Are search ads misleading?

I picked up a magazine called Adbusters at Barnes and Noble the other day because even though I make my living advertising, it’s good to have some balance when it comes to media. I know how subversive and ever-present it can seem.
Per the Adbusters Web site, the magazine:

“is a not-for-profit, reader-supported, 120,000-circulation magazine concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces.”

The site goes on to describe its readership as follows:

“Our readers are professors and students; activists and politicians; environmentalists and media professionals; corporate watch dogs and industry insiders; kids who love our slick ad parodies and parents who worry about their children logging too many hours a day in the electronic environment.”

So I think it’s safe to say that not too many search marketers read the magazine, and I thought the industry as a whole would be interested in hearing the magazine’s take on buying keywords for various political campaigns. There are just a few paragraphs within a larger article about political advertising. The search piece has the frightening headline, “McCain buys ‘terror’”

From the November 2007 issue of Adbusters:

“Search for “war on terror” on Google and you may find a John McCain, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul advertisement pop up. Type in “universal health care” and the campaign site for Dennis Kucinich could appear.”

“In an effort to find ways of infiltrating the internet, US presidential candidates are paying to have their advertisements displayed beside popular search terms in Google. In what will be the most expensive and invasive election campaign in US history, politicians have now taken to branding themselves by buying words.”

…”It appears Google finally offers politicians the opportunity to buy some “integrity” and “honesty.”

Wow. I mean, really? Is search marketing so colossally misunderstood that people think buying keywords that are actually relevant to what you’re selling (in this case, the politicians are selling themselves and their own views on the issues of “terror” or “health care”) is invasive and misleading?

At least with search advertising, people are actively seeking information on the various topics they type into Google, as opposed to ads that suddenly appear front and center on a Web page or in your e-mail in box. It’s not exactly accurate to say that advertisements are displayed “beside popular search terms in Google.” As we all know, the ads are displayed beside the top-ranked organic search results. The organic results could arguably be considered advertising as well, particularly for those Web sites that are painstakingly optimized to rank well. So what should show up when someone types in a search if not search listings, paid or otherwise? Nothing?

I’m so immersed in the practice of search marketing that I rarely pause to consider how it must be perceived by those outside the industry. Do people really differentiate between paid and organic listings? I’d assumed the “Sponsored Links” heading on Google was a fairly obvious indication that the listings beneath them were ads, but in looking at a search results page, I could see how it would be easy to miss the unobtrusive label.

Nevertheless, the Adbusters article on political keyword advertising seems at best naive, and at worst, completely incorrect. Buying terms that are focused on political issues is entirely appropriate if you’re a politician trying to sell yourself on these issues. Now, if you buy the term “miserable failure” and write an ad about how George Bush sucks (if only), that’s a different story. Google wouldn’t let you get away with that anyway, but then I doubt Adbusters is aware of the strict quality guidelines that Google has in place to prevent such abuse from occurring (yes, this is ME talking - I don’t hate Google, I just don’t like arbitrary price increases that affect my beautiful campaigns).

1 comment November 3rd, 2007