
GoToMeeting uses competitor’s name in search ads to trick people  - ifficiency
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/06/09/gotomeeting-uses-competitors-name-in-search-ads-to-trick-people-into-clicking-through/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_content=GoToMeeting%20uses%20competitor%E2%80%99s%20name%20in%20search%20ads%20to%20trick%20people%20into%20clicking%20through&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia
======
courtewing
There is a response from a marketing guy from GoToMeeting in the comments of
this article. I couldn't readily find a way to link to the comment, so I'll
post it here for anyone that doesn't want to go hunting:

"Hi, this is Andrew from the GoToMeeting search marketing team. I just posted
over on the MeetingBurner blog as well. We do not use competitive names in
search ads, but we do follow the common industry practice of bidding on
competitive terms. In the instance of this ad, we were using a Google method
called dynamic keyword insertion which delivers the searcher's query in the ad
title. For example, if you were searching on the term "web conferencing," that
query would appear in the ad title. In this case, the user entered "meeting
burner" in the search field and it appeared in the ad title. This is why the
Meeting Burner name showed up in the ad. Our search marketing efforts are
never intended to deceive the searcher."

Edit: I couldn't find anything in the FAQ about this, but if a post like this
is not really accurately representing a situation, is that something I should
flag? I feel that is beyond simply "disagreeing with the post", but I don't
want to start abusing the feature.

~~~
AJ007
Whether or not they are using dynamic keyword insertion is irrelevant.

Here is a comparison for consideration. I bid on "free credit report." The FTC
isn't going to give a shit if I put "Free Credit Report" in my ad, or I bid on
"free credit report" and used dynamic insertion. Its all the same thing, I now
qualify for their draconian rule set for companies advertising to provide free
credit reports. (By the way, do a search for "free credit report" on Google,
notice anything special?)

Citrix placed the name of a federally trademarked business in their ad copy.
Additionally, that trademark is for a direct competitors of theirs (not a
fruit seller with an ad for an "Apple.") Thirdly, the promised product,
Meetingburner, is not actually there. Thus, they are guilty of both trademark
infringement and deceptive advertising.

At bare minimum, Meetingburner would send a C&D. At best they could demand a
six figure settlement and a guarantee they will never bid on "Meetingburner"
or run ads with "Meetingburner" in them again (killed two birds with one
stone, since Citrix legally could bid on the term.) In the extreme they could
refuse a settlement and take it to trial, and probably win. After legal
expenses, likely a loss for both sides.

I've been on the receiving end of this before. I learned not to use dynamic
insertion.

As for Adwords -- "Unfortunately, reaching out to the AdWords team at Google
isn’t an easy task. This does appear to be against the Terms of Service for
AdWords, but since its so close to the weekend, the ads might stay up for the
next few days." -- Yeah, good luck with that. They let big advertisers do
basically whatever the hell they want. I've watched very explicit rule
violations slide for well in excess of a year.

~~~
zheng
Slight tangent, but I searched "free credit report" and didn't notice anything
out of the ordinary. What should I be taking note of?

------
glimcat
My first thought on these matters is usually "unscrupulous affiliate."

This is particularly so when the writer hasn't bothered to contact GoToMeeting
first. The fast reward loop behind posting sensational and confrontational
headlines unfortunately tends to outweigh the backlash from not doing basic
research before publishing.

For that matter, it's possible that MeetingBurner took out the ads in attempt
to generate press. There's no way to rationally conclude who the bad actor is,
if there is one, because the writer didn't bother to _do_ _their_ _research_
before holding their hand out for traffic.

~~~
ifficiency
I can promise you we did NOT take out the ads to generate press. You are
entitled to your opinion but I can assure you this was not done by our team.

~~~
glimcat
Not saying you did, just that the journalist has failed to meet minimum
standards.

On the other hand, the problem could have been resolved with a phone call -
from your lawyer, if necessary. Immediately making a blog post out of it on
your end wasn't the most scrupulous thing to do either.

It also sounds like the problem arose from an innocent mistake on their end.
Google doesn't warn against this when pushing their keyword insertion feature.
It's on the user to be responsible, but Google could do a far better job on
documentation.

------
nhebb
I guessed it was dynamic keywords, and the comment by Andrew Taylor of
GoToMeeting confirmed it:

 _"We do not use competitive names in search ads, but we do follow the common
industry practice of bidding on competitive terms. In the instance of this ad,
we were using a Google method called dynamic keyword insertion which delivers
the searcher's query in the ad title."_

------
zengr
IMO that's a very common practice: <http://i.imgur.com/m1eDE.png> (ebay store
example) See the sponsored results by volusion, kabbge and ask.com

~~~
ifficiency
The difference is they are not positioning themselves as Ebay. In the
MeetingBurner example they do not say "Considering MeetingBurner?" positioning
us as a separate platform. Theres is MeetingBurner - Feature rich web meeting
software with the underlying link to GTM.

------
latchkey
Evil and illegal

~~~
maxgaudin
Definitely evil and unethical but probably not illegal. This post shows some
insight into the issue but not an answer
[http://www.sportsandentertainmentlawplaybook.com/intellectua...](http://www.sportsandentertainmentlawplaybook.com/intellectual-
property/trademark/ninth-circuit-gives-green-light-to-google-adwords-use-of-
competitors-marks/)

~~~
latchkey
Using another companies trademarked name in advertisements for your company
without their permission is legal?

~~~
ifficiency
We are in the process of contacting Google now and protecting our trademark.

