SEO Blog

Hypothetically: What happens when a competitor uses your business or brand name as bidded keyword targets in Google AdWords, Yahoo! Search Marketing or Microsoft’s adCenter paid search advertising programs?

There are a number of answers to that question some of which are totally obvious, others somewhat more subtle, and some about as subtle as a sledgehammer. It depends on how your competitor is using your business or brand name in their advertising and what you choose to do to counter their actions. No matter what the outcome, anyone else’s use of your name is a very real reputation management concern.

At the very least, if a competitor bids on your name or brand, when your business or brand name is typed into the search query box at one of the major search engines, your competitor’s advertising will be displayed beside the free or organic search results. That means even if your website is in the #1 spot, your competitor’s advertisement enjoys almost as much prominence. That’s not necessarily a business threatening occurrence and there is little preventing you using the same tactic against your competition.

But what if your competitor says something awful about your product in their headlines or ad-copy? This happens with alarming frequency and even though there are some fair-play rules in effect at the major search networks, several insulting or insinuating ads leak through the filters. A suit recently filed in a California federal court is a case in point.

The Rosetta Stone LTD has filed suit against a competitor from New Zealand, Rocket Languages, online promotions company Libros Media, and several named (and unnamed) defendants for using its trademarked name in a negative online advertising campaign. In the suit, Rosetta Stone LTD claims damages of over $75,000.

Rosetta’s complaint centers on the use of the mark, “Rosetta Stone” as the basis of keyword targets for pay per click ads in Google AdWords and Yahoo! Search Marketing. Rocket Languages produces a language instruction product similar to the more well known Rosetta Stone line of language instruction products. The complaint contends that Rocket Languages, its online promotions company, and several of its affiliates have used the Rosetta brand as bidded keywords and in their ad-copy, thus diluting the value of the brand.

It is important to note that Rocket Languages uses affiliate marketing to promote their products. Affiliate marketers most often act independently of the firms whose products they promote. In this case, Rosetta Stone LTD suggests that affiliates of Rocket Languages earn up to 75% of the product purchase price when they sell one of Rocket Language’s instructional products. A 75% affiliate commission is likely to prompt a number of affiliate marketers to push the boundaries a bit.

According to the complaint filed with the court, several affiliates have disparaging headlines such as “Rosetta Spanish A Scam?” and “Don’t Buy Rosetta Software”. Ad copy under these headlines tends to promote a series of faux-review sites that consistently rank Rocket Language better than Rosetta Stone’s products. It’s a fairly ugly means of marketing.

Through this method, Rocket Language and/or its affiliates is able to put express a negative opinion of Rosetta products AND lead the consumer to a landing page that appears to be an independent third party review of several language instruction products where Rocket ranks first and Rosetta is found to be wanting.

This is an extreme example of a practice known as “piggybacking”, in which a smaller firm uses the notoriety and name recognition of a much larger brand to score a bit of attention in paid placement rankings. A June 3, 2008 article in the Wall St. Journal, “Google Search Ads Rile Its Big Customers” by Emily Steel takes an in-depth look at piggybacking and how the practice affects larger advertisers.

It’s perfectly legal for one brand to compare its products with another brand in public, provided the comparison is fair, auditable and honest. For instance, one brand of laundry detergent is allowed to compare itself with another and claim to do a better job. Similarly, ad-buyers in print magazines often position their clients against articles about competing products.

It is not legal to tell lies or create a campaign of deception in advertising. It is especially not legal to do so while using a competitor’s brand. One car maker can not claim its rival’s cars explode on impact but theirs do not, assuming that neither auto-company makes cars that explode on impact.

Piggybacking is becoming a major online reputation management issue. Take a few minutes and do a search for your company name or some of the brand named products your company makes or sells.

Do you have a problem? We have a reputation management solution.