Google is under investigation from the ACCC. It seems the Google Search Results did not clearly identify what was advertising and what was organic and that is the case they are up against. I am pretty sure it is from a past version because it is reasonably clear these days (although not perfectly) what is and is not advertising. It probably makes it harder since everything is just text, but I for one am a big supporter of the ACCC and what they do for consumers in Australia. Many of the real estate portals do not have this problem – in fact I think the problem with sites like REA is trying to find the property content – rather than the advertising from the 3rd parties which is harder! Yes that is a dig!
< 1 minute read
You May Also Like
Soapbox, What's New
January 7, 2009
Early contender for Dumb & Dumber 2009
Written By
Peter J Ricci
Peter Ricci is the Director of Agentpoint.com.au, Business2.com.au, Ginga.com.au and ZooProperty.com and has been involved in designing and developing real estate systems and websites since 1997. In July 2001 Peter founded Business2.com.au to help real estate agents better understand the power of the Internet and the real estate landscape in Australia and New Zealand. Since then he has penned over 300 articles on a variety of subjects in the real estate technology industry. Business2.com.au is now the leading real estate technology site in Australasia.
7 Comments
Glenn
The ACCC action has been going for quite awhile now and is over adwords that Trading Post ran using the business name of several car sales companies, particularly
Paul Krayven
A certain real estate company uses google adwords with our company name too.
Stellabella
I can’t quite understand what the problem is; then again, I’m a happy consumer. If a website (listing classified) that lists content (properties) by a marketer (real estate agent) directs me to their site, where I’ll find content by the marketer as well as the specific content I’m looking for by other marketers, I see that as a helpful service.
On the other hand, if I’m a vendor and I’m looking for a specific agent, can anyone explain why I’m not using whitepages.com.au?!?!? Everyone hates a monopoly unless it’s Google, for some reason…
Glenn
Stellabella,
Wow. thats confusing..
Where is this Google monopoly? I dont think they have one product that they have a monopoly in.
As to what the problem is with the ACCC… It is because a company (trading post) misrepresented themselves as somebody else. Whether this happens online of in the real world this is illegal. Google is being dragged into it because the ACCC wants a big scalp. Trading post used the Google Adwords product to facilitate the misrepresentation and because Google did nothing about stopping it when asked, they get to go along for the ride. The fact that this has happened online is immaterial.
You say your a consumer, but you have the website of http://www.ivisual.com.au in your profilee. If I ran an ad in the paper claiming to be Ivisual and offering Ivisuals products you would not be too happy about the misrepresentation then I bet.. In that example you are not the consumer, but you are the aggrieved… The fact that the ads are placed online does not make it ok..
Stellabella
Clearly, for anyone who knows me even sligthly, I am a consumer – shoes, handbags, groceries, cars, property, in no particular order. Just because I’m not afraid to publish any biases I may have (i.e. my employer), it doesn’t mean I don’t make purchases like the next guy. (I’m actually in the market for a 2 bedroom investment property in Potts Point, for any real estate agents who have anything coming up.)
Calling Google a monopoly is more the position the search engine occupies in the consumer’s mind; that few consider a more direct approach to locating specific contact details for a particular business – http://www.whitepages.com.au – seems pretty clear. Why the ACCC would bother to look into the practice appears arbitrary. There’s nothing predatory or insiduous about leading a consumer to a website where a specific agent’s properties may be listed, in addition to properties by competitive agents; if the consumer is interested in a property advertised by the specific agent, then the contact details for the agent are there in 16 million colours… along with contact details of agents selling similar properties. It’s a win-win for the consumer.
On the use of our trading name for the purposes of driving traffic to an aggregator? If a site like http://www.digitalsignagetoday.com chooses to purcahse the keyword “ivisual” and leads prospects to its website with information about ivisual and our competitors, then bring it – hopefully the prospect has an opportunity to gather the information necessary to make an informed decision before coming to us.
So where is it you work, Glenn?
Adam
But using the word “IVISIAL” if its registered and trademarked in the ad on the right side of google… eg.
Looking for more Ivisual
Click here and see
http://www.DigitalSignageToday.com
Would be VERY wrong, don’t you think Stella ?
Using someone elese trademark (such as what Glenn is refering too) to deliver more clicks is sneaky and illegal.
If you don’t think its wrong, then you don’t own the business.
Cheers
Glenn
Thankfully Homehound has stopped, at least for the moment although they continue to target other real estate groups. I guess whilst nobody complains they continue
Stellabella… Let me get this right, you call them a monopoly, not because they indeed are a monopoly, but because of the position they occupy in the consumers mind!!! That is a classic. Glad I did not learn economics from you.
As to you being a consumer, we are all consumers, I dont get your point how this relates to your whole discussion… other than how Google sits in your mind… but that does not constitute a monopoly now matter how hard you try.
As Adam says, I dont think you have a stake in the intellectual property of your business and your comments are simply derived from that perspective. Most people who invest money and time into their intellectual property, whether it be goodwill on the business name or products, patents, copyrights etc etc do not want to see others commercially capitalise on that.
I guess your views are in direct opposition to Adam’s, the ACCC and mine on this one. You have your right to that opinion, however I would like to think that the ACCC will prove the act to be totally illegal and set a considered precedent on that matter. Google only provided the medium, it was Trading Post who committed the act.
I think Google are in trouble for failing to remove the ads when it was demonstrated that they breached somebody elses intellectual property and to differentiate between paid advertisements and organic results. I believe that this is somewhat similiar to print advertising when ads that appear similiar to news or editorial articles have to have the word “advertisement” at the top or bottom. I don’t know the exact legal requirements on the print industry but maybe somebody could help with that? I believe that google sufficiently differentiates these ads now, but I cant remember what they looked like in 2005 which these charges stem from.