1. M. Gandhi on September 27, 2004 11:55 AM writes...

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your insightful comments on our trademark bidding policy...

I thought I'd drop in a note to point out an inherent flaw in your logic... that of competitors "own(ing)" our brand..

Collectibles Today differentiates itself from other e-commerce businesses by being the "exclusive" online seller of a vast majority of it's products...

We're not in the business of selling digital cameras or the likes..

When someone searches for our brand name they know our site is the only online source for the collectible they want.

The assertion that competitors will "own their (our) brand" simply because affiliates are not bidding on the brand names is well... well off the mark...

As GoYaMi's search engine guru, i'm sure you understand the metrics behind PPC bidding.. Do you really think someone without the product offering we do could survive very long by spending on clicks that don't convert for them?

Also, wouldn't you agree the search experience is significantly better when the user is not faced with 10 ads all saying pretty much the same thing? and pointing to the same exact website?

There are quite a few other reasons to protect the brand, but I won't go into those...

Our partners are a terrific team of hard-working folks and I'd hate for them to feel cheated after reading your post... Anyone who has been in our program for a while knows the kind of relationship we share with our partners... and it's not based on someone else's definition of what should and should not be done in terms of policies... it's ultimately whatever is best for the long term growth of the relationship...

Thankfully, our affiliates understand us a little better... and I hope your readers now do so too

Respectfully,
M.Gandhi

2. David Lewis on September 27, 2004 2:58 PM writes...

Adam, you raise a great point. As you have written about in the past, the way that merchants can use their affiliates to protect their brands is much more complicated than this one issue.

I've given some other examples of what can happen and effective ways for merchants to work with affiliates at www.revenews.com/davidlewis/

It will be interesting to see what happens with Collectibles Today. While there was a rush of merchants implementing these policies in the last year, the tide seems to have been turning during the last two months when merchants have been asking us to bid on their trademarks in order to help them take control of their brands instead of ceding that control to Yahoo and Google.

3. Jeff Molander on September 27, 2004 5:19 PM writes...

Indeed... what some fail to realize is that "owning" a page (via flooding it with affiliate pages based on a trademarked term) has a downside. As an example...

User experience suffers.

Costs can increase (for the advertiser).

Furthermore, a simple C&D letter from a lawyer allows advertisers to "own" their brand/trademark via the search realm. The question is, what's a better / more cost effective approach - spending money on affiliates or lawyers?

Jeff

4. David Lewis on September 27, 2004 11:11 PM writes...

Jeff-

I know that you get this. You must be posting here just to goad me into a reply. You win. Here it is.

You have written about only part of the truth in just about every case.

1) "Owning" and "user experience": You seem to be talking about search arbitrage. You know that affiliates with good content can add value and help a merchant attract users who might be lost otherwise by offering additional value propositions. Some people argue that arbitrage does that as well. But we can leave that for another day.

2) "Costs can increase": Cost will not increase if you work with affiliates who are value added resellers. If costs do increase minimally after you cap bids for the limited number of affiliates you allow to bid on your trademarks, it should be offset by the increased revenue.

3) "C&D Letters": You don't need to send a C&D to your affiliates. You have Ts & Cs and can simply terminate them. Your competitors can have relevant content which means that you are left to sue Overture and Google. Is that the way you want to go?

There are more effective ways to take control of your brand than what you propose. These will promote your brand and your affiliates who will work with you and not against you. Try it. Enhance your brand and watch your sales increase.

It's time you re-read http://www.revenews.com/davidlewis/archives/000121.html and the two follow ups.

-David

5. Wayne Porter on September 27, 2004 11:31 PM writes...

Especially consider:

"Furthermore, a simple C&D letter from a lawyer allows advertisers to "own" their brand/trademark via the search realm. The question is, what's a better / more cost effective approach - spending money on affiliates or lawyers?"

that most companies keep lawyers on retainer anyway and they always try to maximize their value by giving them busy work e.g. go smack down some affiliates.

6. Adam Viener on September 28, 2004 9:00 AM writes...

Also, don't forget the constitution. We have free speach in this country, and if I wanted to put up a site that compares one brand vs another, I am welcome to do so and bid on those brands to send traffic to that page.

When NetZero decided to change their tm policy to say no bidding on trademarks, many affiliates just flipped their exact ads over to Netscape that was just launching at the time. Then NetZero turned some of their best affilaites into their worst competition. They have sinced changed their mind and allow trademark bidding. I wonder how many affiliates they won back?

7. David Lewis on September 28, 2004 11:27 AM writes...

Wayne, you seem to forget that there is no need for merchants to send C&D letter to thei affiliates. Modify the Ts & Cs and send an e-mail. Even if the lawyers are on retainer, it costs less for an AM or a marketing assistant to send an e-mail.

Plus, why limit it to this type of issue? A merchant can put in its Ts & Cs that an affiliate must wear a red shirt on Fridays. Of course, if they choose that they'll have to terminate us as I can't wear a red shirt the day before a Cal game.

Adam, merchants should work with their good affiliates to build their brands and not out of fear of their affiliates. If they fear their affiliates doing wrong, they will cut back their programs, not expand them.

8. Beth Kirsch on September 28, 2004 11:30 AM writes...

IMHO, Adam and David hit the nail on the head. As long as Google does not have strong and enforced rules, it's in the merchants best interest to work with affilaites to bid on the brand because your competition will otherwise.

Merchants and affiliates are just playing by the rules Google has set up. And lets be clear Google will not going change the rules because it will hurt their bottom line.

Jeff, I know how you feel about the impact of user experince for sure -- and it is a strong an valid point -- but think of the incentive systems at play. Google had IPOed, they are now chained to the quarter over quarter growth syndrome. They need the money from affiliate PPC bidding -- and yes they need to balance that with their brand experince -- but they choose not to do it while a privately held company, so now with pressure from the Street, why do you think they will do so?

If I got the debate the merits of affiliate marketing issues with you 4 all the time, it would certainly be a Socratic experince. Talk about a brain trust. :)

Cheers,

Beth

9. Zip on October 12, 2004 6:02 PM writes...

I just got a similar letter today from Sirius Radio. They won't let affiliates bid on any terms related to Sirius, satellite radio, talk radio, music radio, or the names of any of the programs or personalities they have on the network.

I guess they expect affiliates to buy terms like "vacuum cleaner" in order to find people interested in satellite radio.

Short-sighted. If XM Radio has an affiliate program, I'll flip my advertising over there, outbid Sirius and steal their customers.

It's worth noting that the term Collectibles Today is still completely owned by affiliates. Guess they haven't enforced the policy very much.