Update to Google AdWords Policy

May 20, 2009

Google has recently updated their AdWords policy and is now allowing trademarked names to appear in paid listings. For example, stores selling Nike shoes can now use Nike in their listings.

Previously, Google didn’t allow trademarked names and restricted stores from using them. Stores that sold Nike shoes were only allowed to advertise by using words like “athletic shoes” or “running shoes.”

This new policy change weeds out generic listings and gives users a bigger incentive to click on an ad if they see the brand or trademarked name they are searching for. Instead of seeing “Brand Name Athletic Shoes,” which doesn’t explain much, stores can make their listings more relevant to the user by including brands into the listings: “Nike Running Shoes”

Here is an excerpt from Google:

“That is why, in an effort to improve ad quality and user experience, we are adjusting our trademark policy in the U.S. to allow some ads to use trademarks in the ad text. This change will bring Google's policy on trademark use in ad text more in line with the industry standard. Under certain criteria, you can use trademark terms in your ad text in the U.S. even if you don't own that trademark or have explicit approval from the trademark owner to use it. This change will help you to create more narrowly targeted ad text that highlights your specific inventory.

For example, under our old policy, a site that sells several brands of athletic shoes may not have been able to highlight the actual brands that they sell in their ad text. However, under our new policy, that advertiser can create specific ads for each of the brands that they sell. We believe that this change will help both our users and advertisers by reducing the number of overly generic ads that appear across our networks in the U.S.”

So if you have an e-commerce website and use Google AdWords to promote your items, make sure to take advantage of this change ASAP... a lot of companies have already changed their ads so don't fall behind.

0 comments: