 |
Internet Marketing · eMarketing · Internet Advertising · Online Branding |
|
Internet Marketing · eMarketing · Internet Advertising · Online Branding |
|
|
|
||
| ADVERTISING BY ICONOCAST |
||
SEARCHING FOR DISCLOSURE
How Search Engines Alert Consumers to the Presence of Advertising in Search Results
By Jørgen J. Wouters
November 8, 2004
Consumer Reports WebWatch
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10703-1057
Tel: 914.378.2600
www.ConsumerWebWatch.org
Part 2 of 3
SEARCHING FOR DISCLOSURE
How Search Engines Alert Consumers to the Presence of Advertising in Search Results
By Jørgen J. Wouters
November 8, 2004
Consumer Reports WebWatch
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10703-1057
Tel: 914.378.2600
www.ConsumerWebWatch.org
Part 2 of 3
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 34
CNET’S SEARCH.COM
http://www.search.com
Dates tested: April 29, 30 & May 4
See Figure 9
Paid Placement
CNET Search’s paid placement results appeared at the
top of the page and were distinguished from other listings
by a heading—but without a hyperlink or disclosure
page. The meta-search engine used results supplied by
Google, Ask Jeeves, Business.com, Kanoodle, LookSmart
and others.
The site’s “Sponsored Links” heading appeared in black
lettering on white background and earned praise from all
testers for its visibility to users. Although CNET did not
offer a disclosure link, the heading itself is hyperlinked.
However, clicking on it only expanded the list of sponsored
links, which annoyed more than one tester. “The
hyperlinking of the heading may be misleading, since it
does not lead to a disclosure,” said one.
CNET Search featured a section titled “Understanding
Search Results” in its help pages, but provided no explanation
of paid placement results. One tester questioned
the accuracy of the statement: “Search.com now searches
Google, Ask Jeeves, LookSmart and dozens of other
leading search engines to bring you the best results.”
Said the tester: “This would make it appear that all results
are the best (e.g. most relevant) and that paid placement
and/or paid inclusion is not being used.”
Paid Inclusion
CNET Search uses paid inclusion, although it did not
overtly disclose this fact anywhere on the site. But CNET’s
reliance on results from search engines that use paid
inclusion left little doubt among several testers this practice
takes place within the site’s main listings.
CNET grouped main listings under the heading “Web
Pages,” but there was no further explanation or disclosure
of these results anywhere on the site. As with the
paid placement heading, the “Web Pages” heading
was also hyperlinked and, once again, only expanded
the available display of results.
Although one tester found it impossible to tell whether
CNET used paid inclusion, most thought it did but faulted
RESULTS BY SEARCH ENGINE
Continued from Part1
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 35
FIGURE 9: CNET’S SEARCH.COM
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 36
FIGURE 10: GOOGLE
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 37
the site for its lack of disclosure. “I’m assuming this site
uses paid inclusion because some of the search engines
included in the search use paid inclusion (e.g. MSN
Search),” said one tester.
“They do [use paid inclusion], but do not tell you,” said
another. “They tell you where their results come from, but
unless you know the policies of each (there are no links
to their policies) you wouldn’t know.”
One tester noted there wasn’t “any statement made within
this site that could lead consumers as to the basis of
which a result is generated.”
GOOGLE
http://www.google.com
Dates tested: April 29, 30 & May 4
See Figure 10
Paid Placement
Google uses paid placement and supplies its own results.
Paid links were visually separated from main results,
appearing in the right column and delineated by a vertical
blue line. Paid links also appeared across the top of
the results field in blue-shaded boxes. Both sets of paid
results were further distinguished by headings, but not
with a hyperlink or disclosure page.
While Google earned high marks from testers for the
clarity with which it visually separated paid links from
“pure” results, testers roundly criticized the site for not
providing accessible, fuller disclosure information.
Google’s “Sponsored Links” heading was deemed an
adequate indicator of the site’s use of paid placement,
but it blended in with the page due to a thin, gray font.
Some testers noted that clicking on the paid placement
heading in the blue boxes above the main results misleadingly
took users to the advertiser’s site, rather than to
an expected disclosure. Google did not link to a disclosure
from the results page.
Although the FTC does not require a paid placement
disclosure beyond the results page, many of the search
engines tested—including those using Google results—
did provide disclosure pages. Google, however, did
not. This fact, combined with the difficulty in locating
an explanation of Google’s search results puzzled and
exasperated several testers—all of whom noted the ease
in finding this information on sites supplied by Google.
“It is odd that other sites that use Google seem to link to
[Google] disclosure pages I cannot find from Google
itself,” commented one.
“The layers-deep disclosure information could also be
easily accessed via hyperlinks on the results page,” said
another tester. “Interestingly, other search engines
dependent on Google for their search results do this.”
“Google’s paid placement program is difficult to find
information about unless one goes several pages into
‘help screens,’” complained another.
“Most search engines who receive paid placement listings
from Google provide disclosure links and pages,”
said another tester. “I think Google should do the same.”
Paid Inclusion
At the time of testing, Google—apart from the sites it
supplies with their main results—was the only major
search engine that did not use paid inclusion. Engines
are not technically required by the FTC to explain if they
do not use a paid advertising program. However, given
that Google has made it a point to publicly shun paid
inclusion and call attention to the purity of its results, it
was somewhat odd to discover most testers were unable
to find information on the Google site itself regarding
whether the engine used paid inclusion.
Only two testers noted Google’s lack of paid inclusion
with any certainty, although one acknowledged the difficulty
in reaching this conclusion. “Google does not use
paid inclusion—not that following the links would tell
you,” remarked a tester.
INFOSPACE WEB SEARCH
http://www.infospace.com/home/search
Dates tested: April 29, 30 & May 4
See Figure 11
Paid Placement
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 38
FIGURE 11: INFOSPACE WEB SEARCH
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 39
This meta-search engine uses paid placement, and culls
results from several sources, including Google, Overture
and FindWhat. Paid placement listings were intespersed
throughout the results page and identified with a heading
on a result-by-result basis, as well as a single hyperlink to
a disclosure page.
Headings appeared on the last line of each search result
and used the same font and faint blue color of the URLs
they preceded. Most of the researchers agreed the term
“Sponsored by” indicated paid placement, but several
complained the headings were easy to miss because of
their location, size and color. In fact, one tester failed to
spot the headings at all.
“Its [the heading] placement at the bottom of the citation
next to, and the same color as, the (unclickable) URL
made it very hard for me to spot at first—even when I
knew to look for it,” remarked one tester.
Several testers also said the “Learn More” hyperlink, located
at the top of the page after a list of participating search
engines, was hard to find—an observation borne out by
the inability of two testers to locate the link. Although two
testers believed the language used for the hyperlink adequately
indicated the availability of a disclosure, one did
not and said the wording suggested learning more about
the search engines themselves, rather than the nature of
their business relationships with InfoSpace.
Clicking on the hyperlink directed users to a page headlined
“Why is Metasearch Better?” Scrolling down the
page approximately one full screen took users to an
explanation of the site’s paid placement program as well
as a partial list of engines providing these results.
Although the three testers who managed to locate disclosure
gave InfoSpace high marks for its easy-to-understand
language explaining its paid placement program, two
doubted consumers would ever find it, given the unusual
placement of the hyperlink and the lack of any instructions
on the page to scroll down.
Since testing concluded, InfoSpace’s disclosure page
has changed and no longer carries a headline,
although the browser window bears the title, “About
Results—InfoSpace.” Also, the disclosure page now
explains “results returned from these search engines
including commercial (sponsored) and non-commercial
results.” The explanation of the engine’s paid-placement
program specifically has been reduced to one sentence:
“Pay-for-Placement: Engines that return relevant
sponsored listings.”
Paid Inclusion
InfoSpace uses paid inclusion but did not disclose this
fact. Like other meta-engines tested, InfoSpace strips out
any disclosure language from the search engines whose
results it displays. Unless one knows the business practices
of these engines—which should not be expected of
the average consumer—there is no way to tell if
InfoSpace uses paid inclusion.
The meta-engine’s stated use of results from Yahoo, Ask
Jeeves and Alta Vista alerted testers as to InfoSpace’s use
of paid inclusion. One tester noted: “Although paid inclusion
certainly takes place—since this is a meta-search
engine that uses other engines known to use paid inclusion—
there is no disclosure whatsoever, either on the
results page or on a disclosure page.”
Other researchers were unsure. “You cannot tell—I
presume they at least inherit it from the engines that they
search,” said one tester. “In looking at a search engine
where the provenance of search results is so hard to
trace, it’s hard to rule out the presence of results that were
part of a paid inclusion program,” remarked another.
LYCOS NETWORK SEARCH
http://www.lycos.com
Dates tested: April 30 & May 3, 4
See Figure 12
Paid Placement
Lycos used paid placement results provided by Google.
Visually, they were grouped above and below the main
listings, and distinguished by a heading and hyperlink to
a disclosure page. Unlike the main results, which were
numbered, paid placement results were preceded by a
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 40
FIGURE 12: LYCOS NETWORK SEARCH
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 41
bullet. Additional paid placement listings also appeared
on the right-hand side of the results page in shaded
boxes, under a separate heading.
Most of the reviewers believed the “Sponsored Links”
heading clearly conveyed the existence of paid
placement listings, and all of them praised the eye-catching,
red font above the paid results, as well as the hardto-
miss boxes on the right. The link to the site’s disclosure
page was deemed easy to spot, thanks to the use of blue
and red colors, and testers thought the “info” label
was effective.
Clicking on the hyperlink opened a pop-up window titled
“Sponsored Search Links” containing only the paid
placement disclosure. Below the disclosure, users were
asked to answer “yes” or “no” to the question: “Did this
answer your question?” Clicking “no” took users to
another pop-up with seven hyperlinked subjects: 1) Web
Results; 2) Sponsored Search Links; 3) What are the
various Search Results Page sections?; 4) News Search;
5) From the Lycos Network; 6) Lycos Search Box;
and 7) Shopping Search.
Clicking on the first option took users to a disclosure of
the site’s paid inclusion program. Clicking on the second
link took users back to the initial paid placement
disclosure, while the third link connected to a page containing
both disclosures. None of the other options
offered any further explanation of either program.
Although testers agreed the disclosure language
was easy to understand, some found it somewhat too
simple. They also were divided as to how straightforward
the content was given the site’s use of seven links for
more information. “The hyperlink initially provides only
minimal information describing sponsored search links,”
remarked a tester. “To dig further.... the searcher is redirected
to a choice of seven additional links to more
detailed information on search engine marketing.”
Paid Inclusion
Lycos used paid inclusion results from Inktomi (which
is owned by Yahoo), LookSmart and FAST, which it
disclosed with a heading and a link to a disclosure
page. Lycos sometimes promoted its own content at
the top of the main results, which it acknowledged in
the disclosure.
None of the testers believed the “Web Results” heading
adequately conveyed the use of paid inclusion, although
all said it was very noticeable. Remarks regarding the
“info” link echoed those for the paid placement link:
Good visibility and wording.
But one tester failed to notice the paid inclusion hyperlink,
which was separated from the heading with a
sentence describing the number of results found such as:
“Showing Results 1 thru 11 of 4,658,499.” This
appeared to support the FTC’s sentiment that users
encounter problems when hyperlinks are separated from
headings, even if only by a few inches.
Clicking on the “info” link opened a pop-up window
headlined “Web Results” containing the paid inclusion
disclosure. As with paid placement, below the disclosure
users were asked to answer “yes” or “no” to the question:
“Did this answer your question?” Clicking “no”
takes the user to another pop-up with the same seven
hyperlinked subjects detailed above in the evaluation
of paid placement.
Some testers found the disclosure lacking in clarity and
candor. “The disclosure explicitly states that ‘Participation
in Lycos InSite, our paid inclusion program does not
improve placement in search results,’ but does not explicitly
state that participation in the LookSmart paid inclusion
program does not improve placement,” noted one tester.
Another reviewer echoed this complaint: “The disclosure
is confusing and incomplete, since it mentions more
than one source of paid inclusion without explaining
how all of them work. It says the ‘Lycos InSite’ paid
inclusion program does not improve placement in
the search results, but it doesn’t clearly indicate whether
results from FAST or Looksmart are part of this program—
let alone how they operate. Finally, the links that it
does provide (why no link to FAST?) don’t take you
to specific information, just homepages that require
further searching.”
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 42
FIGURE 13: MSN SEARCH
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 43
MSN SEARCH
http://www.search.msn.com
Dates tested: April 30 & May 3, 4, 5
See Figure 13
Paid Placement
MSN Search uses paid placement, with results provided
by Yahoo-owned Overture. Paid placement resultsappeared
on the right-hand side of the page, boxed by a
thin, blue line. Paid placement results sometimes also
occurred at the top of the results page. Both sets of listings
featured a heading and hyperlink to a disclosure pop-up.
MSN was using “content promotion” during testing (a
practice it terminated in July), which included both MSN
and advertiser results selected by editors. These links
were often placed at the top of the results page. Although
they were disclosed by a heading (“Featured Sites”) and
a hyperlink, they caused considerable confusion among
testers, who mistook them for both paid placement and
paid inclusion listings. The following sentence in the
content promotion disclosure was a considerable source
of confusion: “Microsoft accepts payment for listings from
these [advertising] partners.”
While testers approved of the language of the
“Sponsored Sites” heading, they criticized the light
gray font, which was difficult to spot. One tester mistook
the “Recommended Sites” content promotion heading
for a paid placement indicator, again underscoring the
troubles content promotion creates for users.
Most reviewers believed the “About” hyperlink indicated
the availability of a disclosure, but most also noted the
gray font made the hyperlink easy to overlook. Clicking
on the hyperlink opened a narrow, vertical pop-up
window titled “About MSN Results” that ran the length of
the far right-hand screen. Finding the “Sponsored Sites”
disclosure required scrolling to a brief disclosure.
Additionally, users were required to scroll further to a
hyperlink labeled “About Sponsored Sites search results”
to access the full disclosure—a lengthy process testers
criticized as too cumbersome.
“It takes several pages to piece together a complete
disclosure,” said one. “You must scroll down to find links
to further details and even these are incomplete,” complained
another. “Too much scrolling and clicking
required,” said another.
Paid Inclusion
Although MSN had long used paid inclusion listings
under its “Web Pages” heading, several weeks before
testing began, the site inexplicably ceased disclosing this
practice —despite receiving its main results from Yahoo,
which featured paid inclusion. Then in early July, MSN
announced it was getting out of the paid inclusion business
and would begin removing those listings from its
Yahoo-supplied results.
This lack of disclosure perplexed testers, and the general
confusion was only exacerbated by MSN’s content
promotion listings (“Featured Sites”), which two reviewers
mistook for paid inclusion listings.
Regardless of which heading the testers identified (“Web
Pages” or “Featured Sites”), most said the gray font was
easy to overlook, and none thought the wording indicated
paid inclusion. Most reviews faulted the “About”
hyperlink for poor visibility.
Clicking on the hyperlink required an identical amount of
scrolling and clicking to locate the complete disclosure.
Regardless of which disclosure the testers clicked on,
almost all were critical of the effort involved.
Testers were confused about whether MSN used paid
inclusion from the vaguely worded disclosure: “Web
Page search results include all Internet-wide Web sites
that best match your search words.” Said one reviewer:
“It is not clear from this statement which sites are
searched and how they are identified for inclusion in the
search results. MSN does a better job disclosing paid
placement than providing any indication of whether they
use paid inclusion.”
Another tester expressed frustration with the various
terms and definitions found on the disclosure pages. “I
struggled with MSN’s ‘word game’ definitions—Popular
Topics, Featured Sites, Sponsored Sites—and how
they may, or may not, interrelate,” remarked one tester.
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 44
FIGURE 14: MY SEARCH
CONSUMER REPORTS WEBWATCH 45
“Popular Topics can be Sponsored Sites, but are usually
not Featured Sites. Featured Sites are MSN-affiliated, but
it is Web Pages that ‘best match your search words.’”
MY SEARCH
http://www.mysearch.com/jsp/home.jsp
Dates tested: May 1, 3, 4 & 5
See Figure 14
Paid Placement
My Search used paid placement and relied on results
from Google, among others. A type of search engine
portal, My Search allowed users to choose from one of
several search engines. Testers were asked to search
using “AlltheWeb” (an option no longer offered) to cover
the spectrum of results. Paid placement listings appeared
at the top of the results page and were disclosed with a
heading and hyperlink to a disclosure page.
Most of the testers found the tiny, gray font used for the
“Sponsored Listings” heading too difficult to detect, and
all but one thought the label clearly signified advertisingdriven
results.
Most testers believed the “About Search Results”
hyperlink clearly suggested the availability of a disclosure
and contrasted well with the page for easier visibility.
But any enthusiasm was more than tempered by the
link’s inconspicuous placement at the bottom right-hand
corner of the page. “The hyperlink was buried,” said one
tester, speaking for the others.
Clicking on the hyperlink opened a large pop-up window
and took users to a disclosure for “All the Web” results.
Users were required to scroll up the page to find the
“About My Search Sponsored Listings” heading at the
top of the page.
While several testers complained about the location of
the link and the need to scroll, most found the language
itself simple and straightforward. “Although it takes a little
while to find the ‘About Search Results’ link at the very
bottom of the page, the policy is clearly stated,” said one.
Paid Inclusion
When searching with “AlltheWeb,” My Search used
paid inclusion, but not with other results from sites
that do not employ it. Results were supplied by
FAST and disclosed with a heading and hyperlink to
a disclosure page—the same link used to disclose
paid placement.
None of the testers believed the “Web Results powered
by AlltheWeb” heading adequately conveyed paid
inclusion, and all said the size and color of the font
made the heading blend in with the page. “Light gray
on white with very small print makes the words less visible,”
noted one.
Since My Search used the same “About Search Results”
link to disclose paid inclusion as well, comments echoed
those above. “Again, the disclosure hyperlink is easy to
miss, since it is buried at the bottom of the page, rather
than adjacent to the header,” noted one.
Clicking on the hyperlink opened a large pop-up window
that took users directly to a disclosure for “AlltheWeb”
results. Reviews were mixed about the quality of the disclosure
itself. While testers agreed consumers could easily
find the disclosure, doubts were raised when asked to
analyze and interpret that language.
“I became lost in the discussion of page ranking
technology,” said one tester.
“The explanation repeats twice that they receive payment
from less than 1% of the Web sites,” noted another tester.
“But this has nothing to do with the case. The crucial
number is the frequency with which paid Web sites are
included in results compared with unpaid sites.”
Continued in Part 3