[RobG]

I thought that this was the worst example of clickbait advertising; an ad claiming to have an unreleased camera for sale, discounted! Thanks Google!

[NZ_Ross]

I thought that this was the worst example of clickbait advertising; an ad claiming to have an unreleased camera for sale, discounted! Thanks Google!

You have to admire their entrepreneurial talent through

[Not a Number]

Maybe it is just a typo and should be Mark II.

[beholder3]

Maybe it is just a typo and should be Mark II.

Since the K3 III is already close to being released now it is old news in the ad world.

The actual typo was that it did not correctly say "K1 III".

[BigMackCam]

The question is, should I buy it now or wait for a bigger discount? Such a dilemma...

[Paul the Sunman]

Would the inventors of the internet have gone ahead with it if they could've seen where it has brought us to?

[nitehntr]

Would the inventors of the internet have gone ahead with it if they could've seen where it has brought us to?

i look at it this way, i am on the Pentax forums because of the internet. and i have been able to locate and be in contact with old friends from the military and even got to attend a reunion of people who all went to boot camp in the same place. the good by far outweighs the bad.

---------- Post added 01-18-21 at 05:09 AM ----------

I thought that this was the worst example of clickbait advertising; an ad claiming to have an unreleased camera for sale, discounted! Thanks Google!

look at the ads for silver eagles and silver dollars on facebook less than the spot silver price. and facebook keeps taking their money even though they are so obviously fake it hurts to look at them. and since i see them constantly I'm sure tons of people are falling for them and buying fake coins. and in some cases these click bait ads are after your credit or debit card information. you will never receive anything, whether its cameras or coins or whatever. if it sounds to good to be true is more than likely is.

[RobG]

look at the ads for silver eagles and silver dollars on facebook less than the spot silver price. and facebook keeps taking their money even though they are so obviously fake it hurts to look at them. and since i see them constantly I'm sure tons of people are falling for them and buying fake coins. and in some cases these click bait ads are after your credit or debit card information. you will never receive anything, whether its cameras or coins or whatever. if it sounds to good to be true is more than likely is.

What I find the most offensive is that Google is providing the means for an unscrupulous advertiser to insert a targeted ad which is patently a lie.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 10:46 PM ----------

You have to admire their entrepreneurial talent through

Not really. It breaks all faith in targeted advertising. It's criminal not entrepreneurial.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 10:48 PM ----------

Maybe it is just a typo and should be Mark II.

No, it was programmed to respond to my search.

[roberrl]

I would like to know how Google could have prevented this ad without knowledge of the Pentax product line which even most camera shops would not have.
Surely the fault lies with the advertiser.
I don't pretend Google is perfect but some of what happens is a consequence of consumers having free (relatively) access
to an amazing information source with search facilities which could only have been dreamed about a few years ago.

This all has to be paid for somehow and Google ads is one way.

[gatorguy]

What I find the most offensive is that Google is providing the means for an unscrupulous advertiser to insert a targeted ad which is patently a lie.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 10:46 PM ----------



Not really. It breaks all faith in targeted advertising. It's criminal not entrepreneurial.

---------- Post added 18-01-21 at 10:48 PM ----------



No, it was programmed to respond to my search.

It's keyword targeting in all likelihood IMHO. It easily could have been Amazon, or Yahoo, or Facebook or any of thousands of other online ad networks instead placing the ad on behalf of a retailer or online provider. I doubt any of the networks have a person sitting there verifying that some company's ad, in this case BestDealsDotToday, actually has that product for sale. Let commonsense rule.

[BigMackCam]

I would like to know how Google could have prevented this ad without knowledge of the Pentax product line which even most camera shops would not have.
Surely the fault lies with the advertiser.
I don't pretend Google is perfect but some of what happens is a consequence of consumers having free (relatively) access
to an amazing information source with search facilities which could only have been dreamed about a few years ago.

This all has to be paid for somehow and Google ads is one way.

It's all about filtering out bad advertisers. Google certainly filters out illegal advertising, so it has the capability to filter and blacklist. The issue is, where does - and where should - it draw the line... Should it simply be illegal ads that are blocked, or those that are morally questionable too?

[RobG]

It's all about filtering out bad advertisers. Google certainly filters out illegal advertising, so it has the capability to filter and blacklist. The issue is, where does - and where should - it draw the line... Should it simply be illegal ads that are blocked, or those that are morally questionable too?

The thing is that the ad was in YouTube, so it's notvlike the ad was a Google ad embedded in a third party site. The ad claims to be offering an unreleased product at a discount price, which is impossible. I don't know about US law, but under Australian law, that's false and misleading advertising. So in my opinion, this advertiser should be blacklisted, since their code is making offers which are impossible to fulfil.

[bobmaxja]

You can send a message to Google to inform them of false advertising, many time you can right click on the add and get the choice to inform Google about it

[gatorguy]

The thing is that the ad was in YouTube, so it's notvlike the ad was a Google ad embedded in a third party site. The ad claims to be offering an unreleased product at a discount price, which is impossible. I don't know about US law, but under Australian law, that's false and misleading advertising. So in my opinion, this advertiser should be blacklisted, since their code is making offers which are impossible to fulfil.

The advertiser is this case being BestDealsToday. I agree it's false advertising. Not unlike a misleading commercial on your TV screen. The station or network would not be vetting claims, ie "cleanest dishes" "whitest sheets" or "save 50% now" AFAIK? But IMO BestDealsToday absolutely should be responsible for whatever they say.

As someone previously mentioned, report that advertiser to both the network that made it available, for that particular ad it's Google, and to the appropriate Australian regulatory agency responsible for advertising claims.

[JPT]

Back last (N. hemisphere) autumn we had people wondering why Ricoh was being so tight-lipped about the name of the camera. This is an excellent illustration of why Ricoh is not eager to release the name and details of their cameras long in advance of the release date. It's a lot more difficult for shady retailers to set up convincing sites to trick people if they don't know the name and specs of the camera.