Back in April 2009, It was suggested by John Mack that, FDA might go after pharma marketers for using paid search redirects in Google Adwords (see "FDA Concern May be the Use of 'Redirect' URLs"). Such ads use visible URLs such as "flaccidmember.com" but, when clicked, lead to viagra.com or cialis.com. Such an is considered to be "unbranded" and beyond FDA regulation. That is, it can say "Stay harder longer with this treatment for erectile dysfuntion" and lead directly to the branded website.
The problem with that strategy is that Google's Adword policy forbids the use of redirect URLs -- for most advertisers. It appears that Google was making an exception for the pharmaceutical industry (see "Redirect URLs in Adwords: Who Knew What When?").
But Google may have rescinded this exception. Tyler Ransburgh of What's Your Digital IQ Blog wrote about his problem using a redirect URL in a pharma ad. "I work in pharma," said Tyler, "I have an exception to the rule. Right? Well, I reached out to Google to get an answer on why I am getting caught in this web" (see "Google blocks Pharma paid search redirects")
When Tyler did reach out to Google, here's the reply he got:
The problem with that strategy is that Google's Adword policy forbids the use of redirect URLs -- for most advertisers. It appears that Google was making an exception for the pharmaceutical industry (see "Redirect URLs in Adwords: Who Knew What When?").
But Google may have rescinded this exception. Tyler Ransburgh of What's Your Digital IQ Blog wrote about his problem using a redirect URL in a pharma ad. "I work in pharma," said Tyler, "I have an exception to the rule. Right? Well, I reached out to Google to get an answer on why I am getting caught in this web" (see "Google blocks Pharma paid search redirects")
When Tyler did reach out to Google, here's the reply he got:
"In response to advertiser and user feedback, and in an effort to provide relevant results and a high quality experience for our users, we have made the decision to no longer allow certain exceptions to our display URL policy. Please note that this amendment to our policy applies to all advertisers, regardless of previous exceptions for, or acceptance of, any campaigns. To provide a quality experience for our users and partners, the display URL policy will be strictly enforced."
I'd like to think that my blog posts were part of the "feedback" that Google considered.
But I wonder if the real reason for Google's policy turnaround is the "feedback" it got from the FDA when it proposed new ad formats for pharma paid search ads, which have already been used (in beta mode) by at least one pharma advertiser (see, for example, "Is Google the New FDA?")?
Perhaps FDA gave Google "permission" to have its pharma clients use the new ad format on condition that it no longer allow pharma advertisers an exception to its ban on paid search redirects.
It's a possible scenario. But there are a lot of "back door" deals that the pharma industry and its agents make with FDA. If FDA's new transparency initiative is to mean anything, it should publish the transcripts of "private" meetings with the industry that result in changes in how it regulates the industry. For example, we know that Google met privately with FDA to discuss its new Adword format for drug ads -- Google referred to these meetings at the FDA public hearing. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions! Better than that, however, would be a published transcript -- even an edited transcript to protect proprietary information.
-------------
FOLLOW-UP
Some feedback are indicating that Google has NOT changed its policy regarding pharma's use of URL redirects in Adwords. See this Pharma and SEM Marketing Blog post by SEM Dave Anderson who indirectly received this comment from Google: "Our policy has not changed: pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to have an exception to allow a URL redirect, which is not currently recognized by our automated system." Which seems to directly contradict the comment received by Tyler Ransburgh from a Google Adword support team person who advised Tyler to "be assured that you have reached the appropriate AdWords support team for your AdWords related concern and I’ll be unable to escalate your issue further." Tyler, you see, had asked to speak to this person's supervisor and was rebuffed!
But I wonder if the real reason for Google's policy turnaround is the "feedback" it got from the FDA when it proposed new ad formats for pharma paid search ads, which have already been used (in beta mode) by at least one pharma advertiser (see, for example, "Is Google the New FDA?")?
Perhaps FDA gave Google "permission" to have its pharma clients use the new ad format on condition that it no longer allow pharma advertisers an exception to its ban on paid search redirects.
It's a possible scenario. But there are a lot of "back door" deals that the pharma industry and its agents make with FDA. If FDA's new transparency initiative is to mean anything, it should publish the transcripts of "private" meetings with the industry that result in changes in how it regulates the industry. For example, we know that Google met privately with FDA to discuss its new Adword format for drug ads -- Google referred to these meetings at the FDA public hearing. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions! Better than that, however, would be a published transcript -- even an edited transcript to protect proprietary information.
-------------
FOLLOW-UP
Some feedback are indicating that Google has NOT changed its policy regarding pharma's use of URL redirects in Adwords. See this Pharma and SEM Marketing Blog post by SEM Dave Anderson who indirectly received this comment from Google: "Our policy has not changed: pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to have an exception to allow a URL redirect, which is not currently recognized by our automated system." Which seems to directly contradict the comment received by Tyler Ransburgh from a Google Adword support team person who advised Tyler to "be assured that you have reached the appropriate AdWords support team for your AdWords related concern and I’ll be unable to escalate your issue further." Tyler, you see, had asked to speak to this person's supervisor and was rebuffed!
0 comments:
Post a Comment