Fascinating. As the author touches on, this is technically a violation of Adwords guidelines. You are not allowed to use Adwords to send traffic to a particular page for the sole purpose of having those visitors click through to another domain, in this case, GoldFellow.<p>I wonder though, could GoldFellow argue that they really just want these visitors to read the article, as opposed to just wanting them to click through the link at the bottom?<p>I guess it's a moot point, because GoldFellow can argue all they want. If Google comes down on them, it won't matter. Certainly doesn't seem like it would be worth it if you ended up on Google's bad side.
"PRNewswire is cagey about their prices, but it looks like it might cost less than $1,000 to get a press release out."<p>For online-only it's quite a bit less. I think it starts around $250.
This is ending up on marketwatch.com only after a JS redirect from the ad landing page.<p><a href="http://www.goldfellow.com/currentmarketwatchlink/" rel="nofollow">http://www.goldfellow.com/currentmarketwatchlink/</a>
So is it a 'deceptive ad' or a 'clever adwords hack', or simply 'marketing'?<p>Adwords is pretty strict when it comes to techniques they will and will not allow.<p>The advertiser paid for the clicks and the press release. I assume the person clicking on the ad is able to read, as well.
It's against Adwords guidelines, so the case is pretty much closed. It's inappropriate.<p>That being said, it seems like a perfectly acceptable method of marketing to me -- what's wrong with directing people to positive press about your product in the first place? Loads of products do this, from movies and bestselling books to startups and universities. Is this just another round of demonizing companies that give people cash for gold?
This reminded me of this article from some time ago: <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html</a><p>Of course, what they are doing here is much less sophisticated.