Healthy Blog Reviews

.Fox, Fox International Channels’ global online ad network, commissioned comScore to study the effectiveness of video ads on brand engagement in the UK last year. Four industries, four campaigns and 300 million impressions later, the results are in: video ads provide “significant uplift” to visitor numbers and advertiser search queries, as MediaPost reports . And by “significant,” we mean significant . Over a four-week period, the average uplift for the four campaigns after users viewed a video ad was a seven-fold increase in site visitors. Consumers were also three times as likely to search on brand terms or relevant generic terms after viewing a video ad. In the press release, comScore said: Confirming expectations and previous industry understanding, video was able to generate a more immediate impact in the first five exposures than display ads in terms of increases in site visitation and search queries; however, behavioural response for those exposed to display climbed steadily as the number of ad impressions increased. . . . The study underscores the fact that consumer search behaviour is positively impacted by the presence of display or video advertising — even in the face of minimal clicks. In each of the four campaigns, search activity increased significantly when consumers were exposed to these online ad formats, suggesting that the last click on a search ad should not be given 100 percent of the credit in attribution studies. So it looks like it’s another example of the principle we shall now call Avinash’s Wife (you know, like Occam’s Razor?): Giving all of the credit to the first click is “like giving all of the credit for marrying my wife to my first girlfriend.” The study also compared the results side-by-side with a print campaign. Compared to print, users were 28% more likely to visit the brand site if they’d seen the video ad, and almost twice as likely to search for the trademark. The study focused on sites in the Travel, Finance, Government and Utilities verticals and used comScore’s single-source panel methodology. A matched pair sample compared the habits of users exposed to the ads with a control group not exposed to the ads, controlling for behavioral and demographic differences. (Meaning: comScore used its panel of UK users and selected pairs of people roughly the same demographically and behaviorally. One person was exposed to the video ad; the other wasn’t. Then they compared the two groups’ behavior.) The study made sure that users in both groups visited the same sites, but the control group didn’t see the video ads. What do you think? Have you seen results from video ads—and how many exposures did it take? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Tags: credit, finance, government, industries, picture, Research, trademark, travel, utilities, video, wife
Posted March 26, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

According to analysts, Google’s Nexus One phone isn’t selling too well . In fact, its 135,000 units sold is way off the 1 million iPhone’s sold during its launch. Still, there’s good news for Google. It was just denied a trademark for Nexus One , because it’s too similar to one that’s already being used by Integra Telecom. “Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3554195,” the trademark office wrote in its March 9 ruling. OK, so that’s not good news, but if Google decided that entering the mobile hardware business was a bad move, it now has an excuse to pull out–hey it worked for China ! Meanwhile, back in Portland, Oregon, Integra is obviously delighted with the USPTO’s decision: “We appreciate that the PTO is protecting our trademark rights. Integra has over $60 Million in annual revenue associated with our Nexus brand and it represents millions of new revenue for the company each year. Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we hope we can work together to achieve our respective business goals.” Let me translate that last sentence for you: Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we’re looking forward to either big fat licensing fee or being acquired by them for a ridiculous multiple! So, what’s next for Google? It is likely too early to pull the plug on the Nexus One, but a rebranding or licensing deal is on the horizon with this decision. ( via )

Tags: cloud-hosting, Local/Mobile, mobile, Nexus, pull-the-plug, refused-because, since-the-pto, trademark
Posted March 17, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

I think that based on the legal angle of much of the news around Google lately, we could see a service called Google Legal. I have no idea what that might look like but since the Internet behemoth spends so much time in court battles they should be able to find a way to monetize that right? They make money on everything else they do so why not? The latest case was brought against Google by Daniel Jurin. MediaPost gives some of the details Jurin, who sells StyroTrim building material, brought suit last year for trademark infringement, false advertising, interference with contractual relations, and other counts. The allegations all stemmed from Google’s AdWords program, which allows trademarked terms to trigger pay-per-click ads. If you want to get a lesson in whether this kind of thing is a good idea to do, take into consideration these two results from the case. Jurin has to pay $6,000 for Google’s legal fees and most of the case was dismissed. Not exactly a winner other than getting some press that won’t likely help his business any. In a ruling issued this week, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England in the eastern district of California dismissed a host of Jurin’s claims, including allegations that Google confused consumers about who produced StyroTrim by returning links to a variety of companies in response to a search on the term. “Even if one accepts as true the allegation that a ‘Sponsored link’ might confuse a consumer, it is hardly likely that with several different sponsored links appearing on a page that a consumer might believe each one is the true ‘producer’ or ‘origin’ of the Styrotrim product,” he wrote. What is probably the most interesting outcome of this whole thing is the assertion by the court that essentially says that Google sells ad space and not keywords. If you are Google that’s a nice thing to hear a court say because it could potentially take away a lot of the responsibility that many place on Google to police trademarks and more. As of now, the trademark infringement piece of the suit has not been dismissed but it is believed that the likelihood of anything coming of it is slim. So Google continues to fight the AdWords fight in court and why wouldn’t they? It accounts for the overwhelming majority of the company’s revenues so it is worth fighting for. Of course their legal woes aren’t even close to being over. Google is currently facing 10 trademark infringement cases stemming from AdWords. No court has yet definitively ruled on whether using a brand name to trigger a search ads infringes trademark. The one case to go to trial, a lawsuit by insurance company Geico against Google, resulted in a victory for Google in 2004. In that case, a judge in Alexandria, Va. ruled that Geico had not proven that consumers were confused when they typed “Geico” into a search box and were served with ads for other insurance companies. There will always be legal battles for Google and any other successful company to fight especially in this day and age where unscrupulous folks look at the legal system as the the lottery system. As long as the impression is that Google is playing on the right side of the law in most instances then this whole process can just be chalked up to the cost of doing business. Hey, it is America after all. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Tags: America, Business, case, legal, responsibility, Search, styrotrim, trademark
Posted March 5, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media