Re: Estee Lauder sues Excite over keywords

From: Allan Sabo <admin_at_ad-network.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:34:06 -0600 (CST)

Gentlemen, I have been watching the Excite / Estee' Lauder
situation with mild interest. However, based strictly on
both posts. I have to place my opinion closer to Karl's.
While I "understand" Richard's case, I feel you manage to mix
apples with oranges.


Lets get to basics for a minute.

Q: Why do SE's allow surfers to type key-words.
A: So web surfers can find what they are interested in
quickly.

Q: What kind of result are presented once a keyword is
entered at a SE?
A: All relevant "LISTINGS" (this should include Estee'
Lauder if they have done their SE placement properly.

Q: Why do SE's sell keywords?
A: To earn revenue... delivering a more targeted audience
for a higher ad price

Q: Is fragrance counter asking that Estee' Lauders products
not be delivered along with the results of the keyword
search?
A: No. Just to be placed in the vicinity, by purchasing the
"billboard" across the street.

Summary:

What Fragrance Counter is doing here is conducting an
"Ambush Marketing" campaign. Both Fragrance Counter and
Estee' Lauder are visible. (one in the form of a banner ad,
the other in the form of a listing).

My extensive experience with Olympic marketing in
preparation for the Centennial Olympic Games in Atlanta in
1996 dealt with this problem to great extent (which is not
illegal). How many of you thought that American Express or
Pepsi was a sponsor of the olympic games? Well they wern't,
they just conducted effective ambush marketing campaigns and
bought ad time/ space that actual Olympic sponsors (Visa and
Coke) would not pay for. You can't force the network (or
SE) to sit on unsold inventory.

The only "difference" in my analogy is that the Olympic
Committee required that any advertising sold had to include
a clause that gave the first right of refusal back to the
olympic sponsor *if* they wanted it. Therefore, I think
Excite (and any other search engine) should simply append
thier purchase agreement for keywords that includes a first
right option to the rightful owner of any known trademarks.
(which I believe would go above and beyond the letter of the
law)

I am also dealing with the "trademark" issue for my firm
"e-sports!" we get many offenders who claim it is a
"generic" term, similar to e-mail, e-commerce. fact is
though, we were first to use it back in 1994. We place our
entire identity upon our brand, and we defend it vigorously.
 Not only is our brand recognized by a very special segment
of sports fans, but it was designed to have strategic value
as well. (it was itended to place us close to ESPN in
alphabetical directories - popular back in 1994). However,
if a search engine sold the key-word "e-sports" we would do
all we could to "intimidate" the SE and Infringing party,
but bottomline. I don't think we would be successful in our
quest for the reasons cited above.

I guess the courts will be the final judge, although my
money is on FC.

Allan Sabo

Executive VP of Strategic Marketing e-sports!
 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  E-SPORTS! is located at http://www.e-sports.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-= powered by sports fans! =-=-=-=-=-=-=
phone: 216-228-0260
e-mail: asabo_at_ad-network.com


========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
                                Conducent

   Don't Buy Hope! Get a 94% User Response Advertising with Conducent!
     Place Dynamic Ads in Downloadable Software. Invest in Results!
 http://www.conducent.com/advertisers.shtm or eisenstadta@conducent.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request@o-a.com



Received on Wed Feb 03 1999 - 11:43:03 CST