A box with words or pictures in it.
ThatÂ’’s what Google doesnÂ’’t want to see itÂ’s publishers using on their sites.
Unless itÂ’s GoogleÂ’s box… with GoogleÂ’s words… or GoogleÂ’s pictures.
Recently, Brian Axe from GoogleÂ’s AdSense team had an interview with Shoemoney about various AdSense topics, most of which centered on the current version of rules. Brian claimed that Google was actually loosening rules, allowing publishers to place contextual advertising on any page on your site, even the same page as Google ads, so long as they donÂ’t look like Google AdWords ads. If they do, you canÂ’t have them anywhere on your site, or youÂ’re in jeopardy of being banned from their program. I heard once that Donald Trump sued a guy because he had a store that sold playing cards and poker chips and card tables, and was called Â“Trump CardÂ”. The Donald didnÂ’t think the guy should be able to use the word Â“trumpÂ” in that manner. I wonder if he can retroactively sue every inventor of every card game that includes trump cards? Insane, isnÂ’’t it?
It’s a lot like thinking you hold eminent domain over words in a box. Not special Google-sized boxes, but IAB standard boxes. With words. YÂ’know, like what youÂ’re reading right now. I have to assume this also means image ads. IÂ’m sure everyone can agree that pictures used in advertising is something that Google likely pioneered, and should rightly discriminate against any publishers who flaunt that rule. Brian asserted that Google does not intend to hinder competition or act in a way that would be harmful to itÂ’s publishers; that would be bordering on antitrust violations*. ItÂ’s because the AdSense team believes they have established a brand identity. Brand identity? Using IAB, worldwide standard box sizes and words? With the full range of the (as yet) free color spectrum?
Thank God four wheels, a box, and an engine weren’t considered a brand identity when Henry Ford was building his assembly line. Otherwise, a company like Tesla Motors would never be able to take their magneto/electrico pipe dreams beyond the drawing board.
This is my first salvo…
More to follow.
* I added the antitrust part. I’m sure they’ve been instructed to never, ever use that word in any communications outside the ‘plex.
Editor’s Note: I’d like to thank Robert Paulson for contributing to Gevil.org. I look forward to reading rest of your shot’s across Google’s bow. Also, as a quick reminder, if YOU would like to contribute to Gevil.org, please let me know via email at info[at]gevil.org. Thanks!+