3 ms·

I disagree that it’s a scam to advertise over someone else’s name as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user. I’ve found better alternative

I disagree that it’s a scam to advertise over someone else’s name as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user. I’ve found better alternatives than what I was looking for through competitor ads. I’ve had this happen on Google and the App Store and I appreciate it. It gives newer, or less well-known, companies a chance to gain exposure. And consumers like me might learn about a superior option they didn’t know previously. Edit: Thought experiment. Over in the Figma thread there’s a lot of talk about trying to ween themselves and others off Adobe products. So is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop?

po8crg 4y ago
If Figma is running an ad on the Photoshop keyword, then it should be blatantly obvious that it's not an ad for Photoshop. Like "Figma: an Alternative to Photoshop" (you can tell I'm not an advertising copywriter).
aembleton 4y ago
> as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user. Fair enough, but a lot of them are trying to confuse the customer, as Cory Doctorow found
- ncallaway 4y ago
  Yea, I think it should be allowed to advertise in another brand, but it should draw heightened scrutiny. If the ad at all appears to originate from the company that is the target of the ad keyword it should be rejected or require verification that it’s from the company. Google could even charge a $10 “review fee” for ads placed directly on competitors keywords (per ad treatment, not per ad treatment per keyword) to discourage this behavior from scammers
x0x0 4y ago
> is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop? Yes, because Google's intended and actual outcome is companies are blackmailed into paying to compete on advertising for their own names. Which is highly likely a navigation query. It would be different if someone googled "photoshop alternatives" or sth

po8crg 4y ago

If Figma is running an ad on the Photoshop keyword, then it should be blatantly obvious that it's not an ad for Photoshop. Like "Figma: an Alternative to Photoshop" (you can tell I'm not an advertising copywriter).

aembleton 4y ago

> as long as it’s clear and you’re not trying to confuse the user. Fair enough, but a lot of them are trying to confuse the customer, as Cory Doctorow found

ncallaway 4y ago
Yea, I think it should be allowed to advertise in another brand, but it should draw heightened scrutiny. If the ad at all appears to originate from the company that is the target of the ad keyword it should be rejected or require verification that it’s from the company. Google could even charge a $10 “review fee” for ads placed directly on competitors keywords (per ad treatment, not per ad treatment per keyword) to discourage this behavior from scammers

x0x0 4y ago

> is it really a negative for the industry and consumers if Figma shows ads on searches for Photoshop? Yes, because Google's intended and actual outcome is companies are blackmailed into paying to compete on advertising for their own names. Which is highly likely a navigation query. It would be different if someone googled "photoshop alternatives" or sth