Brand hijacking doubles in difficult travel market: report

A report has found that 80 percent of the travel operators surveyed were victims of brand interception, or brand hijacking, where one online advertiser pays to intercept search enquiries for a competitor brand, often using their brand name in the text of the ad.

Published: 23 Sep 2009

A report has found that 80 percent of the travel operators surveyed were victims of brand interception, or brand hijacking, where one online advertiser pays to intercept search enquiries for a competitor brand, often using their brand name in the text of the ad.

According to Nucleus, which conducted its fourth investigation into online ‘brand interception’ in the travel industry, the total number of individual interception attempts more than doubled since the previous survey (from 202 attempts in 2008 to 467 attempts in 2009).

Other findings were as follows:

  • 22 percent of all interception attempts contained the victim’s brand name in the content of the advertisement (up from 17 percent in 2008)
  • 23 percent of the sample appeared to actively intercept other brands in the survey (up from 13 percent in 2008)
  • 39 percent of the sample bid on their own brand name (down from 45 percent in 2008)
  • The latest study was conducted 15 months after Google UK introduced a controversial new policy which lifted the restrictions on the use of trade marks in AdWords advertising keywords. The latest study featured 124 online tour operators, travel agencies and travel providers.

    An increase in the number of victims of brand interception

    The percentage of companies experiencing brand interception has increased from 67 percent in 2008 to 80 percent this year.

    Since Google’s policy change in May 2008, restrictions on trade marks as keyword triggers no longer apply. Accordingly, in the 2009 survey it has been found that 80 percent the companies surveyed now had at least one advertiser using their brand name as a keyword trigger.

    “The majority of brand name interceptors used other companies’ names solely as keyword triggers. This is now perfectly acceptable in the eyes of Google. In these cases it is clear to the user that the advertiser is merely competing for attention and has no affi liation with the searched-for company,” stated the company. “However, 22 percent of all interception attempts contain another company’s brand name in the actual content of the advertisement. Brands should be aware that they can still request Google to remove their trade mark from the content of an ad. This is providing that their brand is protected by a trade mark, registered in the appropriate class and territory.”

    Related Reads

    comments powered by Disqus