Yesterday was a Google ad word "discovery day". Not that too much about Google ad words is new to my company (we used to do quite a bit with Google ad words early in our company history), but rather competitors are bidding on Google ad words to target us. Through a random search for "StillSecure" on Google, I saw several competitors using "stillsecure" to pick up prospects googling us.
Now, buying something like Google ad words that target your competitors is nothing new - the practice goes way back to the days of acquiring alternative spellings of 1-800 phone numbers so a mis-dialing prospect would end up calling their competitor instead. Phishing attacks, porn sites and probably others do this all the time by using misspelled and expired domain names.
Acts Of Desperation
But this situation went a step further. Forescout, a competitor we sometimes see in market, bought the "alan shimel" Google ad word and display an advertisement with a link to their site. (See Alan's tongue-in-cheek post about it.)
Ingenious, new age, competitive marketing? Sneaky, slimy, stupid business practices? Or just revenge for some of Alan's posts about Forescout and similar NAC products? You'll have to decide for yourself, but it smacks of acts of desperation in my book. Rich Mogull seems to see it similarly. My guess is customers, prospects and the industry at large will think so too.
Dumb Ideas Can Backfire
Buying Alan's name to point to a competitor's site is something I see has a 1,000 ways to fail and backfire, and very few (if any) ways to benefit them. I view it as a personal attack from a company directed at an individual. And I think others will as well. Jokingly, I told Alan last night that his name is now "a killing word" like Paul Atreidies of Dune... so important that competitors see it as a way to steal business from the competition. We both had nice long chuckle about it.
Buying Google ad words of your competitors is fine. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Totally above board and an accepted business practice companies use all the time. It's also validation that StillSecure is making a major contributing in the NAC marketplace, and competitors see us as the company to beat. Otherwise, they wouldn't be spending the money on the ad words.
But buying Google ad words to target an individual within the company in my opinion is not only bad form, it's malicious, revengeful, and shows poor judgment. It also smacks of desperation in a way that others in the industry, including customers, will see through immediately.
At The End Of The Day
Bottom line for me is this whole 'alan shimel' Google ad word is frankly, just funny. I know a lot of folks have gotten a pretty good laugh out of it. For me, it's one of those DON'T lessons you file away for later, but I doubt that's a business practice I would have ever considered. Lets hope so anyway.
Compete hard, be smart, and play hard... but always remember, at the end of the day customers choose whether you win, lose or die. At a macro level, Alan Greenspan in his new book calls it compression; the process of the market recycling failed companies and creating new ones. At a micro level, I believe every customer looks at how you play the game, not just your products.
Comments