Tom Dalton :: Doer of Good

Today's essay question:

What are the infinitely huge ramifications of a Google/Yahoo/MSN disallowing anyone who tries to bid on a trademarked term other than the registered owner? Obviously bid prices would drop substantially, but what are some of the other consequences that may not be readily apparent? Do you support the free market system in the online advertising arena?

The entire Internet is based on the free market. That's what allows Internet businesses to succeed or fail so quickly. "Ready, shoot, aim." Our legal system has developed a process for dealing with trademark violations that includes recourse to the courts. Slow and expensive. And even there, the use of a competitor's trademark for comparison is okay.

So why would we introduce all that slowness and expensiveness into a great system?

The idea comes from selfishness and shortsightedness. Large companies see small companies showing up on searches for their trademarks. Consider the viewpoint of a trademark-owning behemoth:

• They've paid millions in offline branding to build that trademark
• When people search for that trademark, small competitors show up
• To beat them, the owner has to outbid them
• Even then, that only bumps the little guy down a slot

So a policy change prohibiting those little guys from bidding at all not only saves the behemoth money but totally removes the little guy from the listings. Perfect ending!

...or is it?

A consumer searching for a trademark is obviously already 'aware' of the product (in the classic AIDA model). The fact that they are searching also means they are at least at the 'interest' phase -- searching for more information about the product. It's natural for the manufacturer to want to be the only source of information. But consumers have come to expect seeing both sides of the situation. And they're going to, one way or another. Even if there were no PPC ads, there would still be natural search results!

The other case is a consumer searching for a trademark because he's actually at the 'action' phase. He's looking to buy your specific product. A competing ad, of the sort that some people want to remove, would either be for a competing product or simply another reseller of the same product (slightly discounted, with a commission due to the reseller).

If the problem is resellers competing, the company needs to reevaluate how it compensates resellers and whether its strategy makes sense. The answer is internal, though, and shouldn't be addressed by forcing external changes to the search engines.

If the problem is competing products that are so compelling they can peel buyers away when they're in the very act of purchasing your products, you need to reevaluate your competitive position. Again, the answer is internal. Trying to force external changes on the search engines is a crude, ham fisted approach to solving business problems.

So, that's the 'principled' approach to an answer.

Practically speaking, the policy would be as tough to implement as Google's only partially successful 'no attack ads' rule. Proctor and Gamble owns "Tide" as a trademark. A strict implementation of the no-competition policy would preclude other soap manufacturers from bidding on 'tide' and talking about how they are better. But it would also prevent me from bidding on the word 'tide' to promote my new movie, "Tide of the Titans." And what about the radio manufacturer who sells maritime radios with live tide and surf condition reports?

How would Google decide where to draw the line? Manual review of each account that would require arbiters to actually visit each site? That's what Google hates. ("That's what Bilbo Baggins hates.")

So, the suggestion that trademark owners be allowed to prevent anyone else from bidding on 'their' keywords is unprincipled and impractical.

That's what I think, anyway. Once I'm a major trademark holder, I'll probably feel differently about it. But that's only because I'll be fat and lazy, reclining on my hammock in the Caribbean.

Mmm... hammock...

Quick tip: Next time you need a rental car for three or four days, rent from Hotwire and book it for a week. Weekly rates are much cheaper than 3 or 4 times the standard daily rates, so even though you're paying for a full week, you pay less total.

If you try booking this way direct from the rental company, they'll penalize you when you return the car and make you pay the daily rate plus an 'early return fee.' Boo. When you book from a third party site, the fee is locked and all they can do is not refund you any days you didn't use.

We used this trick on a recent trip to Virginia and saved over $70. Hotwire is my hero.

My life is an gray void, stretching out before me into eternity. Events pass as faceless blocks, blurs of people, shadows of moments. Joy itself is no longer joyful.

Why? Because I have no Nintendo Wii.

Yes, happiness is as simple as a little white box with motion-sensing, remote control joysticks.

I have scoured electronics stores for a chance to play on one. Most don't even have a demo unit. The ones that do just have it playing a looping video -- I've asked employees if they could go get the remote so I could play, and I've been shut down every time.

So my desire to own one is based simply on buzz. I haven't seen any TV ads. I haven't seen any print ads or even visited the Nintendo website.

Rumor has it that one of my extended, extended family members owns one. I can't believe that's true. That would be like somebody living next-door to Disneyland. (Which, yes, my wife used to do. It's a crazy world we live in.) Even if it were true, killing extended family members for toys is probably not a good option.

Time to get practical. How can I get one?

I've entered a couple contests to win one. They're mostly closed, so I'm mostly a loser as far as this goes. There's another one at Bid4Prizes, who is sponsoring this post and asks that I link to them with the following cryptic keywords: lowest bid.

Contests aside, it seems like I can't even pay money to get one. What sort of madness is the Nintendo Wii?

And why does it haunt my soul?

Google changed its algorithm? Yahoo is using a different data source? Backlinks are being devalued if they come from sites with more incoming than outgoing links?

I don't care!

I am no longer employed by Vista/Innuity/10x Marketing/whatever. So I no longer have to care. I never really did, anyway, until they asked me to look into SEO and see what we could do. Turned out we could do quite a lot. So I spent several years checking Webmasterworld daily and testing all sorts of factors and reading horrible things like the Google patent applications.

My life has joy and meaning once again, though, as I have stepped away from all of that.

I'm going to do web development and IT stuff for the State Department. For the US Government!

So, expect to see a lot of posts about bureaucracy and big, big networks. And who knows what else.

So so happy!

Okay, so that's not an earth-shaking title. But I'm a reasonably smart guy. I can do basic math. (I can even do advanced, pretty crazy math, sometimes.) I'm familiar with contracts and the concept of compounding interest. So I know that the difference between online mortgage calculators and what people actually end up paying differs by more than it should.

We've recently gone through another round of media sensationalism regarding the 'sub-prime' lending market. Thousands of people foreclosing as their ARM loans started jumping up a point or two and they really shouldn't have qualified even at the lower, initial rate. Was it too easy for them to get the loans? Did predatory lenders sign them up just to get their commissions? (Or, as the media would sometimes lead you to believe -- sign them up to get the home when they have to foreclose? But that's not likely correct, because most of the folks who sign up these loans turn them around and sell them in blocks to larger institutions.)

Of course, the answers to those questions are all yes -- yes, people pushed them into bigger loans than they could afford. Yes, it was too easy for them to get those loans. But the biggest problem is just that people buy into it!

We get pushed towards all kinds of bad things. Pushed towards to much of any good thing, more often. Eat too many Twinkies. Buy on credit. Buy a house bigger than you can afford.

It seems to me that it all extends from the same, basic roots of greed and ignorance.

The particular problem with home mortgages is that the ignorance is especially great. The reams of documentation loan brokers shove at unsuspecting buyers is enough to guarantee that they will never really read or comprehend it all.

This post is sponsored by a company that offers information related to home mortgages and offers the following links: Remortgage and secured loans. A mortgage is a type of secured loan -- any loan where you offer collateral, or something to guarantee the lender that he will get his money back. Credit cards are typically unsecured loans, so the interest rate is higher.

There are tons of places that offer information on loans. What I'd really like to see, though, is one of those places that claims to have banks competing for our loans, and presents a thoroughly user-centric summary of the various offers. I want a web 2.0, interactive summary of the APRs, initial out-of-pocket, monthly payment, total lifetime payment, and penalties or adjustments that could come along the way.

Is that so much to ask?