Google Ignoring Its Own Policy on Desktop AdSense?

It has been discovered that Google is now showing AdSense ads inside Google Earth. While it is not that surprising to see Google putting ads on another one of its properties, it has raised a few eyebrows, given that Google Earth is a desktop application.

Google actually states in its policy that it doesn't allow developers to use AdSense ads in their desktop apps, but it appears that Google is bending the rules for its own product. The company is certainly free to do so, given that it owns the product, but some are beginning to wonder if this could lead to Google changing that policy.

Currently that section of Google's policy reads:

"Currently, we don't permit Google ads or AdSense for search boxes to be distributed through software applications including, but not limited to toolbars, browser extensions, and desktop applications. In order to comply with AdSense program policies, please note that Google AdSense code may only be implemented on web-based pages."

Blogger Amit Agarwal at Digital Inspiration appears to be the first to point out the ads in Google Earth, and he provides a couple of screenshots here. In one, you can see AdSense ads when you search for a location or business, and the ads can be found in the search results. In the other screenshot, you can see the ad in the window that pops up when you click a placemark (the red pins on the maps).

The interesting part of this find is not so much that Google is placing ads in Google Earth, but what it could mean if the company were to in fact change its policy.

"If that policy changes, we could see more and more of Office 2010 Starter or FeedDemon like applications that are completely free to the end-user but supported by web advertising," says Agarwal.

Joseph Tartakoff at PaidContent adds that "arch rival" Microsoft has already promised to introduce the ad-supported version of Office to come pre-loaded on PCs.

It is possible that there is being too much read into Google's decision to include AdSense ads in Google Earth. It does make for an interesting conversation though. What do you think?


Have You Read This?

> Google Familiarizes AdWords Users with New Interface

> Blogger Gets AdSense For Feeds Integration

> Google Friend Connect Gets an AdSense Feature

 

The Latest Rumors About Razorfish

Microsoft’s interactive agency Razorfish is the subject of some varying rumors as of late. The one common thread in all of these reports is that Microsoft is shopping the company. That much we know for sure. Where they end up is the subject of much speculation.

In the Internet marketing press it depends on who you listen to and / or trust that will help you make your very own prediction. Publicis ending up with Razorfish has been favored by the folks at paidContent and they were willing to pay handsomely for the company although not quite the $800 million that it was supposed to merit. That may not be the case any longer. WPP is in the game as well but that is another that falls under the category of “to be determined”

Although three sources told paidContent that WPP had a cordial meeting with Microsoft execs about what it would it take to move Razorfish out of the Redmond software company’s orbit, a deal appears to be in doubt.

Several executives speculated it was a matter of demonstrating who wants Razorfish more, and so far, Publicis has gone to greater lengths to show its desire. For one thing, Publicis executives have indicated that they would be willing to pay upwards of $700 million to acquire Razorfish, while WPP has balked at paying more than $600 million.

Other sources including Business Insider have stated that Publicis’ interest is on the retreat (that was on August 4th). On the 6th both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal reported that the deal was likely to happen. Since none of the companies seem to be actually saying anything rather than this being a case of “he said, she said” between companies it’s one of “we said, they said” amongst various industry insiders.

If it were to happen, the deal is said to be slated for September but who the heck knows. Right now, it seems like there is much ado about nothing since Microsoft is supposedly talking to others as well. Comparatively this must seem like a vacation for Microsoft staffers following the Yahoo “Boatloads of Fun” event. Whether this is all a negotiation ploy or not matters most to Razorfish employees who are probably wondering what the future holds for them. Let’s face it, they’re the ones that will feel any impact the quickest and just how much impact will be felt depends greatly on who eventually walks away with the company.

Comments

 

Will MicroPayments Work For The Financial Times?

Micropayments have worked for companies like iTunes and even Amazon.com for songs and television episodes. But could they be the solution to the newspaper industry’s pending demise?

The Financial Times is ready to find out. They currently use a hybrid paid-free model, where users can access up to 20 stories a month for free, but they’re looking to a pay-per-story or possibly subject or time period model.

The New York Times has long used a micropayments system—for much of their archive, full stories are available as PDF scans at about $4 for one story, or a package of 10 for $16. However, two years ago the NYT outlined just why micropayments don’t work.

Consumers “expect to pay for music and movies, but not so much for the printed word,” said [Mercator Advisory Group analyst] George Peabody. . .

For sellers of the lowest-priced content — anything under 75 cents — micropayments have been made irrelevant by the easy availability of online advertising, Mr. Peabody said. Programs like AdSense from Google, which allows even the smallest Web publishers to have relevant ads placed on their sites, make micropayments unnecessary. The program pays Web publishers what are often very small amounts each time a reader clicks on an ad. . . .

However, two years of experience and a downturn in the economy have shown that advertising doesn’t always work. paidContent says Financial Times execs firmly believe that micropayments can work for editorial content:

“There are a lot of questions around pricing. We would look to test it around different price points.” [MD Rob] Grimshaw admits “there are differences between music and editorial content” but he’s convinced that people will pay, so long as they don’t have to fill out “three pages of forms” every time they want to know what what’s happening in petrochemicals.

. . . FT CEO John Ridding—currently on a PR offensive to boost the case for charging for news—adds his weight to idea in an interview with the Indie: “Our view is that there’s significant potential for pricing per piece and per time period. The whole point about the internet is flexible consumption and reader choice.”

Like the WSJ, a competitor, FT specializes in niche news, so it’s possible that more people would be willing to pay for their specialized reporting.

What do you think? Would you pay per story on FT—or any other news sites?

Comments

 

Wall Street Journal’s Interesting Take On Embargoes

It’s been eight months since TechCrunch announced that they would no longer honor embargoes, with several other sites jumping on that bandwagon in the interim. One of the issues here was undermining the credibility of the blogosphere at large. As Trisha Lyn Fawver put it,

A lot of the complaints that real journalists have about blogs is that they don’t adhere to the same ethics and standards as real journalistic endeavors do, or real reporters.

This is just another one of those things that proves them right :/ It makes bloggers in general look bad in my opinion.

No worries, folks! Now, the mainstream media is joining in—the Wall Street Journal has a new anti-embargo policy for its editorial staff. Rather, like TechCrunch, they’ll accept exclusives, and honor embargoes when the story is big enough.

I have to assume that means the WSJ will agree to embargoes only when they’re the only one getting the story or that the story is too good to pass up for some silly little policy. And even then, it almost sounds like they would prefer you to query with the story’s hook and the embargo terms for them to choose.

Unlike TechCrunch, the WSJ is NOT saying that they will agree to an embargo and go back on their word as a policy. Instead, paidContent reports, WSJ reporters are encouraged to . . . you know, do actual research. While expensive in an industry that’s struggling to adapt, in some respects, this could actually be good for the WSJ and MSM at large. PC explains:

In general, WSJ reporters will no longer be part of a herd of journalist briefings, which results in a spate of stories from various outlets all at the same time. If PR professionals approach them on a story, then they can refuse and go around and hunt down the story if they want to.

paidContent also looked at the policy in action: recently with the Yahoo homepage relaunch story, both Jessica Vascellaro and Kara Swisher went around the embargo by talking directly to sources—though, as PC points out, they did so with varying degrees of success/credibility/violating the embargo. As I said in December, “the practice of sending a full release with the headline ‘embargoed until such-and-such EST on such-and-such’ is taking your life in your hands.”

What do you think? Does talking to independent sources after learning about a story through an embargoed release and going live early violate an embargo? Will the WSJ’s new policy affect other MSM outlets? Is this the death of the embargo?

Comments