Tag: legal

Should I purchase domain names proactively?
This past week, The Donald made headlines when it was uncovered that his company owned thousands of domain names that are simply being parked in what it deems as a defensive move.

Says Trump’s son, Eric, “For a company like ours, it’s incredibly important to protect ourselves, and it’s incredibly important to own our intellectual property.”

Here’s why this doesn’t make financial sense, and why it also a futile effort:

Yahoo lists some of the domains owned:
- DonaldTrumpSucks.com
- TrumpCorporationSucks.com
- TrumpOrganizationSucks.com
It typically costs anywhere from a few dollars to about $15 to keep each domain per year. Let’s say it’s $10. And let’s say they have 50,000 domains. That means they are paying $500,000 a year to park these domains. Chump change for a billion-dollar corporation, right? Well, after 20 years, that’s $10 million. Not to mention the lost return on capital the $500,000 would generate on a annualized basis.

The Trump organization is probably also (over)paying an agency to manage these domains on their behalf… perhaps another $50,000 – $100,000 per year.

When asked, I have never recommended purchasing domain names to thwart potential slander. And I’m asked this same question at each company I work. The reason is pretty simple, you just cannot purchase all the combinations of potentially scandalous domain names. In fact, there are 36 to 245th power which is basically a 2 with 381 zeroes following it. That’s a lot more than a google, and a lot of $10 bills each year. For example, here are five domain names I could purchase that they haven’t yet:
- DonaldTrumpSucks1.com
- DonaldTrumpSucks123.com
- DonaldTrumpSucksABC.com
- DonaldTrumpSucksNYC2016HellYeahEveryone.com
- DonaldTrumpSucks3000.info
See my point?

Not only is this a waste of money, it’s a waste of time.

Proponents of this futile activity will claim “it’s worth it if we even thwart one attack!” But you won’t. If you know search engine optimization, you don’t even need Trump in the name of your website to talk about the organization. I’m talking about them now, and if I had good content and SEO, then I won’t need a Trump-specific domain name to spread my word.

And, let’s say you are slandered, if another person is using your trademark and/or slandering you, there’s a really good chance you can shut them down through the legal system – and it’s typically not a big company fighting you, but an individual that lacks sufficient legal resources to counter attack.

So save some time and a lot of money and stop buying domains you don’t need.
Facebook Click Fraud Issues

In a recent publicized report, thanks to Facebook having to keep its business in more of a public eye due to the company being publicly traded now, we learned that 8.7 percent of Facebook accounts are “fake”, more more than 80 million. We already knew this. Why? Because most Facebook advertisers who know what they are doing have been measuring the performance of their ads and have found that they get billed for more clicks then they really received. And most likely, these clicks are from fake accounts and bots.

In fact, a company called Limited Run reported that 80% of its clicks were from bots!

My own research from clients puts this number at closer to the 1-in-3 or 33% range, still horrendous by any measure. And, that’s based upon about $1.5 million dollars worth of clicks analyzed.

It’s the cost of doing business with Facebook. In other words, if the ROI you are obtaining from your ad campaign is tolerable, then the click fraud is just part of that campaign’s cost. Obviously, we would all love to higher higher ROI (via a lower cost). Facebook is not motivated to put systems in place to do better at weeding out click fraud. Google is much better – having been sued several times into improving. So, maybe its time to start forming a class against Facebook so that advertisers can obtain rebates for these fraudulent clicks. Its to Facebook’s long term sustainability and advantage to not bill clients for these clicks because that lowers client’s campaign ROI – making them less likely to run more campaigns over the long run. So, if Facebook rebates these fraudulent clicks, ROIs go up, costs go down, clients are happier and keep pouring money into Facebook, and in the end Facebook generates more revenue.

Until then however, make sure you allot about 1/3 of your budget to “sunk costs” of click fraud – clicks that will generate no value for your business whatsoever.
Facebook Revenue Climbs, but Click Fraud Questions Linger

As a Facebook advertiser, I have long seen a substantial discrepancy between what Facebook charges me (the number of clicks) and what my analytics software records as visits to my site.

The obvious issue is whether all clicks of ads result in a “ping” of the analytics code snippet on your site. With the new asynchronous code snippet from Google Analytics and your ability to place the code in the header, fewer visits should result in not being recorded.

The other option is that JavaScript or cookie blocking is in place in the visitor’s browser. However, this is a very limited subset of people who click on advertisements.

However, the gap is substantial – as much as 35% (or even more in some cases) between Facebook’s bill and the analytics program. This begs many customers to ask the question, why is Facebook charging me for clicks that don’t result in a visit to my site?

These clicks provide no value the advertiser. And actually, they don’t provide long term value to Facebook, because it reduces the success of advertising campaigns, turning the advertiser away.

However, Facebook has decided to continue ignoring this issue and raking in huge profits along the way.

Some companies have tried to sue Facebook, with limited success.

At the end of the day, you basically have to bake in this cost (click fraud and invalid clicks) into your campaign as a cost of doing business with Facebook. If, after all is said and billed for, you can still achieve your desired ROI, you’re good to go. Otherwise, I suggest taking your hard earned dollars elsewhere.

I suggest that Facebook up its game in this area and stop billing customers for click-bounces… Clicks that don’t register a hit on the customer’s server. I think a 3-second rule is a good idea – if the visitor isn’t on the advertiser’s site for more than 3 seconds, then they don’t get charged for the ad.
Rosetta Stone Law Suit Against Google Moves Forward

Rosetta Stone (makers of the language software) have been given the go ahead by the appeals courts to move their lawsuit against Google to the next stage of the litigation process – a trial.

Rosetta Stone is asserting that Google is serving up Ads triggered by Rosetta Stone’s trademarks. So, when a user types in “Rosetta Stone”, they are seeing ads for other products, thus confusing the consumer.

I have long advocated to not bid directly on the keyword marks of your competitors. It typically does not generate good conversion results in the B2B area in particularly. It’s also a poor business practice that usually results in the other business countering by bidding on your terms. The end result is a bidding war (and the only entity that wins is Google).

However, this case has further implications on broad match and session match. It’s quite possible that Google will have to block session matching whereby it would normally use your search behavior to serve you ads regardless of what your query is… For instance, if I make three searches about cell phones, and then refine my search to smartphones, I still may see ads triggered by the original “cell phone” key phrase. And broad match may kick in if I type “Nokia smart phone” whereby AdWords matches me to a “Samsung smart phone” ad triggered by the “smart phone” portion of my phrase.

If Google will be required to block all marks except to their owner, there’s a lot of work that will be required. Google will need to build a system to verify ownership of marks to enable advertisers to bid on their own marks; and also build a system that blocks ads from appearing on registered marks in any form (broad, session or otherwise).

One thing is for sure, this case will continue to take its time moving through the legal system. Here are some more details reported by MediaPost.
Just Because it’s on Google Doesn’t Mean it’s Legit

Sample Ads for Debt Consolidation on Google

Consumers have way too much faith in what they read and hear online. The problem is that many people believe if it is written (or advertised) on the internet it must be true. We believe Wikipedia. And we believe all those ads on Google. And that’s the problem. Some of those ads are scams.

Lately, criminal organizations have found a new way to take advantage of the public. They place ads that prey on consumers who need help with their mortgages by promising debt consolidation and obligation reductions. When the consumers engage with these ads, they contact what they think is a legitimate organization. Instead, however, it’s a criminal collecting the person’s personal information and money without actually rendering any services.

Google just got in trouble once again for this and not policing their ads well enough. This is a tough challenge for Google. With millions of advertisers and billions of ads, how can it insure that all of its advertisers are ethical, or even just “not criminal”?

Consumers must educate themselves to research a business before they engage with it. Ironically, often the best way to research the business is also online – by Googling it. But you can also check to see if there are reviews about it, if there are complaints and you can do some basic detective work, such as whether the organization has a phone number, is based in the USA, has a mailing address (and not a PO box), and so on. One red flag is a web site with lots of grammar issues and no contact information.

Remember, you also “get what you pay for”. So if the deal seems too good to be true, it may in fact not be a deal at all. Go with trust, and learn to pay a premium for trust and quality and in the end you’ll be glad you did, as you will avoid being a victim as the result of trying to save a buck.
Benetton Ads Fail Marketing 101

Falsified image of the US President created by Benetton

A new ad campaign by Benetton features the unauthorized use of images of political figures. Additionally, the images have been doctored to make it appear is if the figures are kissing.

This ad campaign really tests basic marketing 101 principles regarding moral and ethical obligation and demonstrates a basic lack of understanding with regards to truth in advertising.

First, it is well established that one must have permission to use an image for a commercial campaign and the White House has a very explicit policy forbidding the use of the President’s image for commercial purposes.

It has since voiced its opinion on this campaign.

Second, the images are not real, they are edited/altered/doctored. This might be acceptable if this was stated in the image, but it is not. Because the images are doctored in a material way (versus simply airbrushing a skin blemish), I believe these ads violate the principle of “truth in advertising”. I understand they may not violate this legally, as the ads are not making a promise.

All in all, it is clear that Benetton is simply making a gamble that the debate over these ads and the press resulting from such a debate is worth violating common decency and ethics. This is not the first time the company has been controversial for the sake of attention, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

I suppose being stupid is their substitution for being creative.
Go-Cart Tours San Francisco – Con Artists?

Just a reminder to all my friends and readers that I believe this business is operating a con by claiming you damaged their vehicles on your trip. I would be extremely cautious when considering this attraction and urge you to think twice.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g60713-d562111-r98294010-GoCar_GPS_Guided_Tours-San_Francisco_California.html
Trademark Issues in Search

One of the more common questions I get asked is that of whether it is okay to bid on trademarked terms of your competitors. For instance, if you are Ford, should you bid on “Chevy” so that your ad comes up on Chevy-related KWs?

I generally suggest not doing this. I have data that suggests that while people will click your ads, the conversion rate will be lower than you expect.

It is not illegal in the US to bid on someone’s trademarked term; nor is it against the policies of the major ad platforms.

It is illegal to use the trademarked term in your actual ad though. That’s the point where a reasonable person may become confused.

Additionally, with broad match and behavioral matching, it is quite possible that your ad may show up even when you are not bidding on the competitor’s keyword. I won’t explain how those technologies work in this post however.

I suggest adding most of your competitor’s trademarks to your negative list which will improve your optimization and limit litigation.

Lisa Raehsler at ClickZ writes a great article about how to engage a competitor in a polite manner if you want their ads to stop appearing on your branded keywords. And, if polite doesn’t work, you can have a lawyer send a cease and desist letter, which should do the trick, but of course cost you a few bucks.

Be weary of escalating things to legal though. You can start an “arms race” and create hostile relations with your competitors which may inspire them to do other things in retaliation.
It’s Time to End Fake & Anonymous Content on the Web

I’m sick and tired of reading bullshit comments on websites, typically written by uneducated, non-expert people hiding behind a shroud of anonymity offered by the web and forum-based review and rant-oriented sites.

It’s time we hold these sites accountable for pedaling their filth, or better yet, hold the people who write and contribute this brain-less comments more accountable.

Of course I’m talking about the people that to go various websites and quasi-anonymously bash companies, people, products and/or services. This is often done with out merit, supporting facts or any other sources.

The internet, for some reason, has given uneducated, every day people the perception that they are experts on virtually everything. Take WikiPedia for instance. This site gets contributions from millions of people on subjects they are not experts on.

Look at Yahoo Answers for instance… People (not all of them), post legitimate questions on this site (usually because they are too lazy and don’t know how to perform proper research, or don’t really want to seek the truth). However, anyone can answer these questions. And everyone does, providing poor quality answers that lack primary-source references, facts any other data to support the answers.

We need to implement new technology (and laws) that require posters to reveal their true identity. People must be accountable for what they say. If we held people accountable, there would be more civility (because less garbage would be published) and we would be a more productive society that had less hate and animosity.

Have you read the comments on a political story posted to Yahoo.com lately? The discussion forums are ridiculous and tragic. It’s a pile of shit, yet Yahoo continues to propagate it. Imagine if you these posters had to reveal their real identity. How many would post the exact same comments? Almost no one.

I propose that the three credit bureaus combine to create a “web verified” identity that people must use when posting comments. It would be backed by the crediting agencies who would verify that you are who you say you are. Then, when you post a review of a restaurant on Yelp, comment on a political story on Yahoo, or review a business on Google Places, you have to sign in with your real identity that explains who you are and what you do.

With such a system in place we would protect kids from being attacked by bullies, businesses from being attacked by anonymous trolls (and give businesses the opportunity to make good on their mistakes), and finally, eliminate a lot of the mud-slinging and lack of civility in our society.

Fake Reviews being Spotted by Cornell's New Software Project (Credit: Myle Ott, Cornell University)

One step in the right direction is a project being conducted by Cornell University software engineers to root out fake reviews. Their experimental technology has proven successful in identifying reviews that lack authenticity. This is another step in the right direction.

(the review on the right is fake – thanks to Eric Smalley and his CNet article)
The cost of social media mishaps

Symantec last week released the findings of its latest survey regarding social media entitled, “2011 Social Media Protection Flash Poll“. It sought to identify the most common social media mishaps among large corporations and to assign them a monetary value.

Of course the report focuses on ‘big enterprise’ more so than small business, because the values are quite large. However, it underscores how social media is still a wild west and that those companies pioneering these waters should tread carefully.

Another good point is that Symantec is pushing its archiving and e-discovery software, which should be a good reminder to document social media issues well for legal purposes and have a well-defined triage, escalation and crises plan for handling issues in real-time.