There?s a really interesting discussion about an attorney in Kentucky, Ben Cowgill, who purchased a Google AdWord to promote his new law practice. No big deal, you might say, except that the term he purchased was ?Peter Ostermiller? his local competition.
Now, there has been a huge outcry about the ethics of this move. Mr. Cowgill, ironically, represents attorneys who are facing ethics charges. Kevin O?Keefe at Lexblog,com compared his actions to “standing in front of another lawyer’s office with a sandwich board saying, `Would you consider coming down to my office instead?'”
This really isn’t the same as standing in front of a competitor’s practice with a sandwich board directing clients to your firm at all. A much more accurate analogy would be taking out an ad in the same section of the yellow pages as your competitor. That’s hardly illegal, or unethical. I think the problem here is the confusion about what Google is and what it is not. Certainly both men have websites which are indexed and searchable via Google. Similarly, AdWords purchased from Google are not exclusive. So, how is this different from competitors buying billboards on the same stretch of highway, or paying retail chains for adjacent shelf space? I personally don?t think it is any different.
The link displayed for Mr. Cowgill when users searched for Mr. Ostermiller wasn’t misleading, it was clearly marked as advertising, and obviously it might be of value to someone searching for that type of legal service. The only real argument I’ve heard that I buy in this case is from Carolyn Elefant, who notes that Mr. Ostermiller should have the first right to use his own name (in essence a trademark) as his own search term. But his failure to do so does not make Mr. Cowgill’s behavior unethical, and in fact, there was nothing to prevent him from doing so.
I do agree that Mr. Cowgill stepped into a hornet’s nest on this one, and it would have been wise to avoid the issue altogether. However, there seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what Mr. Cowgill really did, which is to simply purchase an ad that would be displayed in the same place as a competitor?s ad. I?ve read several blawgs about how it?s this kind of action that gives lawyers a bad name, but in reality, I think what gives lawyers a bad name is over-reaction and hyperbole.
Amen! I hadn’t gotten past your first paragraph and was already thinking about the yellow pages analogy. I was actually quite disappointed that I didn’t get to seem witty and post it in a comment since you already took care of it.
So far as the Ad-Words go, giving Mr. Ostermiller first right to use his own name (trademark) doesn’t work for me – since he CAN still purchase an Ad-Word for his own name. Both his AND Mr. Cowgill’s would appear with each other on the side of the page – if I am not mistaken. The ranking of one over the other in placement would be determined by popularity of clickthroughs.
So far as Mr. Cowgill stepping into a hornet’s nest… Well, nothing like getting high-profile stings in front of a very large community containing potential customers. Hey, different industry, but anybody remember 2 Live Crew? Word up. ‘Nuff said.
Back on track – We all make jokes about stereotypical lawyers but when it comes right down to it, for me at least, I *want* the cagey, win-at-all-costs lawyer on MY SIDE. When I look at Mr. Ostermiller and Mr. Cowgill, I am swayed much more – capabilities equal – to visit the lawyer who knows how to market himself and outfoxes his competition.
What am I going to hear when I pick up the phone to make my lawyer appointment?
“Hello, Mr. Cowgill’s office…” 😉
I think the yellow page analogy is misguided. Most people go the yellow pages looking for ‘an attorney’ – not a particular lawyer by name. That’s why established lawyers could care less whether they have a yellow page ad.
A proper analogy using the yellow pages would be when someone goes in the yellow pages looking for Mr. O and right next to the listing carved out in the alphabetical list is a larger sponsored listing that says I do the same work as Mr. O you may wish to call me. I find that distasteful.
Now if in the yellow pages there is a section for lawyer listings for ads by for lawyers doing what O & C do and one buys an block ad and one does not – great. But that’s not what C did.
I appreciate the consumer side of the argument that people need to be aware of alternative sources of legal services. That may be reason to support what Cowgill did.
But if you were talking to people in the marketing business, most would never buy their customer’s competitor’s names as keywords. It’s disturbing to me that lawyers can say it is not misleading per legal ethics and may not be illegal so it’s fine. To me it looks like lawyers’ ethic standards are lower than those in the marketing business.
I understand reasonable folks may differ on this and that Mr. C may be a fine lawyer. I just would not buy my competitor’s name as a keyword and would not do so for my customer law firms because I think it’s unfair and distasteful. I think most of my law firm customers would agree.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the issue on your blog.
A website is more analogous to a yellow pages ad than an alphabetical listing. A listing contains only a name, not supplemental information found on a website. Of course, not all websites are advertisements; however, I think in this case it’s fair to say that both attorneys were using their websites as a form of display advertising.
Personally, I agree that what Mr. Cowgill did is somewhat distasteful. But I think most advertising for attorneys is distasteful. I haven?t heard many vocal critics decrying how gauche the move was. Most are crying foul play, which I just don?t think is accurate.
It is encouraging that people like yourself are practicing (and advising firms on) more tasteful marketing practices.