success.

For example, www.universityofphoenix-online.com and www.universityofphoenix.com feature duplicate content, as do www.uopxonline.com and www.uopxonlinetraining.com. Search engines not only dislike, but can penalize duplicate content or mirror sites.

Another problem with all these web assets is they present conflicting and outdated information. One site states there are 170 campus locations, another states 191, and yet another, 250 plus.

From an SEO perspective, the University of Phoenix web assets have very powerful incoming links (backlinks) and could utilize this juice to rank for pretty much anything they wanted to within their industry. They simply need to restructure the web assets and content, and optimize for additional frequently searched keyword sets–branded and non-branded.

Branded SEO - Continued

It is important for companies to first focus on ranking for all their frequently searched, branded keyword sets, then pursue all of the non-branded keyword sets.

In the screenshot below, we take a look at the results for the search “University of Phoenix reviews” on Google. Note that none of the UOP web assets rank for this frequently searched, branded keyword set. To make matters worse, the Uopsucks.com website has prominent billing as the second result.

Branded SEO - “University of Phoenix reviews”

The obvious opportunity is to create multiple pages of content to rank for “University of Phoenix reviews,” such as student testimonials, faculty praise, etc.

B. Non-branded SEO ~ This is the process of optimizing your web pages to rank at the top of natural results in the search engines for frequently searched generic keywords, related to your type of company, products and services, geographic location, etc.

In this industry there are millions of keyword searches. The long tail for the root phrase “online degree” alone is in excess of 800,000 searches per month (averaged over a year).

In the screenshot below, we take a look at the results for the search “online degree” on Google. As you can see, UOP has no visibility in the natural results. While this is a very competitive term, it certainly isn’t out of reach for one of University of Phoenix’s web assets.

Non-branded SEO - “online degree”

The biggest problem they face is lack of optimized content. For example, the screenshot of the Phoenix.edu page below illustrates the fact that the most optimized page on the site for the keyword set “online degree” is sorely lacking keyword density and a few other on-site factors.

The opportunity is to optimize pages for the most frequently searched keyword sets while at the same time providing a satisfying user experience.

Non-branded SEO - Page Optimization

Related frequently searched, non-branded keywords include the following:

- online degree
- online degree programs
- online college degree
- online bachelor degree
- accredited online degree
- phd degree online
- online masters degree
- engineering degree online
- online computer science degree
- online nursing degree
- nursing degree online
- online business degree
- online accounting degree
- online education college degree
- college degree online
- online college degree programs
- college degree distance education online
- online degree program
- online health care degree
- communication masters degrees online
- online course college degree
- online college bachelor degree
- online course and college degree
- university online degrees

…and all of which are precious to the UOP brand!

Paid Search (Search Engine Advertising)

Paid Search, also known as Pay-per-click (PPC) or Search Engine Advertising, is the practice of placing ads on the major search engines for relevant keyword searches.

When it comes to Paid Search management for branded searches, there are some high-impact best practices to protect your brand.

First off, it appears that UOP has successfully implemented Google’s optional policy to halt third parties from using UOP trademarks in the heading and text of search ads–this is the #1 step every brand needs to take a look at to protect their IP assets.

Secondly, UOP is one of the few brands that have figured out how to dominate their brand real estate in the paid search results of Google. Google has a bogus policy attempting to prohibit this but it is easy to get around per the search engine’s own rules.

A. Landing Pages ~ Now, let’s take a look at some of the landing pages being used by University of Phoenix and their agencies:

1. www.uopdegreesonline.com
Affiliate - QuinStreet

2. www.Degree-UofPhoenix.com
Affiliate - Vantage Media

3. www.uofphx.info
Affiliate - QuinStreet

4. www.phoenixdegreesonline.com
University of Phoenix

5. www.phoenixdegrees.com
University of Phoenix

The screenshot below illustrates the first landing page, www.uopdegreesonline.com. The creative itself is mediocre and from a marketing perspective, all of the UOP landing pages lack pull marketing assets.

Paid Search - Landing Pages

The whole idea is to convert a lead, right? Well how better to do that then to offer something for free in exchange for the prospect’s information? For example, the two most frequent types of questions prospects ask when contacted by the university sales reps are the following:

1. How much is it? What is the cost per credit? What will it cost to get my degree?

2. Time. How long will it take? How much time will I need to allocate for homework? What is the schedule like?

I am certain UOP’s landing pages would convert more leads if they offered pull marketing assets such as a FREE Report, instead of just “information.”

An example of a FREE Report could be this: Receive Your FREE Report Entitled “Everything You Need To Know In 2007 About Student Loans And State & Federal Financial Aid!” (sponsored by Tom Crandall Lending) Anyway, you get the picture–quid pro quo.

B. Affiliate Policy ~ I don’t understand why a major brand would allow affiliates to advertise on branded keywords–this is a no-no for several reasons. To make matters worse, one of the affiliates, Vantage Media, uses a UOP-branded domain to generate leads for direct competitors.

The screenshot below displays the content on the home page of www.Degree-UofPhoenix.com. This utilizes the UOP trademark in the domain but the content shows a different strategy.

[Note: It has been pointed out to me that the home page of www.Degree-UofPhoenix.com has never been used in search marketing to convert leads for University of Phoenix, but rather tracking URL’s from the root domain Degree-UofPhoenix.com, which are landing pages with University of Phoenix content and lead forms.]

Paid Search - Affiliate Policy

C. Ad Optimization ~ Another key aspect of converting paid search ads is to optimize the ad text to reflect the search.

The screenshot below displays the results for the search “online masters degree” on Google. As you can see, the ad copy for all the University of Phoenix landing pages is not optimized to convert a lead for this specific search. The title, or at least the underlying text of the ads, should reflect the search, “online masters degree.”

In our business, there is a special term we use to describe this technique–it is called lazy.  From a branding perspective it makes sense to use the title “University of Phoenix” in one of the ads, but certainly not all three.

This is a common problem for the University of Phoenix landing pages across the board for most non-branded searches.

D. Ad Coverage ~ Building out your keyword list and how you approach broad match is fundamental to your success.

In the screenshot below we take a look at the search “online degree programs” on Google. This is a frequently searched, as well highly relevant keyword set for UOP. As you can see, there is no visibility in the natural nor paid results for University of Phoenix.

~~~Wrap Up~~~

All in all, University of Phoenix is ahead of the game when it comes to search marketing. I hope my insights clearly present the areas of opportunity UOP has to protect their brand online and enhance their search marketing efforts.

Technorati Tags: University of Phoenix, online brand protection, search engine marketing

Addressing threats to your brand on the internet is a primary business concern and the consequences of multiple brand abuse issues online can loom much larger than singular incidents of unauthorized sales, counterfeiting, cybersquatting, trademark dilution, or a gripe site making unpleasant claims.

The threat of aggregate brand abuse can fuel a tipping point of how your brand is perceived, affecting the brand’s reputation, and thus, equity, worth, or value.

Can you think of a brand whose reputation met a tipping point at which there was no return? I worked for one called Pan Am, aka, Pan American World Airways, that went under in 1991.

While I will always have a fond memory of the big blue ball I can tell you that working as a flight attendant for an airline that had very negative associations with customer service, safety, and financial stability was a rough experience the last couple of years–maybe that explains my intuitive role now as a brand advocate.

And now, on with the list…

1. Brand Erosion

The slow but deadly brand killer. It is easy for disgruntled customers, clients, employees, or deceptive competitors to publish negative experiences or content about your company’s products and services.

The following example is particularly painful for me to look at–there are so many ”bad practices” in play. How do you politely refer to a company’s search marketing strategy as a complete and total nightmare?

Let’s just say it has nowhere to go but up–I strongly advise the leadership to reevaluate by performing some due diligence and seeking out the advice of fellow practitioners or consultants. In fact, I would happily give them some pro bono assistance at their request!

The parent company is Cellular Research and the brand is Dual Action Cleanse. If you haven’t heard of the Dual Action Cleanse, than you have successfully evaded the mesmerizing push advertising campaigns known as infomercials.

This screenshot below displays the search results on Google for the query “Dual Action Cleanse:”

The Dual Action Cleanse is pilloried in both the natural and paid listings of first page brand real estate. Note that the brand’s own website doesn’t even rank at the top of natural rankings. One of the reasons for this is a detrimental strategy. They feature a minimum of five identical websites using the following domains:

1. Dualactioncleanse.com
2. Officialdualactioncleanse.com
3. Trydualactioncleanse.com
4. Mydualactioncleanse.com
5. Dualactioncleansenow.com

The search engines view duplicate content/mirror sites as spam and will penalize you for it. In addition, the inbound links generated to their products and information are being split between multiple sites, therefore diluting DAC’s visibility in the search engines.

DAC has not taken steps to block unauthorized parties from using their trademark in the heading and text of Google ads–learn how to accomplish this by downloading our Brand Command white paper. Not only does this create confusion, but it increases the odds for third parties to convert traffic.

DAC also makes the mistake of allowing affiliates to use their trademark within a domain name. An example is www.buydualactioncleanse.com.

On a side note, why would search engines allow ads that refer to the trademark as a scam in order to sell a competing product? That’s just wrong.

2. Cybersquatting

Cybersquatting is the registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to another entity. This is one of the more common threats to well-known brands and should be a high priority for your brand protection plan online.  In the example below, we take a look at the domain www.buy-playstation-3.com, which was registered by a party other than Sony.

In this example, the unauthorized domain owner has published a website that is using the Sony trademark “Playstation 3″ for commercial gain. The site doesn’t even make mention of the Sony Playstation 3, and appears to sell both Xbox and Playstation products.

3. Typosquatting

Typosquatting is a form of Cybersquatting that utilizes various typographical errors within the name of a trademark.

In the example below, the screenshot displays the domain www.americajexpress.com. The website is programmed to serve Google ads and is set up to capture individuals accidentally mistyping www.americanexpress.com directly.

Naturally, the individual will intuitively click on the first sponsored result, www.americanexpress.com. An all too common scam, the criminal and Google share in the revenue while American Express pays for every click-through.

4. Brand Siphoning

On the surface it makes sense for direct selling and network marketing brands to utilize affiliates and web-savvy reps to generate revenues in the search engines for branded searches. This is a big no-no for multiple reasons. Here are a few:

A. Loss of revenue
B. Inconsistent brand message
C. Inconsistent brand aesthetics, often unprofessional
D. False or deceptive claims and guarantees prompted by competing reps
E. Inconsistent pricing
F. Compliance issues related to income or product claims

More reasons, specifically for my example below, Herbalife:

G. Unfair playing field in the eyes of Herbalife distributors who take the time to present Herbalife products to prospects, only to find the prospect has purchased from a distributor online.
H. The web-savvy distributors are only in it for the quick retail score–they don’t follow up with highly motivated leads.
I. Many web-savvy distributors also sell the products of direct competitors on the same website!

The screenshot below displays the search results on Google for the query “Herbalife” (Incidentally, there were thirteen pages of Google ads for this search). Note that Herbalife corporate has no presence in the sponsored results.

There is a solution.

When the leadership of Herbalife understands the current risks and the upside of a policy change, they will take back their precious brand, engage consumers directly, and assign direct retail customers and leads to independent distributors participating in a paid lead program, easily created and managed by corporate, and garnering positive ROI. This is a process our company has been very successful at executing.

By doing this, Herbalife would accomplish several things:

A. Control brand messaging and creative
B. Ensure federal, state, and company compliance
C. Create an even playing field for Herbalife distributors
D. Create a new profit center by selling highly targeted prospects to highly motivated independent distributors

Voila! No more brand siphoning, and you’ve increased to the bottom line.

5. Traffic Diversion

Traffic Diversion occurs when any third party places ads for your trademarks (company name, products, etc.) on the search engines. These ads dilute your brand and divert traffic away from your web assets. Because Google offers a policy to halt the use of trademarks in the heading or text of an ad, the vast majority of these offenses occur on Yahoo.

The screenshot below highlights the search results in Yahoo for the query “Chase bank.” The third parties advertising on the Chase trademark are composed of loan websites, a credit card lead generation site, and of course, eBay.

The third ad down on the right side of the screenshot attempts to divert traffic by claiming “Instant Car Loans - All Credit Approved.” When the naive visitor clicks on the link, they are directed to a landing page that features a convertible BMW, and then an application form. This site is nothing more than a lead generation scheme, leveraging the Chase trademark for business development.

6. Compliance

The entire dietary supplement industry is under the scrutiny of the FDA regarding illegal health claims. A popular health beverage company by the name of XanGo received a warning letter last September from the FDA for what it considered to be claims promoting their product for the “cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease,” thereby positioning the product as a drug in the eyes of the agency.

The FDA’s letter included a long list of health claims the FDA says it found in nine XanGo brochures promoting the health benefits of mangosteen and mangosteen juice:

- “One study showed mangosteen extract was a more potent anti-inflammatory agent than several prescription anti-inflammatory medications currently used for arthritis and gout.”

- “Prevents hardening of the arteries, Anti-Parkinson, Anti-Alzheimer and other forms of dementia, Anti-depressant, Mangosteen helps in the prevention of cancer with its powerful anti-oxidants and Lowers blood pressure.”

- “Another way mangosteen keeps the cells and glands of the endocrine system working properly is by fighting off infection.”

- “The xanthones in mangosteen have been shown to inhibit both bacteria (including strains of the staphylococcus bacteria that were antibiotic resistant) and viruses (such as HIV-1).”

In its warning letter to XanGo, the FDA noted the claims position the product as a drug, and as such, it has not been approved; marketing of an unapproved new drug can lead to enforcement action.

XanGo was given 15 working days from the Sept. 20 warning letter to detail the steps it will take to “prevent your distributors from promoting your product in a manner that violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

The compliance threat XanGo faces online is all of the distributor-published health claims displayed on their independently owned websites that sell XanGo.

The screenshot below displays the search results in Google for the query “XanGo health benefits.” The very first result presents the claim “…can help with cancer.” It is examples like this that can shut down XanGo’s billion dollar operation overnight.

The way to eliminate and mitigate the online compliance threats is to monitor the web–search engines, blog engines, news engines, social media sites, etc., for illegal XanGo claims. Once identified, XanGo’s legal team can take steps to address violators and illegal content. To learn more about our online brand protection services, submit an inquiry.

7. Counterfeiting

Back in May of this year the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned U.S. consumers about the proliferation of foreign websites selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals.

In the example below we take a look at www.brandpills.net, a website cited by the government as a counterfeiter.

On multiple occasions, the FDA received information that counterfeit versions of Xenical 120 mg capsules, a drug manufactured by Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., were obtained by consumers.

Xenical is an FDA-approved drug used to help obese individuals who meet certain weight and height requirements lose weight and maintain weight loss. None of the capsules ordered off the Web sites contained orlistat, the active ingredient in authentic Xenical.

In fact, laboratory analysis conducted by Roche and submitted to the FDA confirmed that one capsule contained sibutramine, which is the active ingredient in Meridia, an FDA-approved prescription drug manufactured by Abbott Laboratories.

While this product is also used to help people lose weight and maintain that loss, it should not be used in certain patient populations and therefore is not a substitute for other weight loss products. In addition the drug interactions profile is different between Xenical and sibutramine, as is the dosing frequency; sibutramine is administered once daily while Xenical is dosed three times a day.

Not only is Roche vulnerable to revenue loss and reputation issues, but counterfeiting in this case can be deadly for unsuspecting consumers.

8. Phishing

Generally speaking, phishing is primarily a threat to financial services companies. Phishing ploys are not only targeted at consumers, but to employees as well, designed to extract account information, passwords, and even trade secrets.

The example below displays a screenshot of a documented phishing effort targeted at PNC Bank customers. Obviously, victims of this scam (the account holders and the bank) were vulnerable to immediate and costly criminal theft.

9. Copyright Violations

While the copyright news of the day is focused on Viacom v. YouTube, let’s take a look at an issue that faces almost every brand online at one time or another; content theft.

It is important to actively monitor and identify unauthorized parties utilizing your collateral or content on unrelated websites. Aside from presenting duplicate content to search engines, this practice can give the appearance of false associations and is outright IP theft.

The screenshot below displays an “ironical” example of identical copy being used on two unrelated company websites.

1. From Franklin Covey’s PlanPlus Services page: http://planplusonline.com/services_overview

“The PlanPlus™ Online Professional Services Group is committed to making every customer successful—and just as dedicated to keeping PlanPlus Online the most robust, yet easiest-to-use solution on the market. PlanPlus Online also provides a full range of complementary client services that maximize this product’s capabilities for your unique needs.”

2. From Omniture’s Services page: http://www.omniture.com/services

“Omniture is committed to making every customer successful—and just as dedicated to keeping SiteCatalyst™ the most robust, yet easiest-to-use solution on the market. Omniture also provides a full range of complementary client services that maximize this product’s capabilities for your unique needs.”

10. Unauthorized Sales

Gray market and unauthorized sales channels can compromise the integrity of a brand and can create rancor amongst authorized vendors and reps who follow corporate guidelines and pricing structures.

Swiss skin care company, Arbonne International, has a strict online sales policy for it’s force of independent representatives–no sales activity on eBay. It is an arduous task to enforce this policy because eBay will not apply another company’s policy to their business model.

eBay does offer a trademark/copyright protection program called VeRO, which is an acronym for Verified Rights Owner. The VeRO program allows brands to request the removal of listings which feature the use of IP assets–images, logos, and text.

11. False Association

False Associations can be conveyed using trademarked domains (cybersquatting) as well as text or logos that suggest or imply some type of business relationship.

The screenshot below displays the search results on Yahoo for the query “Tiffany & Co.” The three highlighted ads all feature domains displaying the Tiffany trademark. The false association threat here creates the likelihood of confusion and poses a threat to the brand.

The last ad on the right, www.tiffanytrinkets.com, offers Tiffany “inspired” jewelry in the form of replicas. This is blatant trademark infringement.

Companies that ignore threats to their brand online have a lot at stake:

- Legal Liability
- Corporate Revenues
- Consumer Trust
- Consumer Safety
- Consumer Satisfaction
- Brand Equity

Contact our team to learn more about protecting your brand.

Technorati tags: brand abuse, cybersquatting, online brand protection

“Because of the binding arbitration clause in many new-home contracts, unsatisfied homeowners rarely make a court hearing—or the headlines. “I think that the problem with construction defects has been under the radar for so long,” says Nancy Seats, president of Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings (HADD), a nonprofit consumer protection group for homeowners dealing with defective construction.

“People just don’t understand how many people are just being financially destroyed by bad construction and binding arbitration. But now more and more people are going to the Internet to expose their problems and get back at the builder.”

“What happens instead of a trial, Seats says, is that big builders pay people to shut down their builder-bashing Web sites. It’s true that many links to former sites are now defunct, including the once-popular KBHomesSucks.com. “

This was the most outstanding Web site, and KB Homes tried to sue them,” Seats says. “The vast majority of [now-defunct sites] were people that were paid to shut up and go away.” Repeated calls from BusinessWeek to KB Homes (KBH) have, as yet, gone unanswered.”

Indeed, the once famous KBHomesSucks.com gripe site has mysteriously vanished as the screenshot below illustrates. But at what cost?

The NewsWeek story also lists a handful of homebuilder gripe sites:

- www.khovsucks.com
- www.FightPulte.com
- www.FightDiVosta.com
- www.FightDelWebb.com
- www.crapconstruction.com
- www.defective-homes.net

The screenshot below illustrates prominent brand visibility in Google for the K. Hovnanian Homes Suck site, www.khovsucks.com.

Is it wise for homebuilders to pay off branded gripe sites? There are other solutions. Download our Brand Command White Paper to learn how to protect your brand from prominent gripe site visibility in the search engines.

Technorati tags: gripe sites, online brand protection

The coalition, composed of brand heavyweights, including AIG, Hilton, Dell, Verizon, Wyndham, Marriott, and others, estimates that cybersquatting costs companies worldwide more than $1 billion annually in diverted customer sales and enforcement expenses.

From the Coalition’s home page:

“Since brand-rooted domains attract Internet traffic, the majority of domain names kept by cybersquatters are then used to post pay-per-click (PPC) advertisement links in order to easily monetize visitor traffic.

Internet users who visit these sites find posted lists of “sponsored links” to sites that may be relevant to the industries of the brands infringed. If users click the links that correspond to the intended brands, those brand owners may be charged click fees by search engines that share the proceeds with the domain name registrants.“

THE NEXT PARAGRAPH OF THE COALITION’S STATEMENT HAD ME DUMBFOUNDED:

“These fees add up. PPC sites are among the worst kinds of infringement on the Internet today because they divert traffic likely intended for a brand owner’s site and often monetize this traffic at the direct expense of the brand owner.”

Dumbfounded, because the exact same statement can be used to describe Yahoo:

“Yahoo’s search engine advertising practices are among the worst kinds of infringement on the Internet today because they divert traffic likely intended for a brand owner’s site and often monetize this traffic at the direct expense of the brand owner.”

What I really want to know is how much does Yahoo cost companies worldwide in diverted customer sales and enforcement expenses? Yahoo is, without a doubt, the single largest violator of trademark law online in the United States.

In a trademark lawsuit against Google (Geico v. Google), the Eastern District Court of Virginia found a likelihood of confusion for sponsored listings featuring a trademark in the heading or text of the listing:

“…the district court found that the “extremely high” percentage of respondents who experienced some degree of confusion when viewing these advertisements was sufficient to show that there was a likelihood of confusion present when GEICO’s marks appeared in either the heading or the text of a Sponsored Link advertisement.

Google advised the district court that it had no contrary evidence. Thus, the district court held that GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion and had therefore shown that Google violated the Lanham Act with regard to those Sponsored Link advertisements that included GEICO’s marks in the headings or text.”

Google settled with Geico to avoid a tumultuous threat to their business model and offers an optional trademark policy to trademark holders to prevent forms of infringement.

In a nutshell, this policy provides any entity, whether they are a Google advertiser or not, the right to protect their registered trademarks by halting unauthorized parties from using said trademarks in the heading or text of Google search engine advertisements.

Allow me to illustrate the differences in trademark usage between Yahoo and Google, and I’ll do so using one of Yahoo’s partners in the newly announced CADNA coalition, Wyndham Worldwide (ahem, Susan Crane).

Below is a screenshot of the search “Wyndham” in Google:

Notice the paid search results in Google are ads by Wyndham Vacations (Wyndham-vacations.com) and Wyndham Vacation Resorts (Fairfieldgetaways.com), both Wyndam Worldwide properties and authorized advertisers.

The next screenshot features a search of “Wyndham” in Yahoo:

Authorized advertisers Wyndam Hotels and Wyndham Vacations are prominently visible, but so are several other unauthorized entities.

Yahoo’s policy to allow unauthorized entities to advertise on a trademark-triggered search result, using the trademark in the heading and/or text of the ad, constitutes trademark dilution, specifically the blurring provision as written in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.

The provision states:

“Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.”

By definition:

“…’dilution by blurring’ is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. In determining whether a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:

(v) Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark.

(vi) Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.”

Exclusions:

“The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with:

(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or

(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.

It appears that Wyndham would be entitled to injunctive relief in this example. The unauthorized usage of the Wyndham trademark by unrelated entities does not meet the standard of fair use, news reporting or commentary, nor noncommercial use of the Wyndham trademark.

Technorati tags: Yahoo trademark policy, CADNA, trademark dilution

“Calling themselves the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse, ten companies have hired the law firm Alston & Bird LLP to persuade federal lawmakers of the need to crack down on those who claim Web addresses, or domain names, that include or resemble a legitimate company’s trademark.

The coalition estimates that so-called cybersquatting costs companies worldwide more than $1 billion annually in diverted customer sales and enforcement expenses.”

The list of companies includes Coca-Cola, Dell, Yahoo, AIG, Eli Lilly, HSBC, Hilton, Wyndham Worldwide, Verizon, and Marriott.

What initially caught my attention was this admonition on the coalition’s home page:

“Since brand-rooted domains attract Internet traffic, the majority of domain names kept by cybersquatters are then used to post pay-per-click (PPC) advertisement links in order to easily monetize visitor traffic.

Internet users who visit these sites find posted lists of “sponsored links” to sites that may be relevant to the industries of the brands infringed. If users click the links that correspond to the intended brands, those brand owners may be charged click fees by search engines that share the proceeds with the domain name registrants.“

So let’s take a look at the example, Blackberryconnection.com. As you can imagine, the Blackberry trademark is a frequently searched keyword.

This example illustrates “the world’s #1 domain registrar,” Godaddy.com, displaying contextual Google advertisements on this “parked” domain. In this case, “the brand owner may be charged click fees by search engines that share the proceeds with Godaddy.com.”

But wait… there’s more. Godaddy.com actually has a program that promotes “Cybersquatting For Dollars” called CashParking.

The program details: “Make money from your domains’ parked pages! It’s easy with CashParking. Whether you have one domain or a growing portfolio, CashParking can turn those domains into a cash generator! Now includes parked page customization options!

Simply pick the CashParking plan that’s right for you, add your domains to the CashParking portfolio and get ready to share in parked domain revenue.”

Basic Plan - $3.99/month
- Earn 60% of the advertising revenue on your parked domains!
Premium Plan - $9.99/month
- Earn 80% of the advertising revenue on your parked domains!

Believe it or not they suck thousands of naive victims into this racket. While the individuals who sign up generally lose money every single month (even after clicking on the ads displayed on their domain), Godaddy.com generates revenue two ways.

1) Their ad revenue share adds up when you consider all of the CashParkers participating

2) Godaddy.com levies a monthly fee on participants to throw up a one page ad (for Godaddy.com) and insert Google Adwords code

The final point to make is that Godaddy.com is covered–they share the illegal profits but are not vulnerable to the civil liability of statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1,000, and not more than $100,000, per domain name (per the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999) that the domain name owner is.

Technorati tags: cybersquatting, domain name abuse, CADNA, Godaddy CashParking

Anybody can register a domain that contains a trademark. It is only when that domain is put to illegal use that a company has a responsibility to act, in order to protect the business entity from trademark infringement and dilution.

Common reasons to send a Cease and Desist order for infringing domain names:

1. Halt commercial use.
In July of 2006 Google Inc. sent a Cease & Desist letter to an individual infringing on the Google trademark by registering and serving ads on a website named “Googlecalendar.com.” Google’s legal counsel writes:

“You have registered, without Google’s permission or authorization, the domain name googlecalendar.com (the ‘Domain Name’). The Domain Name incorporates the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety. Please note that your registration and use of the Domain Name incorporating the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety constitutes trademark infringement, dilution, and bad faith registration under the UDRP. Your registration and use of the Domain Name is actionable under the UDRP. Under similar circumstances, Google has prevailed in numerous UDRP actions. These decisions are located online at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm.”

UDRP is an acronym for Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Under this policy, most trademark-based domain name disputes are resolved by agreement, court action, or arbitration hearing before a registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name.

Disputes alleged to arise from abusive registrations of domain names may be addressed by expedited administrative proceedings that the holder of trademark rights initiates by filing a complaint with an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

To invoke the UDRP, a trademark owner should either file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain holder, or, in cases of abusive registration, submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider.

The screenshot below displays the Cease and Desist order sent by Google to the owner of the Googlecalendar.com domain name.

2. Eliminate or mitigate defamatory sites
The most obvious example is “Yourcompanysucks.com” There are a handful of companies who have not learned how to address these defamatory customer complaint sites. The #5 result in Google for the search “Allstate” is Allstateinsurancesucks.com. The #7 result in Google for the search “University of Phoenix” is UOPsucks.com. The #4 result in Google for the search “Paypal” is Paypalsucks.com. You get the picture.

Note: Depending on your industry, it may be a mistake to actually pursue legal action and trigger an onslaught of unwanted media attention. Learn how to eliminate or mitigate the prominence of these sites with our Brand Command methodology.

In the example below we take a look at a Cease and Desist order sent by Mass Mutual to the owner of the MassMutualSuks.com domain name.

3. Confront Typo-Squatters
Typo-Squatters seek to benefit from the brand traffic of frequently searched organizations. Under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), Typo-squatters shall be held liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark if the party has a bad faith intent to profit from registration of the trademark as a domain name and registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to another party’s trademark or dilutes a famous trademark.

Under the Act, the trademark owner can recover damages of $1000 to $100,000 per domain name registration.

The screenshot below displays the Cease and Desist order sent by American Express to the owner of the Amer8canexpress.com, Amer9canexpress.com, Amerian4xpress.com, Americajexpress.com, American3xpress.com, Americanexprese.com, and Americanexpresx.com domain names.

Domain name assets are critical to a company’s operations and brand reputation online. Many frequently searched brands employ a strategy called “defensive” domain name registration, where a business or organization registers its trademarks and brand names as domain names, including variations thereof, such as “Companysucks.com,” “Companyproblems.com,” etc.

Phonetic and typographical misspellings are also candidates and defensive registration is typically commissioned on all major top level domains, such as .com, .net, .org, .biz, etc.

Technorati tags: UDRP, sample cease and desist letter, defensive domain registration

“Google Analytics users,

There is a temporary reporting delay within Google Analytics accounts. For most accounts, reporting is current through this past Saturday night. Please note that no data will be lost - data will continue to be collected and processed during this time.

We are in the process of fully updating your Google Analytics account data and will display it within your reports as soon as possible. Please note, you are still able to log in to your accounts and access all the data through Saturday. We will update this blog when reporting is fully restored.We apologize for any inconvenience this delay in reporting has caused. Thank you for using Google Analytics.” 

Technorati tags: Google Analytics

1. Counterfeiting.

Search engines are a perfect place for criminals to engage in illegal business practices online. The internet provides anonymity, global reach, a low barrier to market entry (little to no startup cost), no verification of credentials, and ease with which to misappropriate brand IP assets.

Counterfeit, pirated, and knock-off merchandise are traded on Google, Yahoo, and MSN is if they were a virtual extension of China. I can understand the inability for search engines to police the natural results of their algorithm, but to allow/make money from the advertising of illegal trade is mind boggling.

In the screenshot below, we take a look at search results for the search “fake Oakley sunglasses,” also known as “Foakleys,” by consumers. It is very disturbing to see Yahoo Shopping as the first result of advertisements on Google.

2. Trademark Dilution.

Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept forbidding the use of a famous trademark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In the search engines, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another’s trademark in the “Sponsored Links” results. While Google gives brands the option to halt the practice, Yahoo & MSN give little to no protection.

In the screenshot below we take a look at the results for “Dell” on Yahoo. Dell is able to stop unauthorized parties from using their trademark in Google ads, but it is a much different story on Yahoo. Dilution runs rampant here with a particularly egregious example highlighted below–can anybody tell me what eBay Motors has to do with Dell Computers?

Your right, nothing. The landing page on eBay Motors featured zero results for Dell. They are diluting the trademark and unfairly leveraging the IP asset of an unrelated entity to siphon traffic. Ultimately, it should be the right of the trademark owner to determine if it will allow third parties to use their name in advertisements, not the search engines.

3. Defamation.

An article on Consumerist.com entitled “27 Confessions Of A Former Circuit City Worker” was Dugg 3,027 times and netted an additional 270 comments on Digg. This story was as viral as it gets for a couple weeks in June.

Why the buzz? The employee explained in detail how the prices of extended warranties and accessories are negotiable as well as other insider info such as this recommendation:

“If you want to try and save money, get an expensive protection plan and return it. The most expensive protection plan I remember seeing on a laptop was around $600, and when thrown on ask for a big discount, expect up to 150 to be knocked off the price of the computer. Then as soon as possible, return the protection plan, and keep the discount on the computer. All discount will always be applied to the product, not the protection plan itself.”

The former employee goes on to cast aspersions about Circuit City policies and procedures and reveal trade secrets. In the screenshot below we take a look at a search for “Circuit City” on Google:

4. Brand Erosion

In my first (and only, to date) full evaluation of a brand, I assessed Jiffy Lube. In my eyes Jiffy Lube is a prima facie example of Brand Erosion in the search engines. Customer complaints and an investigative NBC report yield first page visibility for the search “Jiffy Lube” on Google.

The screenshot below displays the results, with instances of Band Erosion highlighted.

5. Trademark Infringement.

Trademark infringement in the search engines is largely defined by where you live. In Europe, Google is limited in allowing third parties from even advertising on registered trademarks. In the U.S. and Canada, Google does allow third parties to advertise on trademarks, but empowers brands to halt the use of trademarks by unauthorized parties in the heading or copy of search engine advertisements.

Then there is the issue of jurisdiction. Some states feature “unfair use” or “unfair business practice” in their trademark law which would appear to protect a brand from a direct competitor advertising on their trademark. This year, new legislation in Utah gave birth to the Utah Trademark Protection Act, which views the practice of advertising on a competitor’s trademark in the search engines as “corporate identity theft.”

Below is a screenshot which displays the lame attempt by the auto brand Infiniti to siphon traffic on the Google search “BMW.”

6. Malignment

I am amazed to see the words “suck” and “sucks” allowed to be used in Yahoo and Google search engine advertisements–why even risk your business model by inviting litigation? There are several other forms of brand malignment as well.

In the example below we take a look at the search results for “MonaVie testimonials” in Google. MonaVie is a network marketing brand that features a health drink by the same name. MonaVie is in a tremendous state of growth and features a force of independent distributors that directly sell MonaVie products to the public.

The title of the ad states “MonaVie Fight Cancer Now.” This advertisement is dangerous to the wellbeing of the MonaVie brand because the products have not been evaluated by the FDA, and thus may not claim to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or medical condition.

While the ad goes to great lengths to promote the MonaVie brand, the independent distributor is actually maligning the brand by risking non-compliance sanctioning potentially posed by the FDA or FTC.

Learn how to manage threats to your Brand Real Estate on the search engines. Are there other risks to frequently searched brands? I’m sure there are. Please comment or send me any you have experienced.

Technorati tags: search engine risks, trademark infringement online, brand erosion

The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, has filed a lawsuit against Mannatech Inc. in a state district court located in Travis County. The legal complaint accuses Mannatech of violating state and federal health and safety codes and the state deceptive trade practices, willingly enabling the company’s force of freelance associates to use illegal health claims on their websites.

Specifically, the Mannatech lawsuit cites the defendants for marketing and selling dietary supplements (glyconutrients) as a way to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent diseases, illnesses, or serious conditions. Mannatech earned in excess of $400 million in 2006.

It is illegal for a company to market a product as a treatment for a disease without approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The attorney general seeks a permanent injunction and a fine of $25,000 for each day the company violates state law, as well as unspecified reimbursement for consumers who have bought Mannatech products. The charges may result in $20,000 per violation.

Let’s take a look at the associate websites cited by the legal complaint. The website, www.glycohealthservice.com, which belongs to a Mannatech associate, is used to promote Mannatech products:

The site is full of illegal health claims and insinuates that Mannatech’s products will reverse a terminal condition.

Another Mannatech associate website used to promote products is www.livingsugars.com. This site prominently illustrates illegal claims, gloriously trumpeting the miraculous healing properties of glyconutrients:

The third associate website cited, www.healthtestimonies.com, presents a series of audio recordings with four different marketing products which feature various doctors:

These audio recordings, all of which include multiple illegal claims, contain testimonials for twenty-four conditions which are identified on the website as: Arthritis, Asthma, ADD, Brain Aneurysm, Breast Cancer, Cancer, Cataract, Cerebral Palsy, Diabetes, Diabetic Blind, Fibromyalgia, Golf Ball Brain Tumor, Heart Failure, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Low Back Pain, Micro Valve Prolapse, Muscular Dystrophy, Osteoarthrtis, Peripheral Neuropathy, Progeria, Prostate Cancer, Retinopathy, Rotor Cuff Pain, and Streptococcal Toxic Shock Syndrome.

The last website cited in the complaint is www.glycotools.com. This website is exclusively dedicated to selling Mannatech sales aids, including dozens of CD’s, DVD’s, brochures, and other promotional materials. An example is the screenshot below displaying a CD entitled “How I Conquered Cancer:”

The website is owned and operated by Dupli-Pack, which is also a prominent vendor at Mannatech’s corporate events. Many of the products sold on the website include very specific and illegal health claims.

The legal complaint goes on to deride Mannatech’s Compliance enforcement:

“Defendant’s compliance program is also ineffective, in part, because rather than actively monitoring associates, Defendants rely on “self-regulation” (i.e. the reporting of violations by other associates or consumers). Moreover, even when a complaint is reported, Defendants fail to take any reasonableaction to discipline violating associates, especially if the associates are high ranking associates who make a lot of money for Defendants.

On occassion, Defendants take “disciplinary action” against Mannatech associates in the form of a written or verbal warning to stop making illegal disease claims. But such disciplinary action is only illusory, intended to create the impression that Defendants take real enforcement action.

In fact, Defendants fail to follow up on such warnings to ensure that the associate has stopped making illegal claims, or take any further action to deter associates from makingillegal health claims. Some associates have received multiple warning letters from Mannatech, but continue to make illegal claims without repercussion.

Moreover, defendant (and Mannatech CEO) Caster refuses to allow any more serious enforcement action to be taken against high ranking associates. For example, on at least two occasions, Defendants’ Compliance Committee has met and made a recommendation to terminate and/or suspend for a significant period of time a high ranking associate because of egregious illegal disease claims.

In each case, however, becasue the associate was a highly productive associate, Defendant Caster has overruled the Compliance Committee’s recommended punishment and instead given the associate a slap-on-the-wrist.”

In Response to the legal action, Mannatech’s Investor Relations contact was quick to issue a response:

“We are aware of the situation and will be taking appropriate action to address any issues or concerns from the Texas Attorney General’s office,” said Terry Persinger, Mannatech’s President. “We take matters of this nature very seriously and intend to cooperate to reach a resolution.”

A note to network marketing brands: Do not file patents for your health products that claim to cure, mitigate, treat or prevent.

Mannatech filed a patent that listed more than fifty diseases or conditions that can be cured, mitigated, treated, or prevented by using Mannatech’s products.

The solution. Here is what Mannatech and many other health-related network marketing brands need to do regarding their web strategy:

1. Identify non-compliant content and continue to monitor the visibility of associate websites in the search engines.

2. Identify non-compliant content and continue to monitor the visibility of associate claims on message boards and social media websites like Myspace.com.

3. Identify non-compliant content and continue to monitor the visibility of associate blogs and press releases online.

4. Create and enforce a comprehensive online compliance policy.

5. Create and enforce a search engine advertising policy.

6. Eliminate/mitigate negative visibility in the search engines, including complaint sites, negative reviews, and disgruntled customer or associate content.

7. Eliminate trademark infringement in the natural and paid results of search engines.

8. Eliminate/mitigate trademark dilution in the paid results of search engines.

Network marketing companies need to take back control of their brands and engage prospects directly online:

9. Create multiple, professionally designed web assets, optimized to rank for the brand’s hundreds/thousands of frequently searched keywords in the search engines. Create high converting leads forms with pull marketing assets and engage consumers and business opportunity prospects directly.

10. Create multiple, professionally designed landing pages to advertise on the search engines and convert highly motivated brand traffic into retail sales and new associates.

11. Implement a lead program where direct retail customers and leads are assigned to participating associates for a monthly fee. Not only will this eliminate the web-savvy associates from trying to one-up each other on the search engines by making false claims or guarantees, but this also serves as a revenue center to fund your entire web strategy, while at the same time, insuring that online prospects are properly followed up with.

12. Create a professionally designed blog to engage the brand’s audience(s) by providing updates on company news, advancements, new products, compliant testimonials, compliant success stories, meetings and events, conference calls, incentive prizes and trips, etc. This is designed to mobilize your force of associates as well as engage and inspire new prospects.

If you are a corporate leader for a network marketing company, you may have questions.

Ayohwahr Interactive is the leading and most experienced brand marketing and brand protection agency for direct selling and network marketing brands in the U.S.

I can address your concerns and further explain the elements of a winning and compliant strategy. Our team can execute a comprehensive brand protection, brand marketing, and lead generation and distribution program, all while generating positive ROI. Contact us to Command your Brand!

Technorati tags: Mannatech lawsuit, network marketing compliance, illegal health claims

From the U.K.’s Times Online:

“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said that it believed its action, which named Google Inc as well as Google subsidiaries in Ireland and Australia as defendants, was “the first to seek legal clarification of Google’s conduct from a trade practices perspective.”

The case stems from 2005 when Trading Post, an Australian classified ads magazine, took out sponsored links in the name of two car dealerships from Newcastle, New South Wales. People clicking on the names of the dealerships found themselves on Trading Post’s website.

The ACCC dropped a case against Trading Post when the publication said it would stop using its competitors’ names in Google sponsored links. However, the watchdog now says that Google “engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct” by allowing Trading Post to buy ads in the name of the car dealerships.

Misleading and deceptive conduct? Take a look at this screenshot of the search “Billabong” on Google Australia:

The highlighted advertisement, “Billabong official site,” deceptively and illegaly claims it is the official site of Billabong, when it turns out to be a third rate shill shop that provides no contact information on their website, Skateamerica.com.

Let’s see what we can find out about Skate America. Here’s a screenshot of their “Contact” page:

Hmmmmm… Let’s see. No phone number. No address. The old “send us an email” style of customer service–wait a second, that sounds exactly like Google Customer Service.

After searching Google for more information I stumbled across a message thread chock full of ripped-off customers. What a shocking discovery.

Back to the story:

“In addition the ACCC is also claiming that the way Google displays its links is misleading.

On Google’s search results page, sponsored links appear in a coloured panel at the top of the page, and in a narrow column on the right-hand side of the page. Both areas include a small heading identifying the results as sponsored.”

The ACCC goes on to declare that Google Adwords engages in misleading and deceptive conduct. In my mind there are three issues here:

1. As stated by the article, Google’s search engine advertisements for trademarks create confusion.

2. Google’s search engine advertisements for trademarks by third parties constitute trademark dilution.

3. Google and the third party advertisers are unfairly leveraging established trademarks for profit, as held by the French courts.

Technorati tags: Google trademark lawsuit, search engine advertising

While Yahoo and Google continue to battle through lawsuits for trademark infringement in their respective search engine advertising programs, it is evident that Yahoo needs to move a step closer to the brands they are leveraging for profit.

In 2005, Google was forced to change their trademark advertising policy after a devastating blow from a federal district court in the Geico Case. The court stated:

“…the district court found that the “extremely high” percentage of respondents who experienced some degree of confusion when viewing these advertisements was sufficient to show that there was a likelihood of confusion present when GEICO’s marks appeared in either the heading or the text of a Sponsored Link advertisement.

Google advised the district court that it had no contrary evidence. Thus, the district court held that GEICO had established a likelihood of confusion and had therefore shown that Google violated the Lanham Act with regard to those Sponsored Link advertisements that included GEICO’s marks in the headings or text.”

In order to avoid a highly public compensatory damages phase of the suit that could spread to many more companies getting involved, Google settled with Geico for an undisclosed amount. Google then updated it’s trademark policy to prohibit third parties from using the trademarks of other companies in the title or text of trademark-triggered ads (U.S. & Canada), at the request of the trademark holder.

While I don’t believe this goes far enough to protect a brand’s IP assets, it does remove a lot of the feculence that still resides on Yahoo.

Let me illustrate some examples for you. In the screenshot below we take a look at a search for “Best Buy” on Google. Best Buy is my go-to store for electronics and they often feature some great deals online, too.

As you can see, the trademark policy implemented on Google has eliminated the brand siphoners from advertising on this trademark (though this isn’t the case for every brand on Google).  Gone are the brand parasites that once competed for visibilty on this trademarked search in Google.

Now let’s take a look at a search for “Best Buy” on Yahoo.

Note the Yahoo advertisements on the Best Buy trademark, attempting to steal brand traffic.  While Best Buy does have an outlet store on eBay, I can assure you they do not enjoy eBay’s tactics.

At the very least, Yahoo needs to fall in line with Google to eliminate the use of another organization’s trademarks in the title and text of search engine advertisements.  This move will improve relations with brands and help to ensure relevant results.

Technorati tags: Yahoo Search Marketing, Yahoo trademark policy

First off, I need to acknowledge that Google’s Customer Service will never be a candidate for a J.D. Power Award. In fact, there is a special formula you can use to evaluate the level of customer service Google provides:

Take the promptness of a doctor’s office, the incompetence of a

DMV, and the worst customer service experience you have ever

had with a phone company and multiply it by 500 = Google

Customer Service

I empathize with the frustration felt by those of you dealing with Google for the first time. If you feel you have landed in Google Hell and see no way out, please email your story to gugleproblems@gmail.com.

Google Contact Info:

1. Main phone number - (650) 253-0000, press “5″ for Customer Service or Tech Support, where you will then be directed to the Google website where you can submit an email.

2. Google Adwords Advertising - (866) 246-6453, press “2″ for Adwords questions. You will be placed on hold for a mandatory fifteen minutes before the call is then routed to the advertising bureau–aka socialism, Google style, and you vill comply. When you are finally greeted by a real Google person don’t expect to get anywhere. Depending on your issue you will be directed to the Google website to fill out a form, or placed on hold for five minutes. After being placed on hold the real Google person will then direct you to the Google website to fill out a form.

It is not widely known, but Larry and Sergey review each form submission in the basement of the Google headquarters and secretly make fun of our problems.

3. Google Adwords Support Form - https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/request.py?hl=en_US&ctx=foot

4. Google Trademark Infringement Form - https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/request.py?hl=en_US&ctx=foot

5. Trademark Complaints Email Address - ads-trademarks@google.com

There is the impression out there that only “the small guy” gets dissed by Google. This just isn’t true, for the most part. Google is an equal opportunity offender, with the exception of the largest brands (deep legal pockets) and most aggressive cyber giants like Amazon or eBay (deep advertising pockets).

An example of this is posted by Matt Heaton, CEO of web hosting company Bluehost:

“…Google is simply one of the greatest technology companies around, I don’t think anyone would disagree. HOWEVER, in my opinion they have a LOT to learn when it comes to service and customer relationships. I will spend over $100,000 on google adwords this month.

You would think that I could get some prompt service out of them. No no no… I get some kid on the other end (Of an email, yeah, no phone # for me blah…) with a canned answer. This has happened time and time again with them. They simply don’t learn their lesson.

Right now they don’t have to learn their lesson because they are the big bully on the block. Every bully gets his clocked cleaned sooner or later and google is laying the groundwork for that now.”

Matt goes on to say:

“Google has become so powerful that in literally every aspect of their business it is 100% their way or the highway. I know a lot of people that are choosing the highway. Do I predict googles downfall anytime soon? Of course not, but I do predict that it WILL FOR SURE happen eventually if you don’t take care of your customers.

For a company so big, they still have a LOT of problems. Maybe it stems from Eric Schmidt as their CEO. He used to work at Novell (Here in my hometime) and they had the same attitude. Their stock is in the toilet (Novells). Who know what will happen, but I tell you what I am doing.

I will do EVERYTHING in my power to spend that money effectively somewhere else, and when someone from google actually calls to see why we are spending anymore, THEN I will let them have it.”

My point is that it is not just small businesses and sole proprietors spending $1,000 a month that get the Google “You’re Not Welcome” mat. The best thing you can do is make it known–to Google corporate, the Better Business Bureau, etc, that you are unhappy with quality of service provided by Google.

I believe there is hope–I have a feeling Google is going to change it’s policies and support quality soon. ;)

Technorati tags: Google Customer Service