Scads waste time by diverting Internet users from what they are looking for. They can also take unsuspecting searchers to unsecured sites – exposing them to fraud, scams, viruses and spyware.
Sponsored search results contain over twice as many risky sites as organic listings for the same search terms, according to a study by online security company McAfee.
For example, several deceptive sponsored links deliver Internet users to sites that charge for Firefox, a popular free web browser. Not only are people paying for something that’s free, they’re providing their credit card details to companies that are, at best, untrustworthy.
Finally, it’s just wrong for search engines and marketers to profit from deceiving people. You could never place an ad in the phone book advertising Burger World with a phone number for Sushi Heaven. This shouldn’t be allowed to happen on-line either.
Few Internet users know that search engine advertising policies let advertisers buy the names of brands they have no right to use and aren’t affiliated with. Through these tricky ads, advertisers misrepresent themselves to consumers and invite traffic they have no right to receive.
When Internet users click on deceptive sponsored links, they probably won’t get what they’re looking for. Worse, they may be subjected to fraud, spam, or viruses. Some consumers have been deceived into buying unwanted products or services – including paying for products that are widely available for free.
The more widespread that scads become, the more they undermine confidence and trust in Internet search. As scads use keywords or brand names to lure Internet users to unaffiliated sites, users begin to distrust search and the brands they are searching for.
Scads flourish online because search engines can profit from them. While search engines may claim they kick our scammers, they don’t have strong mechanisms for enforcement or for closing their well-known loopholes. Furthermore, search engines have a direct incentive to look the other way: Whenever you click an ad – whether a legitimate ad or a scad – search engines make money.
A deceptive ad can lead to more clicks – giving the illusion of “relevance” – thus making even more money for the search engines.
Search engines claim that their advertising policies support more choice. We think that’s a misguided analysis: No one “chooses” to get tricked or ripped off. In reality, search engines take advantage of the fact that users have little recourse for the confusion, wasted time, scams and other losses that result from scads.
Very little! Brands are forced to fend for themselves and police others through monitoring and cease & desist letters. If a legitimate website fails to monitor uses of its name and brand, users searching for that site may get pulled in by scammers or competitors.
Search engines claim that paid search will automatically “self-correct” to fix these problems. Search engines point out that their algorithms penalize ads that few people click – eventually removing unpopular ads. But scads often give a false illusion of relevance. The more deceptive the scad, the more clicks it will likely receive – ultimately increasing its “relevance” and reducing its advertising expense. So a “successful” scad (successful from the perspective of the scammer) may manage to flout search engines’ rules on “relevance” and popularity.
The simplest solution to bait & click is tighter filters by the search engines. Better filters would curb wide-scale deceptive marketing practices, by limiting brand name usage to brand owners and approved resellers.
Sponsored search results should accurately represent the company and/or brand found on the resulting website. AABC believes search engines should only allow approved advertisers to purchase ads that appear when a user searches for a brand terms. AABC also believes that only a brand’s own site should use that brand name in its ad copy (e.g., title, description and URL).
To make sure that misleading ads don’t appear unexpectedly, AABC believes search engines should include brand terms as ‘negative keywords’ in all non-approved advertisers’ accounts, if those advertisers are purchasing broad terms within the corresponding industry.
Ultimately, these limited rules will assure that sponsored search results successfully connect Internet users with what they are searching for – without risking users getting roped in to scammers or other interlopers.
In a very few industries, search engines have taken steps to address these problems. For example, the pharmaceutical industry obtained an additional filter, in that only legitimate pharmacies are supposed to be able to bid on specially-designed keywords. But even there, the protection is incomplete: Anyone outside the pharmaceutical industry can still purchase their trademarked brands, falsely suggesting they offer these important products.
The fact that search engines had to modify their advertising practices for the pharmaceutical industry begs the question: Just how flawed is the keyword vetting process? Search engines admit their ordinary systems aren’t good enough to protect users from deceptive pharmaceutical ads. What about deceptive ads in other industries?
If a deceptive ad succeeds in tricking consumers, then more people click on it. Search engines will conclude that the ad is relevant, and they will show it more prominently, more frequently, and at lower cost to the advertiser. As a result, the deceptive ad’s site receives more traffic, while legitimate advertisers see less traffic on their sites. This also drives up advertising expenses for legitimate advertisers.
Brands invest lots of time and money monitoring who is purchasing their branded key words and chasing down those who use them without permission.
Customer relationships hinge on the credibility of brands, and customers come to expect certain things from your preferred providers. Scads threaten that credibility and those expectations. For example, if a consumer unintentionally books a hotel or flight through another seller, the consumer may not receive expected reward points and may be subject to unexpected fees or complications. Ultimately, consumers who stumble into scads may end up paying more for services – both because scads charge higher prices, and because companies must pay more to protect their brands from scads.
AABC members support competition, comparison shopping and comparison-based advertisements. AABC members have no objection to ads that claim a competitor is “better than x”. But we don’t think search engines should be able to use comparison-based ads to avoid accountability for simple deception. AABC members think that if an ad says (or implies) it offers some product, the ad shouldn’t promote a direct competitor.
We invite you to take a stand against scads by joining the Alliance Against Bait & Click. Simply send us an email by clicking here. A representative from AABC will be in contact with you.
You can also exercise your rights as a consumer. By clicking here, you can sign a petition to the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, calling on the FTC to investigate the practice of bait & click in sponsored links and stop scads once and for all. Furthermore, you should complain to both the search engines and marketers using these tactics if and when you are misled.
Understanding that search engines are an invaluable resource and have become an integral part of our daily lives, a group of concerned individuals and consumer brands formed the Alliance Against Bait & Click to safeguard the search experience. AABC educates Internet users about scads and provides them with the information and tools to avoid them.
The AABC website (www.stopscads.org) will keep you informed on the latest updates, press coverage and progress in the fight to end bait & click. You can also click here to sign up for our email updates.