Google AdSense Tries to Auto-Install Software

[Kenny]

Google AdSense Tries to Auto-Install Software

Users viewing AdSense ads in Internet Explorer 6 or 7 over the last few days were prompted to install third-party software, according to forum posts on WebmasterWorld. The applications included QuickTime, Acrobat, Flash and Windows Media Player.

The problem was first brought to Google's attention on August 11 and was addressed August 15. According to a forum post by AdSenseAdvisor, the problem has now been fixed.

“We experienced some technical issues that caused some visitors using IE to see download prompts for third-party add-ons or plug-ins," said a Google representative in response to questions. "Our engineers resolved the issue right away so ad serving is now back to normal.”

The representative did not explain the four day lag in response, and Google Watch is still seeking comment.


Some forum posters, however, said they believe that Google was intentionally trying to install software without users' knowledge. And some users report that the issue has not been entirely rectified.

"The problem is not whether or not *I* know what's going on with the issue, it's my users," posted forum user Netmeg. "How many people got that message and just clicked away without even looking at my site, let alone clicking on an ad? THAT is what I'm worried about."

SOURCE

And in other news... A somewhat related story.

Google wants people to stop googling

Google has said it intends to crack down on the use of its name as a generic verb, in phrases such as "to google someone."

The Internet search giant said such phrases were potentially damaging to its brand.

"We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word 'Google' to describe using Google to search the Internet and using the word 'google' to generally describe searching the Internet. It has some serious trademark issues," a representative for the search company said.

Julie Coleman, an authority on linguistics from the University of Leicester, said she could understand Google's concerns.

"The prestige associated with a trademark is lost if people use it generically, so I do see Google's point. They also do lots more than just search, so maybe they're reluctant for their brand name to be restricted in this way," Coleman said.

But Coleman added that once new words enter into common usage, it is impossible to stop their use.

"Google can't possibly stop the spread of the verb," Coleman said. "Normal people are using it in normal conversation and in writing, and they aren't likely to face legal proceedings."

What Google could do, said Coleman, is "force dictionaries to mention its origin in a trademarked brand name, which is what the Oxford English Dictionary already does."

Even if Google's attempts to stop this misuse of its trademark turn out to be in vain, many argue it shouldn't even be trying.

Members of the blogging community have suggested it is a sign that Google is losing its once-cool facade and that the search giant is taking itself too seriously.

One blogger also suggested Google has missed the obvious compliment in all this, which is that the use is evidence the company now owns the search industry.

"This should be the ultimate compliment, and I cannot believe Google sees it differently," blogger and computing graduate Frank Gruber wrote.

Steve Rubel, another blogger, branded it "one of the worst PR moves in history."

Morgan McLintic, a PR executive based in the heart of Silicon Valley, said Google should certainly learn when to love its addition to the English language.

"'Googling' is already common parlance for searching on the Internet," McLintic wrote. "And there is only one place you go to 'google,' so this is a good thing for Google with a capital 'G'. The media's use of the verb is simply a reflection of everyday use."

Google's move reflects the concerns of other businesses, such as Xerox, which has complained that its brand has become a generic term for photocopying respectively. Apple Computer is also taking action to defend "iPod."

AOL is another technology company that has fought the tendency of brands to become generic. It has contacting media outlets in the past over the use of "instant messenger" to describe any IM application, claiming that to be its brand.

And one reply states:

You guys do not understand...
As a lawyer with (some) understanding of how intellectual property law works (it is a real specialty only a few lawyers really know about - not I) it is important for a company to work to protect its registered brand name - or it is subject to losing it. Google here has a difficult position (not altogether bad considering the money it has made...) in that it wants its name be become ubiquitous throughout the computing realm - giving it an ersatz monopoly, but if it becomes too successful, and its name gains the status of "secondary meaning," it could lose its protected trade name - and that would be disastrous for future revenue streams in that anyone could use it. So, while it wants to be the market leader and have its name become synonymous with "searching" - it cannot afford such success and notoriety as it could lose the trade name - and that is worth money. At this point, it cannot win without losing - and looking petty - yet the stakes are quite high. It could suffer a real PR setback protecting its trade name, or suffer losing the trade name. Either way, it is a difficult position, made even more unpalatable by the fact it has made A LOT of money on that name already.

A real dilemma, I think. It depends a lot on how well it is handled - it could be a PR coup or bust and only time will tell if it handles it right.

Just my take. Your mileage may vary. // JH Richards //

Source for both above