5 Comments

Brand Names: When Is Their Use SEO SPAM?

May 31, 2006
by

I recently talked to a couple of people from a multi-channel merchant. The call was facilitated by the affiliate network. The company has stores, a website and a catalog. Your typical multi-channel merchant. I’m not going to mention the name because that is not important. I don’t want to make an example of the merchant as the person I spoke to had mostly reasoned arguments for his position. (I’ll call him Bob as I feel like using a palendrome.)

The company in question has a name that has words in it that are descriptive of the company’s products. The name also has terms in it that are used by other companies in unrelated industries. It is not unique and the other brands come up in the search results (often in the #1 spot) for branded terms.

The call arose as the merchant had new brand use restrictions. Believe it or not, I am not writing about trademark bidding. This merchant has never allowed it and, while I think it could be useful in some cases for this merchant, I didn’t try arguing that case. This call was about other issues namely forbidding the use of the merchant’s brand name in TITLE tags.

TITLE tags

Really, the merchant’s new policy is to prevent publishers from using the merchant’s brand name in any aspect that could be considered having an SEO benefit. (In all fairness, there was one additional policy that he chose not to implement.)

I started by explaining that I understand that the merchant has spent millions of dollars on its brand and it not only should but must protect its brand. No surprise, we may not have agreed on the best ways to protect its brand.

We disagreed on what level to take the restriction on the brand in the TITLE tag. I think that a reasonable policy is to limit it to a single instance in the page title. While the search engines may give some unknown weight to words in the TITLE, users find value in it as well. Users bookmark pages. They use the back button to navigate. They even look at the page title when they are on the page. Imagine that!

Now imagine a user on a site where all of the pages have the same title. That is less useful to the user at best and very confusing at worst.

Most large sites are built with templates. This isn’t limited to affiliate sites. Just take a look at Yahoo and you’ll see a lot of templates. Is it worth it to create a new template for a single partner?

So I am left with the choice of additional coding being added to a long dev queue for a change that is bad for my customers or being terminated from the program.

At the end of the call, we were left at an impasse and it sounded like the merchant was a few weeks from a discussion as there were many affiliates to talk to. The next day I was notified that we were being terminated.

Termination Day

The real insult here is that I initiated the call. I am interested in the topic as I have seen policies like this popping up and I think they are bad for the industry and bad for users. (Note: Again, limiting the use to once in the page title is a reasonable approach and stops blatant keyword stuffing in the title which is a bad user experience as well.) This is the curse of a vocal advocate.

Do you think that others were terminated? Nope. At least none that I could find. I check the sites that show up high in search results with successful keyword stuffing campaigns. Not a single one was terminated. These are the affiliates that are “taking sales” (or whatever term Bob may have used) from the merchant. We had almost no sales with this merchant so I didn’t care that much but there is the principle (and on principle I am not putting the merchant’s name here as it would only muddy what I hope will be a useful discussion below).

Fire Your Customers

It reminds me of one of the most important lessons I learned in B-school. It was in my Ops class with Bill Yost: “Fire your customers!” If a customer becomes too expensive, Professor Yost argued that it was time to get rid of them. In this case, I may need to fire my vendor.

About David Lewis

David Lewis is the CEO and founder of 77Blue which operates online shopping websites. Prior to that, he worked in business development at GoTo / Overture. David was a product manager and accountant in past lives. In 2006, David won Commission Junction’s Horizon Award for Innovation and was a finalist for Linkshare’s Golden Link Award. You can find David on Twitter @thedavidlewis.

Twitter: thedavidlewis
Filed under: Affiliate Marketing
  • http://www.flamingoworld.com Connie Berg

    This has been happening for a for a long time.
    It seems every week I have another merchant I have to talk to on this matter.

  • http://www.thoughtshapers.com Jeff Molander

    Now imagine a user on a site where all of the pages have the same title. That is less useful to the user at best and very confusing at worst.

    I, a sophisticated Web user, don't read page titles so I hardly find this to be a valid point in your argument. Is there something I'm missing?

    As for your getting fired and others not being fired — I'm not that surprised considering affiliate managers and the position that many find themselves in. As you seem to understand, there are certain levels of "documentation" that make AM's uncomfortable — to the point of their needing to actually enforce a rule that otherwise doesn't get enforced…at cost to the affiliate channel.

    This is not unlike the situation with illegal immigrants being enabled by American businesspeople, citizens while a passive US government looks on. So… who's the bigot in affiliate marketing (asks its chief scapegoat)?

    (cue laughter)

    Seriously… we agree on this one, friend. How you were treated is obscene.

    In the end (as Patrice Colancecco has gone on the record as stating) it's all about protecting a channel without regard for cost. The other choice (and there is one) is NOT to keep ignoring your title tags and risk one's job. The choice is to stop protecting a channel that is JUST DOING ITS JOB. The choice, I suggest, is to find ways to work with partners like you in a way that (gasp) might actually rack up associated financial gain through another channel! The choice is to embrace that shift IMO. Would you agree, David?

    Let's not lose track of how search's importance is acting as a cause agent here. Marketers want ALL of the searchers typing their terms into SE's to end up at their site — not yours. Can you blame them for wanting you to only bring them something they otherwise cannot have (customers)? Can you blame them when this is the prime benefit of transparency… something that affiliate marketing affords (perhaps at cost to itself!!!).

    What is it costing that advertiser to lose the relationship with you? Do they know? I suggest that they do not and never will. They've made it your problem. You now need to start over again — pitching them on the benefit you can offer. Unfortunately you're tainted by someone who was unwilling to look outside their channel (silo) for the benefit of the overall company.

    I am eager to hear what others think of my viewpoint on this… including you, David.

  • http://www.revenews.com/davidlewis/ David Lewis

    Thanks for your input, Jeff. Your poll sample of one is fantastic. I am going to suggest that Gallup call only you in the future.

    As a "sophisticated user", I look at the title. BTW, many users aren't sophisticated. (I have thousands of e-mails to prove it.) It is a huge risk in business to consider yourself to be the typical user.

    I am glad that we agree. I commend affiliate managers who are willing to terminate bad affiliates at the risk of losing sales in their channel. I also applaud affiliate managers who stand up for their publishers who may, in fact, be helping to protect and enhance the company's trademarks.

    I do not think that it is wrong for merchants to protect their brands. I think that they must! I disagree with the methods often used. In this case, I think that there is a happy middle ground (a single use in the title) that has reasons for implementation beyond SEO. Unfortunately, it is the publisher with that reasonable approach being terminated.

    I am concerned about this issue not only because of the extreme view being taken but because this merchant has demonstrated that I am better off keeping my mouth shut and doing exactly what he said I shouldn't. Yet again, Black Hat is being rewarded.

  • http://jacksretail.com Jack Mitchell

    I use the merchants name in several places, the title tag an h1 and the metas. I then list their products on the page. If I couldn't use the merchant name, I couldn't use them because the nav is by merchant name in each respective category.

  • http://www.imwave.com Adam Viener

    Preventing partners from using your name in the title tag of a website is obsurde, it's just not worth working with a merchant that doesn't understand how the Internet works.

    BTW, Jeff, if this policy takes hold, you may have to go back and adjust your titles for this blog post (http://www.revenews.com/jeffmolander/archives/001734.html) ValueClick might get mad that you are using their Brand in the title tag!