Competitors' Names as Keywords

[jrubel]

I have found that Google does not allow me to use competitors' names as keywords to bid on. Actually, it does allow me but makes the minimum bid $5.00. It dictates the $5.00 minimum requirement regardless of the CTR/relevancy. Also, I have not been able to determine whether the $5.00 bid is also the minimum CPC as sometimes I am charged a CPC of $5.00 even though there are no other advertisers on those keywords and it should charge a minimal CPC of $0.05.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

[dharrison]

Hi Josh

If you had a proper shop, would you put a board outside your competitor's shop and say "Don't go in here, come to my store down the road"? And how would you react if they did the same to you?

There are no other bids on competitors names for a reason. It is unethical practice to have competitor's names on your website. Well done Google for recognising this.

My advice, offer your own service/product and emphasise what makes that product/service stand out from your competitors.

HTH

[jrubel]

I guess phrasing it as competitors was the wrong use of words. Basically, if you are trying to sell classical music CDs, you might consider bidding on the keyword for classical radio stations or L.A. Philharmonic, for example as customers searching for these keywords are also likely customers of classical music CDs. Alternatively, if you are a real estate broker you might want to bid on Lending Tree (a big mortgage broker house) based on their likely customer profile. However, KMZT radio station or Lending Tree might have a $5.00 minimum bid as they are existing companies. This is more of the circumstance that I am referring to.

[dburdon]

It all depends on the nature of the competitors trademark. If the competitor has a generic descriptive name then why should they be able to prevent other people bidding for it. The classic is the term "Hoover". In the UK people buy a Dyson hoover, an Electrolux hoover, a Philips hoover. So when people are using the term hoover, they mean vacuum cleaner. Why shouldn't all hoover, I mean vacuum cleaner companies, be able to bid for it.

[dharrison]

Sorry Josh, I have had a baaad day. Competitor was definitely a wrong term.

I echo David. I would say watch for trademarks as they normally come with hefty lawsuits.

It would help if you told us what your website was about (what sector) before anyone can give a definitive answer. For example if you supply beefburgers or chicken nuggets, we could all be in hot water. :)

[bbcarter]

to follow up on dburdon- another classic example is xerox or kleenex-

my understanding was that the company who owns the trademark has to avoid use it as an adjective, not a noun - e.g. they can say buy kleenex wipes but not buy kleenexes. Get a xerox copy, not use our copiers to make xeroxes.

And no one else can use them... I thought Google was expressly against the use of trademarks.

And I've bidded on other companies' names without having to pay $5- so might it be a low CTR issue instead?

[cyanide]

My experience has shown that using your competitor's name as keywords does not result in ver high click-throughs. Most likely because if people are typing in that company name, then they are specifically looking for them anyway.

[bbcarter]

Ya, the marketing wisdom on that is that people are more likely to just think of your competitor then, not you.