Lisa, when the show launches Sept. 6, visit www.dellmeansbusiness.com to enter the make-over sweepstakes for $10,000 in Dell technology. The community will vote on the winner. Maybe it will be you! JJ Davis, Dell SMB –Round Rock, TX

Dear Dell & A&E, If you're reading this... please pick me and come make-over my small business. I am tired of trying to sort through the plethora of technology options by myself! XoXo, Lisa –Raleigh, NC

Guess what? He doesn't say anything about Arabs hating us. Where do you get your leftist reporters? But they don't need to like us - they need to respect us. And that's not going to happen with an a**-kissing foreign policy. –St. Petersburg, FL

You explain what the market share means in the first number, but what is the second number in 2.5/ as in the following quote? Is it the total of households actually watching at that time? CBS and Fox tied for bronze, with the bronze bodies (and tinny dialogue) of "Big Brother" garnering CBS's highest ratings at a 2.5/7 -- well above repeats of "NCIS" (1.7/6) and "Without a Trace" (1.6/4). Thanks, jscudder@niu.edu –DeKalb, IL

As disturbing and gross as I find the spot. I couldn't stop watching it either. Also, I have to note that the whole "morbid curiosity side of me can't help but wonder if the rooms are really that clean as well as even being slightly interested in hotel itself. I think the only medium this is good for is web/viral though. I can't even imagine what the parent organizations would do if they got a hold of this on network or even cable television. –Dayton, OH

The only thing dirtier than this idea is the production value. And speaking of value, the only kind this spot has is shock. I wouldn't leave the light on for whoever did this, because it was targeted at themselves, instead of Extended Stay America's actual customers. –Budapest

Are we advertising clean or porn? Probably not for mainstream America, but it could have legs in europe. –Fenton, MI

Bewteen this spot (?) and the JC Penney real spot, fake spot, whatever you want to call it, our reputation as "creatives" is slipping into the deep end of a cease pool - resorting to bizarre fetishism and, in the case of JC Penney, advocating teenage pregnancy. Fortunately, most the the great work out there is still very smart and very funny and based in powerful ideas that don't need to offend to impress. I wish Extended Stay America the best of luck. With bookings and their agency. –Maryville, MO

D-scusting! The thought of picking up something that someone else licked . . . yuck! I don't see how this reinforces the brand image of a hotel. I really think Mullen missed the mark on this. Maybe it works to generate interest in Mullen, but I don't see it generating interest in the hotel chain, whose name escape me at the moment. Memorable for all the wrong reasons. –Dayton, OH

Does ESA have an image problem? Do customers or potential customers perceive their hotel rooms as dirtier that others? If so, then maybe this will work. Otherwise, I think I'll stick with Marriott's Residence Inn where I've seen housekeeping actually vacuuming, cleaning, etc. That is more reassuring than thinking that some stranger, possible with hepatitis, just licked random items in my hotel room. –Fall River, MA

The creative on the poster is what made for poor integration. The person in the poster should have been Will.i.am dressed exactly the same....or no person at all -- just product and background graphics. The poster is pretty dull...hence goes the integration. –Chicago, IL

Publicis has stated that they want 25% of their overall revenue to come from digital by 2012, and this acquisition will help make that a reality. There's not that many serious search marketing agencies that have the scale necessary to fit in with Publicis, it's still a very fragmented market, so the Performics acquisition makes sense. Plus, Google and Publicis have a long-standing cross-functional relationship, including sharing of executives and intellectual property. Interesting that many smaller, traditional agencies totally eschew search marketing as "too complex" and "not worth it". I wonder if this acquisition will change some minds in that regard? Jason Baer Convince & Convert http://www.convinceandconvert.com/convince-convert-digital-marketing-blog –Flagstaff, AZ

How lame a headline is how to find the "The She Spot?" With my not wanting to read something with a title like this am I apt to buy product/service aimed at me with this same sentiment. Perhaps if the collective we can get beyond sexualizing women at every turn ("control") we may "cultivate" and "connect" with "caring." At best faking it to making it. Joanne Jubert Little Silvre, NJ –Little Silver, NJ

Like most approaches that are obvious, why hasn't this "fusion" thing been done all along? Perhaps it has, just under another name. "Ask the man who owns one" was the famous slogan for Packard Motor Cars, first appearing in 1901. A simple and brilliant insight, it is perhaps even more applicable to this topic than it was to choosing an automobile. Marketers often seem focused on the wrong end of the battlefield. They polish the bullets, make subtle corrections aiming the cannon, when it would appear they might get better information from a detailed "autopsy" of the sale, who it was made to and why the purchase decision was made. Moving the "bull's eye" of analysis to where the bullet hit - and toiling less on the aiming until later - can be an economical, logical approach to finding out who real buyers are and why they chose one's brand. In naval gunnery, it was found long ago that proficiency improved when gunners were allowed to see up-close results of their cannon fire. While this merging of information and tactics is far from a new concept, perhaps the term "fusion" (now a hot term in the culinary world) is a way to reposition what has long been intuitive. If it will get more clients to see both ends of the battlefield, that's probably worth the effort. William H. Thompson Thompson Group Marketing Walnut Creek, CA –Walnut Creek, CA

America's image aboard is one of truthfulness; we have, because of Bush, Cheney, and the Congress become the very thing, we are trying to convince the world we are not- a country who sees torture as a way of life, invading countries by telling lies, killing people who don't agree with us, using business to provide profits for the government, and business, as well as, for those who lied to create the war in Iraq. Our image is true, and the only way to change it from what was the Ugly American, to now the Ugly Terrorist American is to bring fresh blood into the White House and Congress, so all the Republicans did, can be canned, and reason restored in the White House and Congress. If we want our image to be clean and wholesome, we have to act and live like we say we are, not as actors playing in a play created by warmongers, torturers and vicarious killers, who are in power and want to take over America, for their own kingdom and power. penblade@yahoo.com –Long Beach, CA

I wrote the last comment and if anyone has issues with what I said then here's my name and email. I believe in standing behind your comments as opposed to all these anonymous posters: Robert Rundbaken rudernut@bestweb.net –Ossining, NY

No, he means the war. We invaded because we were told Iraq was an imminent threat. It wasn't. We allowed Bin Laden to escape Tora Bora, against the military's advice, to attack Iraq in pursuit of a decade old policy. We fabricated intelligence to bolster claims. We have caused $1 trillion in damage and are responsible for 150,000 civilian deaths due to this war of choice. More than 4100 soldiers dead in a war created by people who took every opportunity to avoid their duty in Viet Nam. A war that has seen us use Communist era torture techniques. Hidden prisons. Stealing people off the street and vanishing them to foreign countries for torture. More than 6 years of ineptitude in prosecuting this war of choice. The WMD? Non existent. Yes Hussein gassed his own people, 20 years earlier with technology we gave him with the backing of Dick Cheney when he was Defense Secretary and congressman. Radical Islam has mushroomed under this president, our stature diminished through our own war crimes. Bin Laden still free. Our Constitution attacked. We are our own worst enemies now and this administration is the biggest threat to "our way of life and our freedom." They have committed treason by revealing CIA identities. I like a good war as much as anyone. Afghanistan was it. But according to Cheney he wantes Iraq because there's "nothing to bomb in Afghanistan. Look in the mirror and see if you like what we've become as you live in fear. –Ossining, NY

I've long said it - America's greatest export, which allows us to claim to be THE superpower of the world - is America itself. Long ago we began outsourcing manufacturing, farming, energy, and now even IT capabilities to other, cheaper countries. Our core export is the American Dream, the image that we are a golden land of opportunity and freedom. Marketing and Hollywood allow us to portray to the world what we want them to believe about us, whether or not we have more social and economic problems than others. I'm sure we can at least get THIS back on track quickly. Everything else will follow suit. –Columbus, OH

"The War" in Iraq? Don't you mean the LIBERATION OF IRAQfrom a genocidal dictator who used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, had plans to restart their development, purposely misled the UN about having them, and was a threat not only to the entire middle east, but also the world's oil supply? How is Obama kissing the rest of the world's A** going to help America's image? –St. Petersburg, FL

Dear David,

Naysayers all, those who worry over trivial concerns miss the entire point of the Olympics: athletic competition on a worldwide scale. And then the opportunity to see the new China - its like going to MARS and finding life - and interviewing the Martians -- 'look Martha, they are green and they talk real funny.'

1.) Does it pay off? I have an Omega watch on my wrist, not a Rolex. I prefer Coke over Pepsi, and so on. And Kodak has too many problems itself to really matter. What a buy, to associate yourself this this grand spectacular, spectacular. Live competition, as NFL sponsors know gets a tuned in audience receptive to commercial messages.

2.) The addition of the Internet to NBC's televised offerings is a way for them to begin convergence. What an opportunity to experiment with New Media, and to develop new metrics to justify the addition of the new platform for promotion. I believe that NBC and its advertisers are going to find that Interactive New Media is going to keep viewers longer with better commercial results for both. 3.) This is what I really wanted to comment on: I recently returned from China and travel extensively throughout the country beginning in Hong Kong , to Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Jilan, Beijing, Wuhan, to Xian, and back to Hong Kong. What I learned is no single region can define all of China - other than the race of the peoples, it is Chinese, but the regional cultures are as diverse as the land itself. Beijing is the perfect venue for China, it offers a glimpse of modern and ancient China. Its peoples are amazing and as President Ho says: they are seeking a harmonious society. And to a great extent they have achieved just that. You also find out that it is a culture of complaint - much like the USA because the Chinese are human beings and it is our nature to complain. China's participation and hosting the Olympics is akin to an international trade show - they are looking for customers for their products and services. They win because the Olympics opens the floodgates of tourism that will never stop. What the world will see during the televised events is the new China and it will glue everyone to their televisions and PCs just as if we were broadcasting from MARS. Truly, those advertisers astute enough to invest in the Spectacle will win big. Moreover, what the learn about New Media will forever change advertising. All of the sponsors will win on televised events, but the real winners will be those that pay close attention to NBCs secondary streaming on the Internet. What they learn will be well worth the monies they expended up front.

3.) After this year everyone will be clamoring for a piece of the action - with even earlier promotion compared to this year's event.

4.) The political sideshow is the media's doing. They'll find that viewers are more interested in the Chinese culture than it is in its political intrigue. 5.)

It shouldn't be fought - the real stars will be apparent and resulting boom in their business apparent as well.

Compared to other Olympics this one compares to the 1936 Olympics hosted by Hitler. In the same way people wanted to see the new Germany, people today want to see the new China. Those smart enough to see this opportunity are sure to be big winners. Somehow the media and broadcasters don't understand the worldwide interest in China and how people want to see and learn more. The China of Pearl Buck novels is long gone. The new China is truly something to see. I see nothing but win win here - winning for the advertisers/sponsors, and a win for viewers. 8/8/8 will be truly fortuitous for those lucky enough to be sponsors. –Minnetonka, MN

Snakes is in fact not that popular throughout China but the Guangdong province and Hong Kong SAR. People there believe that consuming snake soup can help keep you warm from the cold weather so snakes are served mostly during the winter time. It is worth noting that some exotic items are better received in certain provinces than others in the entire China. People in the Xinjiang province eat sheep testicles and drink sheep milk but I find them totally not consumable. So, Chinese do not eat anything but just that it has a diverse cuisine varieties throughout China. Are pig feet popular in the US? I don't think so although it is better received in the south. And pig fat are used to spread on bread in Germany. Caviar (I don't find a mass of eggs retrieved from the ovaries of a female fish interesting, do you?), foie gras (goose liver - produced by force-feeding the geese. Hear it, animal-right followers?) and snail are all treated as delicacies in France. Do I like them? No much but I am okay with them. East Indians, due to religious reasons, do not take beef as their favorite cuisine, yet they never criticize people from other countries who eat cows. Then, why do people in the west tend to make a point on something they are not so accustomed to and treat it as some practices from Mars? –Beijing

During visits over the border to Guangdong province, I've seen some incredible things on menus. Once a restaurant - in a very posh neighborhood - served a dish of snakes and scorpions. (I know the translation was correct because the restaurant had photos of all its dishes, and that's one image I will never forget.) And despite living in Hong Kong for ten years, I'm still not used to seeing plates of chicken feet. This doesn't mean I don't like Chinese food. On the contrary, I think many Chinese dishes are excellent and world-class. Perhaps only France has better and more diverse cuisine. But there are differences in the way, and what, Chinese and westerners eat. For example, an executive at Tyson Food in China once told me that the company imports some chicken parts - like feet and organs - into China from the U.S., where they are not often consumed. At the same time, it exports chicken breasts from China to the U.S., because that part of the bird isn't popular in the mainland. These differences are what make travel to the East so fascinating...but sometimes it is wise to ask before you chew. --Normandy Madden, Asia Editor, Ad Age in Hong Kong –New York, NY

Being a Chinese, I have never heard of any soup that comes with dog, cat, "strange bird" or frog in my entire life..Octopus? Yes and it is tasty. Daryl, you are way more creative than my Chinese fellows when it comes to food, but please be more accurate with your "Chinese food assessment". Even dog meat is so uncommon here because Chinese love dog. If you still have problem with the Chinese, just eat hot dog then, not bad for your health -Stanley, Beijing. –Beijing

Mary,

Octopus, dog, cat, a strange bird with its head and feet still attached, a toad or frog -- and weird cuts of meats or organ meats. In Shanghai I ordered a chicken noodle dish and got a little of all of the above. When I complained, the waiter said don't eat that then, just eat noodles - very good for health. –Minnetonka, MN

Kevin.....what a wonderful article. Keep them coming....you make the olympics come to life!! ....and I am wondering what would there be in the soup? .....Mary K. Jones –Clermont, FL

Well over half of college students are of legal drinking age, and a majority of fans are as well. It's bad enough that they banned all beer sales at college games because of a small percentage of a-holes that ruin it for the rest of the responsible drinking community, but to deny beer makers the chance to market to their consumers on televised college football games is beyond rediculous and frankly un-American. And if they think that this will somehow "prevent" underage drinking, they either have incredibly naive and myopic views of the world or have been living on Mars since prohibition. –Glendale, CA

speaking of hypocrisy, tressel has no problem taking millions from nike and putting their swoosh on "the" ohio state's beloved unis, but bud light paying to run their ads on paid media surrounding the game is a problem? their money is "dirty" and ruining the integrity of the game? besides, isn't the average age of the college football tv viewer in the upper 40s? they're called alumni, and they're plenty old enough to shotgun a coors light if they so choose. –troy, MI

really? why? i guess i'd like to see the percentage of viewership that is under age. Isn't mostly adult sports fans, alums and those trying to hold on to their college experiences watching these games on TV? –Santa Monica, CA

First. http://lairigmarketing.typepad.com/lairig_marketing/2008/08/how-would-you-1.html –New York, NY

The public airwaves are precisely that--public. My set came with an on/off switch and a channel selector. Because some parents are too lazy, too uncaring, too uninvolved to raise their children that they expect society and television to do it for them is my responsibility how? And I say this as a parent. Why must my viewing choices be restricted to those of the average 5 year-old? If you want to spend your and your children's days watching Veggie Tales, then have at it. There are plenty of viewing options for you. But don't look to dumb all television down to your choices. But the real point of all this is that the methodology of the PTC's study is deeply flawed and their true agenda is to make a lot of noise and gain new converts and raise more funds. They really have no other purpose for being. Don't feed the trolls. –Encino, CA

I am glad the PTC is monitoring this. It is really upsetting. Some of the reality shows could be another bad byproduct of the negative programming. The PTC is not suggesting adults not have choice. Adults can watch what they like on cable or DVD. But be more responsible on primetime public airwaves. The v-chip is helpful but not enough when the shocking shows are discussed by other kids. Good luck Pres. of PTC who happens to be a Democrat and a father, not a "doomsdayer." –NEW YORK, NY

Funny, they don't mention all the 8,900 shows where people make out with 30-some contestants so they can find "true love." Are those not awesome examples of maybe-someday-super-wholesome -marital love, Parents Laziness Council? Come on, no one's forcing these Doomsdayers to watch something they find offensive. Maybe if they'd spent the same amount of time and energy with their kids & partners, they wouldn't feel the need to preach at the rest of America. -NY, NY –BROOKLYN, NY

"My concern is our young people are being influenced by these values" ---I shouldn't have to give up South Park and Boston Legal just so you can protect young people. If parents choose to have a TV in the living room, if they choose not to use the v-chip, then they deserve what they get. –Miami, FL

In this day in age, I find it hard to believe that people taking their moral cues from television. Personally, I don't look to television shows to mirror my life, but for entertainment. And then I live (not watch) my honest, truthful, positive, sexy marriage. –Toronto, ON

"References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, bestiality and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1." Are people discussing these topics in serious discourse or advocating them as preferable life-choices? Are they presented as positive choices? Jeez, let's have a little discrimination here. If I tell my kid to watch out for pedophiles is that a bad thing? I don't think so! –oak park, IL

There was a time not so long ago when you couldn't say the word "pregnant" on primetime...There is a better middle road than this. My concern is our young people are being influenced by these values by making this programming available in prime time, and children are losing their youth. Yes, the media can make money using the reptilian brain to get viewers, but what about the long term impact on society?... When my father ran television companies in the 70s and 80s, there were more standards and rules in place, and there was a sense of responsibility to the local communities. Television is a very powerful medium, and it can be helpful or hurtful to a society. We need more helpful. –NEW YORK, NY

The PTC doesn't get it. People don't watch TV to see nice clean living families doing nice clean living things. They want adultery, they want s/m, they want all kinds of filth and garbage. Why? Because good people take joy in seeing bad people screw up their lives. –Miami, FL

Obviously the PTC never watched the ill-fated "Tell Me You Love Me." Perhaps they can watch the DVD for their next study. –BOWIE, MD

If there was ever a time to spend effectively – the time is now – the time is always – since 41% of marketing campaigns have no chance of success. Ad budgets may need to be maintained or even grown. Only through marketing evaluation can you be sure you're spending the right amount at any given time, regardless of economic circumstances. Marketers have the tools available they need to step up to the plate and deliver effective, efficient, and cost-effective marketing and it's needed... now more than ever. For more perspectives on marketing ROI, visit www.consultIMI.blogspot.com. Tim Bishop IMI International –Toronto, ON

As an advertising professional and a fan of Harris' books, I adore this campaign! I can't wait to see what Campfire comes up with next. Wonder if the "Man from Memphis" will be doing a celebrity endorsement for TrueBlood. –Los Angeles, CA

P.S. I buy the "pink" frozen lemonade now. It's not the same fersure, but it's somewhat close. Pretend someone cares. –Port Chester, NY

I don't know who is responsible, but I do know that I get annoyed nearly every time I go to a grocery store these days. Products that they sold so fast, they couldn't even keep them on the shelves (waiting for a re-stock). Now those really popular products, like your just-plain frozen lemonade and my made-with-butter chocolate chip cookies (ok for crying out loud, I never actually ate all that many of them [but not all that many came in a box anyway] and I've always been healthy and skinny!)just can't be found anywhere. I was always loyal to the products I like. What now? BTW, what the heck happened to Wolfgang Puck's Spicy Chicken Pizza? It's the only frozen pizza I'd buy (and I did try all the others even before that ever came out -- none were good)? And, yes, I was in marketing, but not one of the gods like you folks seem to be. At heart, I'm just a an average normal person, sort of a "consumer." Maybe that's why I was so successful with my audience. I don't even want to know what these people are thinking. Couldn't they have thought of any good creative for a long-standing product? Pretty lame if you ask this average 'mercan. –Port Chester, NY

I must disagree with your premise that limiting choices is a good thing for consumers and for marketers. It may have been appropriate in a much simpler era when you honed your perspective, but consumers can handle the complexity. You have even misused your Apple example. The company's resurgence was due to brand extensions, not contractions. The introduction of the iPod, iTunes and iPhones did more to revive the Apple brand than streamlining the computer models. If Steve Jobs had listened to your advice, none of these products would have been introduced. Mr. Ries, please stop advocating a return to simpler times and give today's consumers the credit they deserve. John Ellett, CEO, www.nfusion.com –Austin, TX

All, OK, almost all CEO's must start a business blog. Because this will force them to think about marketing strategy. Marketing strategy is about difference from competitors. Having more flavors than competitor have is not a real difference. This is a brand dilution. A business blog from a CEO really helps the company. A CEO must learn to deliver real reason to buy. ''The reason to buy our product is because we have other two hundred choices'' is not a real reason to buy. But almost the only way to help a CEO to make better decisions is to force them to write about brand difference in his business blog. Write like Jonathan Schwartz, the CEO of Sun Microsystems or Bill Marriott, Chairman & CEO of Marriott Hotels writes. Yes, this is a complicated issue. I even wrote an entire e-book on this topic - "The New Rules of Business Blogs". You are welcome to check it out in my blog at www.PositioningStrategy.com. –Kaunas

What you are describing is what we have found with 90% of corporations, they are Tuned Out. The mega brands that produce every color, flavor are examples of companies building products because they can, not because they should or the market needs them to solve an unresolved problem. The net result is incremental improvement if that to the bottom line, if any for these brands. The break through products solve an unresolved market problem. Gatorade was developed to help athletes replenish fluids lost when exercising, they were once tuned in. What often happens is these products start as tuned in products that solve specific problems and they become a hit. Very quickly they grow, and their executives start believing it was their own capabilities that led to their success and not the fact they listened to the market, and solved an unmet need brilliantly. What happens next? We ran a survey of over 10,000 executives and 70% stated they launch new products, and or make decisions on existing products with NO DATA. So that means they are assuming, using their "gut" and rolling the dice. Is it any wonder that 2/3 of new products launched each year are off the market within 12 months? The more companies continue down the path of proliferation verse innovation, they confuse me as a consumer. When I 'm confused, particularly on impulse purchases, I choose not to participate.( buy) I believe you are right in your quote "A brand with a message will always outsell a meaningless megabrand." Brands that focus on solving my problems in new innovative ways will get my vote and my dollars. Mark Allen Roberts http://www.tunedinblog.com/ –scottsdale, AZ

Great article! While books like those by Chris Anderson are helpful, it's still a little disconcerting to see companies try to over-apply the message in those books. I've been noticing that a lot of companies simply attempt to repackage their brand and add, as you wrote, several different "flavors," rather than focus on developing the identity of their original product. About a year-and-a-half ago, our company completely redesigned and even renamed one of our products in an attempt to increase revenue. Now, we've had to discontinue that product because our customers no longer recognized it as the product they knew and trusted. -Matt J. Chicago, IL –Carol Stream, IL

So, you're saying that each product category has a position in the consumer's mind and that the wise marketer will try to occupy that position? Mr. Ries, you're staying on message. That's why you occupy the position for 'Marketing Genius' in some of our minds. –Plant City, FL

Dear Al, Putting the onus of this phenomenon solely on the shoulders of Packaged Goods Manufacturers (PGMs) is unfair. PGMs were quite content with their consumer franchises but then two important things happened: First, competitors began copying brand leaders creating homogenized brands where little difference existed between brands and then in the seventies the generic Brand X appeared. It was cheaper for category contenders to copy the brand leader then it was to differentiate their brand. Second, Scanner Date appeared in Class A Grocery Stores. Suddenly shelf-space became a premium. Retailers were no longer content in viewing customers as the reason they succeed, but now they were renting space to PGMs. Space and category management doomed your lemonade once and for all. It may have had volume and sales, but it didn't offer the profit margin of other frozen drinks in the category. Refrigerated space is far to valuable not to find the most profitable products that move. If you look at most grocery stores shelf UPCs is gives the movement of each SKU, so you can compare them with other competitive products. Scanner data is why PMGs began Brand Extensions and new niche products; it wasn't that they wanted to expend monies on lost causes abandoning their consumer franchise products. I remember when Pillsbury Refrigerated Products had a huge chunk of shelf space in every grocery store in America. With the advent of generic brands and scanner data, they have been relegated to a few SKUs and not a section – save the south where biscuits still rule. I was in a Target Store recently looking for Tide Laundry Soap. They had an entire aisle devoted to Tide, but the original Tide powder of old was nowhere to be found. Weird. This is the product they built the franchise on. I had to go to another store to buy it. I disagree with you – the responsibility for this rests with retailers and not PMGs. The PMGs have been responding to scanner data realities and the retailer's space management as much as they have been guilty of trying to increase their category representation from a section category to mega brands that have multiple category offerings. PMGs use to acquire brands to bolster their brand portfolio and now they are using more brand extensions to leverage their brand equity with consumers. Retailers had been guilty of offering more SKUs to categories, but in many cases they just took one dollar from their left pocket and then placed in the right pocket with no net improvement. It gave the larger distribution-retailers the opportunity to create cavernous stores with greater selection to hasten the decline of the smaller retailers. Wal-Mart, Tesco, and COSTCO among others have changed retailing more than any other factor. So lighten up on PGMs and look to retailers for the reason for mega brands. daryl orris, Minnetonka –Minnetonka, MN

If I know the term Dri-FIT, it's because I saw it on a piece of Nike clothing and odds are, that's what I'm searching for if I put "Dri-FIT" into Google! Google should give us what we want in order of relevance and leave the paid ads to the brands that own the trademarks. I generally look at the unpaid, natural results first anyway. The whole point of trademarking something is so that no one else can legally use it as their own, which is exactly what Google is allowing to happen. I think they'd better settle this one too. –Arlington, TX

A lot of interesting facts about how Google makes their money... but what about the essential question that was raised in the article? Who owns those trademarks, Google or the brands? If the brands can prove they own the trademarks and patents, who is Google to go out and sell those words (Trademarks) to a 3rd party for a profit? Forget all the justification around how much more they charge or how much sense it makes to bid on terms you don't own... hey, some are doing it and Google is getting paid for it. Why don't they have to negotiate, and pay, a licensing fee in order to get away with that? I know it's the "internet" but does that mean there are no rules whatsoever and that normal trademark laws don't apply? Remember, Google is not just giving away those terms in a "free search", they are charging and profiting from the sale of those trademarked terms. The owners of the marks should gain some benefit, not a stick in the eye, from those marks being bought and sold by others. Shouldn't they? –Havre de Grace, MD

Well, why would Google stop this practice when they will take your money to advertise AND then take it from others too using your legally trademarked name and reputation? Just because this is the web, and they control everything, ANYTHING goes??? Would newspapers take this type of advertising or TV? Not!!! If we keep allowing Google and other search marketing engines/companies to take our money and then take from others against us, we will keep feeding the "Wild West" ethics so rampant on the web. I hope they (Dri-Fit) fries Eastern Mountain's lovely green derrier. Think Hal, from 2001 A Space Odessey... Being a bystander in this, waiting for someone else to initiate something feeds it more. If there is any organization or something started by someone out there to address this and other ethics of the 'future Hal', please contact me. –Kresgeville, PA

First, PPC is NOT a Branding instrument. If you believe that it is you are wasting your money. There should be a desired action for every click - be that a sale, lead, or Key Performance Indicator. Return on Investment should be the basis for your PPC advertising, if you aren't comprehending that you are wasting your money and time. Second, it is extremely rare that you ever get return on investment from "Conquesting" someone else's trademarked terms. Google has take all of the financial incentives out of this practice with the use of its Quality Score. When you advertise on trademarked terms that you don't own Google holds you to a higher standard for meeting its Quality Score requirements. Failure to meet the Quality Score thresholds results in $5.00 and $10.00 MINIMUM bids on those trademarked terms. Which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve ROI. For the most part, you are paying a lot of money to try and cloud or blunt the competing brand, with little to no hope of making a sale or conversion for yourself. Click through rates on these words are usually terrible and conversion rates are even lower. Third, even if you don't advertise on another brands trademarked keywords, Google may do it for you without your knowledge. If you use "Broad Match" keywords Google may consider your brand to be an Expanded Broad Match synonym of your competitors. If you are Ford they may show your ad when someone searches for Toyota. The stronger your Quality Score on your own brand the more expansive Adwords is with testing these trademarked synonyms. The more people click on your ads for these irrelevant expansions (they absolutely do) the more Google will show your ads for those trademarked words. See: http://www.searchmarketingsage.com/2008/07/15/google-adwords-the-better-you-get-the-worse-it-gets/ –Charlottesville, VA

First of all, big brand advertisers don't have to buy their brand terms on Google. They could rely solely on organic results, get free traffic, and let their competitors duke it out. However, should advertisers choose to bid on their brand terms, they would generally receive very low CPCs because of an excellent Quality Score. Google.com is not a charity, (that's Google.org) so of course they try to maximize their shareholder value. Remember too, that "the Google" always keeps one eye on the future and it can most effectively do this by increasing the likelihood that people will click. Therefore advertisers with good CTRs are rewarded, and those with low CTRs are penalized by high minimum bids. If an advertiser wants to pay $10 CPC for its competitor's brand term, we should let them. The invisible algorithmic profit maximization hand is what leads to the greater good, right Adam Smith? The analogies used by brand protectionists have been faulty. A better analogy would be McDonalds complaining that Burger King moved in across the street. (The ultimate irony would be Starbucks whining about Mom & Pop's coffee shop bidding on the keyword "starbucks"). Brand advertisers need to stop whining about the PPC landscape and become better competitors at price, quality, and service to truly impact conversion rates and therefore, the bottom line. –Mountain View, CA

When I conduct searches, I expect a good search engine to help me refine my search. That is why I primarily use Google - because it more closely approaches semantic searches. It doesn't confuse "shortchanging accuracy" with providing relevant alternatives; through my misspellings and broad confused queries, Google helps me narrow down to find what I'm looking for. If I mean "Dri-FIT" when I type it, I'm not going to click an ad that doesn't contain my search query in the text. If I type "Dri-FIT" simply looking for "wicking material," then any wicking technology ad is fair game and relevant to my search. –New York, NY

Perhaps I am missing the point. However, if I go to a store to by a pair of Nike shoes, aren't Sketchers and a half dozen other shoes available for me to see? Or, if I go to the mall to buy Nike products can't that mall have a reebok store before I reach the Nike store. Multiple search, organic and paid, are shown - not just the dri-fit. –Norristown, PA

Saying that false and trademark-infringing search responses provide a desired variety of choice doesn't give the searcher much credit. If I want to see Nike's brand, or any other brand-specific item, I should get that result when I search for it - and only that result. If I want to find out about workout clothing, I'll search for that and expect a wide variety of answers. When Google hides their money generating methods behind "Choice" as an answer, they are shortchanging the accuracy their users might be looking for. Let's not forget that Nike has spent millions developing and protecting their brand and being able to properly and legally trademark it was integral to that protection. (By the way, there are literally thousands of other companies whose names you could substitute for Nike.) Why should this protection be limited to the non-internet world? Just to make Google more money? I'm not convinced they need it. –Greensboro, NC

Not just bait and switch, not just trademark infringement, Google's search marketing policy is unethical and self-serving. It benefits Google, no one else, despite the disingenuous claims of customer benefit. –Norcross, GA

This is not even a close one. This is trademark infringement, pure and simple. Google knows it and can present all the excuses they want (consumer choice... please). Nike isn't complaining if Joe Consumer on the street wants to call every wicking fabric "Dri-Fit"... they understand the downside of ubiquity. But why should they stand by while Google reaps ridiculous profits by selling off other people's valuable trademarks for nothing more than a cheap "bait and switch" tactic? Don't our laws still provide for some standard of truth in advertising. When you bid on a keyword you are telling the searcher, "Yeah, we have that".... not, "Well, we have something sort of like that that you'll probably like better." C'mon... "Don't do evil".. wasn't that Google's motto? Maybe that was before the IPO. –Havre de Grace, MD

The whole point of a search engine and, in fact, od advertising is to give you options - not just what you already know about. What moribund companies like Nike don't want is the flattening of competition that the internet allows. Right now, they can use their advertising muscle to monopolize the consumer's awareness. They are scared to death of having to compete for it. They are scared to death of having a competitor next door that sells something better, cheaper - and even more stylish. –St. Petersburg, FL

This story has been doing the rounds in Europe for months. Google's claim that competitive trademark bidding supports consumer choice is remarkable in its disingenuity. It's as clear as day that its only effect is to add a new layer of cost to trademark protection and just as clear that it serves no consumer interest whatsoever. Given that Google controls the page rank algorithm that drives organic listings there is plenty of opportunity to offer choice if a competitor brand or service has user relevance without making brand owners pay for what the already own. –New York, NY

The Guinness ad is a clever idea, but takes too long. –los angeles, CA

While ad holding company stock may not have been heavily impacted by the poor economic climate (yet), it doesn't mean that advertising holding company employment hasn't taken a hit. Just in the past few weeks several large ad holding company agencies have announced some pretty major lay offs and closed satellite offices. (From an AdAge editorial standpoint, you have to wonder: who reads your publication, ad industry investors or ad industry executives/employees? In which case, wouldn't it make more sense to run an article about how the recession is and will impact employment in the industry rather than stock price?) –New York, NY