Skip to main content

Facebook Bans Google+ Advertisement

Google+ is quickly gaining popularity and though Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has joined the site (and was recently quoted as saying Google+ 'proves Facebook is right about social's future'), it seems Facebook doesn't want its users seeing Google+ advertisements.

CNet reports that app developer Michael Lee Johnson recently had all of his Facebook ad campaigns suspended because he ran an advertisement featuring his Google+ profile. The ad in question read:

Add Michael Lee Johnson on Google+:

If you're lucky enough to have a Google+ account, add Michael Lee Johnson, Internet Geek, App Developer, Technological Virtuoso.

Alongside the text there was a picture of Johnson's G+ profile picture.

CNet points out that Facebook's Terms of Service does warn against promoting competing products. Perhaps Johnson should have heeded that warning. The message he received from Facebook informed him that all of his ads have been suspended (remember, he's an app developer, so he probably had ads for those, too) and will not be run again 'under any circumstances'.

Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions."

If you still want to add Michael lee Johnson on Google+, you can find him here. We imagine he'll be avoiding Facebook for a while.

  • dextermat
    This is unbelievable, but they don't ban malware n virus apps...
  • cwolf78
    Sounds like Facebook is worried.
  • eddieroolz
    No company wants advertisement for its competitor, but facebook should seriously consider removing malware pronto.
  • amk-aka-Phantom
    Bwahaha! =) Not surprising - imagine Chrome advertising Skype plugins? Same thing here - you don't allow your business to be compromised by competitors' ads.

    While I don't mind Google+ at all (end-user has to have choices!), I'm very upset with many of my friends who'd rant about how bad and stupid FB is, yet happily jumped on Google+ once it came out... as if it's different. Am I missing something?
  • tomrippity02
    amk-aka-phantom I'm very upset with many of my friends who'd rant about how bad and stupid FB is, yet happily jumped on Google+ once it came out... as if it's different. Am I missing something?
    It is different. The privacy issues are not the same and the way you interact with others is been revolutionized in my opinion. Not to mention, IMHO, Google as a company is much easier to get behind than facebook and zuckerberg.

    Mostly, the ability to seperate people into circles and decide what people see is awesome. Could easily be replicated by facebook I assume, but for now, Google is doing better than Facebook in the social arena, as far as software goes anyway.
  • Lyrick
    Yes it is different, instead of orkut (which was a facebook clone) it's a hub to all your other google services including Picasa, Talk, Latitude, Places, Documents, etc.

    Unlike the Facebook a person doesn't spend years adjusting their security settings to limit what is shared with who and vice versa. Instead one only shares what they want with who they want when they post it.

    Currently people don't annoy everyone in the world with what browser based game they're wasting your time with, or whatever app or advertisement they accidently? clicked on. They Post, chat or group chat with the individuals and only the individuals they want to, and leave all the other annoying stuff back on that other web site.
  • carlhenry
    now we know what's the sequel of "The Social Network". should it be called Social Network 2 or Social Network+?
  • bustapr
    "Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive."

    the act was not really abusive, he was paying facebook money to promote another website, exactly how every other ad works. This just proves that according to the EULA facebook can consider anything they want as abusive and ban anyone they want for no reason.
  • Khimera2000
    Don't agree with there methods. they should of taken the add down and issue a warning. If cutting off customers completely is there method of choice, then I can bring as many people as possible.

    Google does some things better then Facebook, like how they handle contacts. Its not going to be that hard to convince people in my group to move once they find this news.
  • hellwig
    Imagine if it was found-out that Google was blocking a competitors advertisements. Believe it or not, Facebook is also in the business of advertising company. Yes, they make money off of Facebook points, but how do you think they really keep afloat? They use as a directed advertising research tool. Google offers you search, email, android, docs, etc.. all as platforms for their advertising business, that's how they make money. Facebook does the same thing, from a different angle. They offer you social networking, casual gaming, etc.., all for advertising research. You don't think they run out of the goodness of their hearts do you? Hell, Zuckerberg conceived of the whole idea solely to get information on other people to sell it. Remember when he got in trouble when an old converstation of his was brought up and he talked about how stupid people were for using facebook and just giving him their information of their own free will? There is a difference between marketing (commericals, ads, etc..) and marketing research (surveys, Nielsen boxes, etc...). Google runs an ad network. Facebook runs a marketing research firm. Facebook gathers all the information (trends, likes, dislikes), and sells that to advertisers, who can then refine their product and refocus their advertising. So yeah, Facebook blocking a competitors ads reeks of anti-competitive behavior, but then again, so did hiring an advertising firm to lie about Google in their advertising, and people only seemed to care about that for a couple days as it was.