Google Experiments With Paid Inclusion & Does “Promoted” Meet FTC Guidelines?

Just when you thought paid inclusion was finally dead with holdout Yahoo getting out of the space, it’s come back from the most unlikeliest of sources: Google. Below, a look at the experiment plus reexamining the FTC’s guidelines about disclosing paid ads. Does saying “Promoted Videos” on YouTube rather than “Sponsored Videos” meet these?

For those unfamiliar with paid inclusion, it is where advertisers pay to have their listings included within editorial results, rather than being listed separately from them as paid placement search ads. In paid inclusion, there’s also no guarantee that the ads will show in a particular position.

Paid inclusion is a dinosaur left over from the days when you had companies that would sell a search partner only editorial results, leaving it to that partner to outsource with someone else for paid listings. For example, Microsoft once had its search engine using editorial results from Inktomi and paid results from Overture. It is also a remnant from before the days when search ads generated so much revenue that there was no need to deal with “messy” paid inclusion.

Messy? Sure. Yahoo would tell the world how fresh and complete its index was. Yet to site owners, it would pitch paid inclusion as a way to ensure that your pages were getting regularly visited by its spider or not overlooked entirely. It’s also messy to explain to searchers that these paid listings integrated into editorial results aren’t “ads” simply because they weren’t guaranteed to rank.

Paid inclusion is so messy that Google’s founders took an extraordinary step of speaking out against it in their IPO registration document of April 2004 several times. I’ll come back to those statements, but let’s look at what’s happening on Google now

The folks over at Range Online Media spotted new ads that are integrated directly within shopping results. Below are some screenshots they also provided me:

Google Product Ads

The arrow points to the ads. Here’s another example:

Google Product Ads

Here’s a close-up of the ad integration:

Google Product Ads

I can’t see these, when I look at the same pages, such as here. That’s because it’s an experiment that Google confirmed to me is being shown only to a small number of people. These are also separate from the other Google Product Ads rolled out this month to everyone.

I asked about these being paid inclusion. In response, I was sent:

At Google, ads are always labeled to indicate that the information is sponsored. We’re currently running a test in which Product Listing Ads appear on the Google Product Search page when a user clicks to ‘Compare Prices.’ Like the product listings, these ads provide information such as prices and ratings, so when a user sorts the information, the list changes the order of both the listings and the ads. As always, the ads are labeled as advertisements, and this experiment is intended to help us understand whether this is a useful experience for our users. This feature is currently in a limited beta with a small number of U.S.-based advertisers, and as with all tests, we may make changes to our current experiment in the future.

Wow. That made me feel more than ever this was paid inclusion. See, even though there’s an ad label attached to the listings, the fact that they are integrated within editorial results themselves rather than being segregated from them is one sign. In addition, if you can sort the results, then the ads have no guaranteed placement, which again is a core element of paid inclusion.

Now let’s go back to what Google’s founders said about the practice in the IPO papers (I’ve bolded key parts):

Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating.

And:

We will do our best to provide the most relevant and useful search results possible, independent of financial incentives. Our search results will be objective and we will not accept payment for inclusion or ranking in them.

And:

Objectivity. We believe it is very important that the results users get from Google are produced with only their interests in mind. We do not accept money for search result ranking or inclusion. We do accept fees for advertising, but it does not influence how we generate our search results. The advertising is clearly marked and separated. This is similar to a newspaper, where the articles are independent of the advertising. Some of our competitors charge web sites for inclusion in their indices or for more frequent updating of pages. Inclusion and frequent updating in our index are open to all sites free of charge. We apply these principles to each of our products and services. We believe it is important for users to have access to the best available information and research, not just the information that someone pays for them to see.

And:

Froogle [the name for Google Product Search back then] enables people to easily find products for sale online…. Most online merchants are also automatically included in Froogle’s index of shopping sites. Because we do not charge merchants for inclusion in Froogle, our users can browse product categories or conduct product searches with confidence that the results we provide are relevant and unbiased. As with many of our products, Froogle displays relevant advertising separately from search results.

At best, Google could excuse the current experiment from being paid inclusion by saying that these advertisers are not being charged to be included. That if they want to be in those listings, that’s free if they put in product feeds. But paid inclusion overall was rarely pitched as a way only to be included. It was pitched as a way to guarantee fast inclusion and constant updates. And the unspoken benefit was that it put you right in the mix of the regular results.

When I spoke further with Google about the move, the company stressed that the ads all have ad disclaimers and that the testing will also look at putting the ads outside the regular results and also may not allow for sorting. What you see above isn’t final, by any measure.

Certainly the ad disclaimer helps, but as long as they’re integrated right in the regular results, with sorting, that’s paid inclusion in my book. It’s also paid inclusion according to the Federal Trade Commission, from its definition in 2002 (again, I’ve bolded the key part):

Paid inclusion can take many forms. Examples of paid inclusion include programs where the only sites listed are those that have paid; where paid sites are intermingled among non-paid sites; and where companies pay to have their Web sites or URLs reviewed more quickly, or for more frequent spidering of their Web sites or URLs, or for the review or inclusion of deeper levels of their Web sites, than is the case with non-paid sites….

In a related matter, I asked why YouTube’s “Promoted Videos” aren’t called “Sponsored Videos,” as they once were. “Sponsored” has been the search industry’s term-of-choice when it comes to indicating what’s an ad. It’s used by Google, Yahoo and Bing, and it was a word the FTC particularly seemed to like when it issued guidelines.

Google emailed me:

Whenever a Promoted Video appears on YouTube, it is marked as a ‘Promoted Video’ to indicate that it is an advertisement. This label is hyperlinked to the YouTube Glossary, which offers more information about the Promoted Videos advertising program.

OK, I knew that. But these were called “Promoted Videos” originally, then changed to “Sponsored Videos,” then changed back to Promoted, which to my ear doesn’t sound as ad-like. So why were they changed?

To that, Google noted a blog post from March saying:

We think “Promoted Videos” more accurately describes this program than “Sponsored Videos,” the original name.

I was also told that “Promoted” was determined to be more descriptive and appropriate.

Determined how? Google wouldn’t share that. So maybe there was some testing done to see if users understood that “Promoted” better explained that these are ads. Or maybe a product team decided “Promoted” got a better clickthrough than “Sponsored” because people did NOT realize these were ads.

Google has massively ramped up where and how it shows ads over the past year. As the company continues to grow, it also has people without a firm history of knowing why ads are separated from search results and why certain words have been used to indicate what’s an ad and what’s not. Calling something “Promoted” that’s an ad in one part of Google while it’s “Sponsored” in another isn’t consistent and generates confusion. Mixing ads into editorial results also potentially generates confusion. Neither makes me feel particular good, but hey, maybe that’s just me.

Related Topics: Channel: Video | Google: AdWords | Google: Business Issues | Google: Google Shopping | Google: User Interface | Google: YouTube & Video | Legal: General | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • TallTroll

    It’s the intermixing that is the key point, regardless of how its marked. Put it with editorial results, people will think its editorial. A fairly high number of users still don’t realise that G sell ads, when they have a different background colour, and are marked as “sponsored links”. Be quite interesting to know what the payment model is as well, CPC, flat fee, CPA?

  • http://nilhan.co.uk nilhan

    Seems like a natural progression to unified/blended results. The question is do people really care if the ads are inline with regular results or separated as long as they are marked. Assuming they are always relevant based on user data

  • http://searchwriter searchwriter

    Historically speaking, what differentiated the Paid-Inclusion “process,” at least the process practiced by Inktomi “back in the day,”, was the XML Feed. This was a structured document containing the product SKU numbers, price points, and descriptions to be submitted to the engine. The Feed was frequently updated, once or twice a week, as prices changed, and/or inventory went in and out of stock.

    This P-I “method” made a certain amount of sense because Paid-Inclusion was originally offered to and intended,for companies with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of SKU’s that might not get into the search index otherwise. It was Yahoo’s way of saying to large advertisers, “We won’t guarantee you position, but we will guarantee that you will at least get all of your products in the index.” That way, as prices changed, the XML Feed could keep the SE index current.

    So long as Google’s Paid Inclusion is limited to similar categories of consumer packaged goods, small parts and appliances, etc., and is deployed simply for purposes of price comparison it may be a justifiable exception to the division of editorial and PPC, church and state. It’s a fuzzy line, though. In recent years, Yahoo rolled out Paid Inclusion for everything from travel to time-share real estate, Strangely, the FTC never weighed in.

  • http://www.streetprices.com/ autumn

    Interesting!

    I wonder whether Google is planning to run those ads under a commission model — both Sears and Kmart offer affiliate programs via ConnectCommerce (aka the Google Affiliate Network).

  • http://www.toddallison.com Todd Allison

    Hmm… I just don’t see it. I absolutely despised paid inclusion and was thrilled to see it go as a result of the MSN deal. SSP reeked with unethical subversion, but that was because there was no disclosure.

    This just looks like ads integrated within results – but the examples above are marked as ads better than any other Google search ad. It doesn’t seem sketchy in anyway.

    I bet if you showed the average consumer a Google SERP and those screen shots the vast majority would be able to spot the ads much easier in these examples. That’s some of the best disclosure I’ve seen on search ads. If they followed the standard search model they would have highlighted those ads in a way that barely shows in most monitors and put sponsored in the top corner. Instead right when the consumer is ready to click, they see “Ad”. Even if they do roll this out as is I don’t see any “evil”.

    On the second point – “sponsored” is clearly better discloser on an ad than “promoted”. Promoted doesn’t even sound paid at all. If you ran the same consumer test as above the vast majority wouldn’t know that was a paid ad.

  • http://www.builddirect.com robdwoods

    Are these “ads” being triggered the same way the product ads are? Is it through the Google Base feed or is it by sending the feed to the Google Affiliate Network? If so Google is technically not accepting payment for the placement or for the click, but rather only if the ad drives a conversion on the advertiser’s site. By the “letter of the law” this wouldn’t really be paid inclusion, any one can be included but you have to play for the premium placement. You’ve got to suspect that Google was going to monetize the product listings in Google Base at some point.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide