Comments on: Should Affiliate Merchants Be Allowed to Enforce Negative Keyword Matching? http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/ Thu, 27 May 2010 18:44:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: msdanielle http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-16299 msdanielle Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:05:08 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-16299 hi john, thanks for the feedback. i agree with what you're saying. i think it's part of a bigger picture like you're saying, there is little legal precedence for affiliate standards. if a company decides to bully advertisers, which is what they are doing in my case, then they will do it if they can get away with it. hi john, thanks for the feedback. i agree with what you’re saying. i think it’s part of a bigger picture like you’re saying, there is little legal precedence for affiliate standards. if a company decides to bully advertisers, which is what they are doing in my case, then they will do it if they can get away with it.

]]> By: john http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-16294 john Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:47:49 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-16294 It sounds like they have some automated process that does this and they are just saber rattling. If there is no risk or cost to them in scaring affiliates, then why not do it? (not saying it is right, just from a business standpoint they may feel it helps them). Also, this happens alot of the time with automated domain name monitoring systems which incorrectly identify trademarked domains and fire off nasty automated "legal" notices. I hope sometime soon there is some real legal precedent or official guidelines that advertisers need to abide by, but it seems completely up in the air at the moment. It sounds like they have some automated process that does this and they are just saber rattling. If there is no risk or cost to them in scaring affiliates, then why not do it? (not saying it is right, just from a business standpoint they may feel it helps them).

Also, this happens alot of the time with automated domain name monitoring systems which incorrectly identify trademarked domains and fire off nasty automated “legal” notices.

I hope sometime soon there is some real legal precedent or official guidelines that advertisers need to abide by, but it seems completely up in the air at the moment.

]]> By: msdanielle http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-16010 msdanielle Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:38:26 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-16010 yea google is sort of being passive about it. but what do you think of merchants going the route of affiliate networks and having their rep's contact affiliates for negative matching? i only use google as an example because it gets sticky when businesses start trying to tell independent advertisers that they have to actively remove untargeted traffic. does that make sense? like, imagine someone advertising in a newspaper and Macy's comes and says, "We don't want any of our shoppers to see your ad." i don't know if they're contacting everyone that came up on that list, but if you do the search now there is only one non-BR advertiser, which may have somehow slipped through the cracks because they have the trademark in the ad copy. yea google is sort of being passive about it. but what do you think of merchants going the route of affiliate networks and having their rep’s contact affiliates for negative matching? i only use google as an example because it gets sticky when businesses start trying to tell independent advertisers that they have to actively remove untargeted traffic. does that make sense? like, imagine someone advertising in a newspaper and Macy’s comes and says, “We don’t want any of our shoppers to see your ad.” i don’t know if they’re contacting everyone that came up on that list, but if you do the search now there is only one non-BR advertiser, which may have somehow slipped through the cracks because they have the trademark in the ad copy.

]]> By: Active Per Click PPC http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-16007 Active Per Click PPC Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:43:58 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-16007 Google encourages trademark owners to resolve their dispute directly with advertisers. So they're basically passing the buck and not taking responsibility for any issues whilst charging clients for advertising under trademark terms. Google encourages trademark owners to resolve their dispute directly with advertisers. So they’re basically passing the buck and not taking responsibility for any issues whilst charging clients for advertising under trademark terms.

]]> By: ms danielle http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-15921 ms danielle Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:24:03 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-15921 that's the thing, i don't think i am violating their terms. from what it sounds like, it seems like they could be interpreted as an if/then statement. IF i'm an affiliate of theirs AND i'm trying to drive users to their deals on my site, THEN i have to negative match their trademarks. the reason i think this is because i was contacted from a CJ rep, not directly through BR. If BR had contacted me, then that might indicate that they were targeting ALL advertisers that showed up in the results, not just CJ affiliates. but honestly, if i removed myself from their programs, then it wouldn't matter and through Google's own trademark policy i would not be required to negative match any keywords since they don't exist in my campaigns. still, the campaigns would be no different. i think they're being overly aggressive and i don't like it one bit. that’s the thing, i don’t think i am violating their terms. from what it sounds like, it seems like they could be interpreted as an if/then statement. IF i’m an affiliate of theirs AND i’m trying to drive users to their deals on my site, THEN i have to negative match their trademarks. the reason i think this is because i was contacted from a CJ rep, not directly through BR. If BR had contacted me, then that might indicate that they were targeting ALL advertisers that showed up in the results, not just CJ affiliates. but honestly, if i removed myself from their programs, then it wouldn’t matter and through Google’s own trademark policy i would not be required to negative match any keywords since they don’t exist in my campaigns. still, the campaigns would be no different. i think they’re being overly aggressive and i don’t like it one bit.

]]> By: Nick http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/comment-page-1/#comment-15917 Nick Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:33:29 +0000 http://www.msdanielle.com/should-affiliate-merchants-be-allowed-to-enforce-negative-keyword-matching/#comment-15917 I think that's pretty dumb. I don't see any way in which you were breaking any rules and see no reason for you to change the way your add was running. It sounds to me like they are trying to have complete control over what shows for their name in Google. I think that’s pretty dumb. I don’t see any way in which you were breaking any rules and see no reason for you to change the way your add was running. It sounds to me like they are trying to have complete control over what shows for their name in Google.

]]>