Google Base is retiring the accounts of individual sellers who list on marketplaces in order to eliminate duplicate feeds. Instead, it has introduced multi-client accounts for aggregators and marketplaces to manage feeds for multiple sellers under a single account.

Marketplaces like eBay already send product feeds to Google Base on behalf of their merchants, but Google said the multi-client accounts would allow aggregators and marketplaces to consolidate and manage data feeds and reporting for sub-accounts. Google will require marketplaces and aggregators to use multi-client accounts to submit and manage their sellers' feeds beginning December 1, 2009. Google said it would notify individual sellers and retire their accounts.

eBay sellers had complained over the summer that the feed eBay sends to Google Base was broken and attempted to send their own feeds themselves, putting their automatic eBay Store feeds on pause. Some other ecommerce marketplaces have also complained about the feeds breaking.
more.. link to news article

Another good reason to set up your own Google Base feed now and get ready to cancel the marketplace feeds in my opinion.

wp - that doesn't sound like it would work, unless I am misunderstanding exactly what you mean.

If you mean an individual feed from a seller's independent website, then that might work, depending on how Google defines a "marketplace". Would an independent domain hosted and built using BISI or yahoo stores or PSU stores or... be allowed to manage its own feed, or would Google consider these marketplaces? What about stores built as subdomains, but managed as independent entities?

I'm fairly certain any seller using a venue will not have the option to feed individually anymore, which it sounds as if you are recommending. I'm sure Google will check the domain for the items to discover if it is a "venue" or not.

I hope the sellers on the individual venues will have the option to opt out of the feeds, and that the venues will have the option to leave out items that violate Google's "standards" to avoid "nixing" the entire site. Gotta wonder if we're going to be seeing a lot more of the problems from last summer with entire sites disappearing from Product Search because some sellers do dropship.

I am sad to see Google micromanaging rather than offering tools that can be used to solve the problems in whatever way may be best for the individuals involved, at their discretion.

I was recently thinking that an idea for the multivenue sellers that might "clean up" products and help sellers manage duplicates better, would be to allow a seller's marketplace account to include listings from multiple venues. Sort of the reverse of what's happening here. Oh, well.

Ecrater already auto feed everything to google product.so the buyers don't have to do it.

Bonanzle, Atomic mall etc has all setup so that they can easily auto feed.

I think banned sites like OLA will get a new chance to conform to google product rules.

purple_reading_giraffe wrote (View Post): › If you mean an individual feed from a seller's independent website, then that might work, depending on how Google defines a "marketplace".

I do mean an individual feed from an independent website, or an independent feed for the marketplace in the case of no independent website.

Quote: › Would an independent domain hosted and built using BISI or yahoo stores or PSU stores or... be allowed to manage its own feed, or would Google consider these marketplaces?

Yes I see no reason why not, as long as they turned off the PSU, yahoo or PSU store feed. My Bonanzle feed for example is like that. I create it, update it and feed it to Google totally independently of Bonanzle but all the urls point to the Bonanzle items. I'll be turning it off in the near future to make it easier to avoid duplicates with my websites, but if I wanted to continue with a Bonanzle feed I'd still do it that way instead of using Bonanzle's version. I firmly believe that this is the best way of avoiding Google Feed headaches and market-place hiccups - such as this announcement. For me it's a deal-killer when a site can't turn OFF their google feed for my account on their site.

Google wants to eliminate possible duplicates within the site according to this. But I don't for a minute believe it's going to stop there. We'll be seeing people's feeds shut down if there are duplicate feeds between marketplaces - the same items from the same individual on different sites. So those of us who do, will have to choose sites. It only makes sense to me that if you eventually have one site in google base for your products, it should be your site and not someone elses' And if for some reason you preferred a marketplace feed, it makes sense to make your own, have it under your control rather than worry about this sort of thing all the time.

Quote: › I'm fairly certain any seller using a venue will not have the option to feed individually anymore, which it sounds as if you are recommending. I'm sure Google will check the domain for the items to discover if it is a "venue" or not.

I pretty much disagree with that. It's not where the item is hosted that Google is concerned about, it's more about the site submitting both a site feed and individual feeds, or individuals having two feeds of the same listing. I think Google encourages the individual feeds as much as possible and the multiple-account feed strategy is more a workaround for the "marketplace" sites.

would be to allow a seller's marketplace account to include listings from multiple venues

You know, I think this is a good idea. As it is, multiple domains in the urls will nix the feed. I think it may actually be possible using this same multi-client account, but I need to research that.

I think I will wait to learn more about this from those that will know more [than I do]. My interpretation of the announcement may be [utterly] wrong.

Basically, what I heard was that Google would no longer allow sellers to have their own accounts for items listed on venues (which [has] seemed to [have] solve[d] a lot of problems by making the sellers more individually responsible for their items - [I thought it has been a good system before this announced change]).

What I hear you [wphamilton] saying is that using the spreadsheet upload, one can still have ones own feed of venue-listed items; one just must manage the feed independently of the website. I guess what is being eliminated is the xml Google-fetches-it-from-the-website individual feeds in favor of Google-fetches-an-aggregated-website xml feed.

The word "introduces" in the article headline also confused me as it sounds like same-old-same-old that existed before venues started using the individual seller feeds, but maybe there is something new in all this. I am officially, totally confused now.

[edited a bit for clarity (I hope)]

Could be, PRG. It does say that people with individual accounts who have feeds from the aggregators will be notified and their accounts eliminated. I'm going to make sure that no aggregators or marketplaces are submitting feeds on my behalf, so that this doesn't happen. Unless they're submitting a feed for you, Google doesn't know whether you have an account with them or not, nor likely care imho. They might also disallow a feed pointing to that domain, your interpretation. We'll see.

I'm going by the google blog http://googlebase.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-policies-for-marketplaces.html and not the auctionbytes post which I think is a little garbled.

Thanks for the link! That blog is much clearer, IMO. I should know to do more research before opening my mouth, but, well, sometimes...

I found the info at the further link
http://base.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=159581&&hl=en
answered some of my questions... I think...

1. Marketplace vendors have URLs like vendor.site.com or site.com/vendor
2. Aggregators collect info from several vendors with stand-alone domains such as vendor.com
3. Both are subject to the same rules
4. Data from marketplaces must be submitted by the marketplaces and will not be accepted directly from the vendors
5. Marketplaces must all use multi-vendor accounts now, with each vendor in a separate sub-account
6. Sub-accounts in violation of Google Base policies will be deactivated. Too many sub-account deactivations well cause the parent (marketplace) account to be deactivated.

Unfortunately, that page does not detail if the Marketplace can choose to activate/deactivate sub-accounts, though I suspect that function should be available.

The list of not-alloweds on that page does not mention drop-shipping, though the page does say "for example".

The two main reasons I see for the change are to make who is selling an item, really, clearer in Google Products results, and (the big one I'm guessing) to make the marketplaces responsible for answering all help me with Google Base questions from their vendors.

My favorite rule on that page is that "Free Shipping" is not allowed to appear in the title or description of any listing. I find this amusing as I imagine how this may impact the visibility of eBay listings.

The net result of this change, as it affects many sellers who frequent this forum (and who discuss their Google Base issues where I can read them) and who currently list on sites which feed "per seller", may be very little. On reading these pages, it sounds as if Google is basically "forcing" the adoption of the AtomicMall and Bonanzle and eCrater (to name a few) adopted models of individual seller feeds onto all Marketplaces. Only if sellers/marketplaces cannot control NOT feeding to GoogleBase should there be a negative impact, IMO.

There may be some negative impacts on the sites, however, in getting this implemented. And there may be a negative impact on sellers using marketplaces which are still doing site-wide non-seller-specific feeds should those marketplaces not "get on board". Google seem to have given a good deal of lead time, though.

Also, the few sellers who choose to manage and upload their own inventory data for a marketplace site may feel a negative impact. That is if the rule about Google not accepting their feeds is a "hard and fast" one. Those who manage their own feeds for their own domain name, though, should have no problem as far as I can tell.

It should be interesting to discover if Google *might* be willing to allow a multi-venue seller to control their own destiny and listings among multiple venues if enough sellers request this.

Wow --

This is looking pretty bad. Here is the info from Google, and note all the requirements -- sites will not be allowed to use money orders or take checks anymore!

I'm assuming that marketplaces are those like eCrater and Bonanzle, and Aggregators are places like Prestostores. I don't like this, because I do my own prestostore feed, and I include a lot more attributes than they do. Which brings me up much higher in the searches. I asked them quite some time ago to stop doing a google feed on me. This new policy is REALLY bad, IMO.


Marketplace and Aggregator Policies


What is a "marketplace"?

Marketplaces are commerce sites that host items and/or websites of multiple individual sellers on the same domain, e.g., seller.foo.com, or foo.com/seller. Individual sellers are primarily responsible for setting prices, fulfilling orders, and servicing customers.

Marketplace Policies

* Data from marketplaces must come directly from the marketplace. We no longer accept marketplace listings that are submitted by marketplace sellers.
* Marketplaces are responsible for answering Google Product Search-related questions from individual sellers.
* Marketplaces must use a multi-client account. Each individual seller should be in a separate sub-account.
o The main account must use a monitored email address, in order to ensure that you receive emails from Google, such as account updates and data correction requests.
* All items must comply with our Program Policies and Terms of Service. Sub-accounts that are not compliant will be deactivated, and excessive deactivations will lead to deactivation of the parent account. Examples:
o Promotional text such as "free shipping" or "lowest price guaranteed" are not allowed in titles and descriptions.
o Items such as vehicles, event tickets, and service listings are not allowed in the "Products" item type.
o Listings for counterfeit goods, fraudulent listings, and illegal items are prohibited.
o Duplicate offers within the same account, or between separate accounts that you control, are not allowed.
* Items requiring a method of payment that lacks buyer protection, such as money order or wire transfer, are not allowed.
* All item data must be kept current. Changes in item information should be submitted to Google Base within 24 hours.

What is an "aggregator"?

Aggregators are third parties that submit items to Google on behalf of individual merchants. Each merchant is a separate entity and has a unique domain for its website, e.g., foo.com.

Aggregator Policies

* Your account must use a monitored email address, in order to ensure that you receive emails from Google.
* All items must comply with our Program Policies and Terms of Service. Sub-accounts that are not compliant will be deactivated, and excessive deactivations will lead to deactivation of the parent account. Examples:
o Promotional text such as "free shipping" or "lowest price guaranteed" are not allowed in titles and descriptions.
o Items such as vehicles, event tickets, and service listings are not allowed in the "Products" item type.
o Listings for counterfeit goods, fraudulent listings, and illegal items are prohibited.
o Stores which prominently feature affiliate links or are composed primarily of advertisements are not allowed.
o Duplicate offers within the same account, or between separate accounts that you control, are not allowed.
* All item data must be kept current. Changes in item information should be submitted to Google Base within 24 hours.[b]

I just noticed that the "aggregators" list does not include the sentence about money orders. I'm wondering if that means I can still accept them on my website (through Prestostores).

Lots of questions on this whole deal!

Hmmm... The aggregators has a "predominantly advertisements" statement instead of the "checks" statement.

I read that Google rule (because of the word "requiring" as if it said:
"Items requiring only a method of payment that lacks buyer protection, such as money order or wire transfer, are not allowed."
So, I didn't feel as strongly about it as you do, as I "read into" it the implication
"You must offer a method of payment that has buyer protection [as well]."
I could be totally wrong about that.

I definitely see the Aggregator as being optional for the merchant, not a requirement by Google. It's possible some aggregators may require your feed go through them, but I can't imagine why they would. So it is unlikely that you would have to stop submitting your own PrestoStore feed.

Let us know if my optimistic view is wrong.

Ah, PRG, I think you might be right. So long as a "protected" method is available, hopefully we will be able to take checks.

And I hope you're right about the aggregators, too!

wp,

From what I've read, you can turn off the feed in your BZ store, and your individual submissions will be ignored, since you do not have a stand alone website.

Only those websites that had an actual domain name (www.storenamehere.com) would be allowed to set up their own individual date feeds.

Whether one could do so by purchasing a domain name and having it pointed at a marketplace site, is something to be investigated.

I wonder if my website is considered a stand-alone website, though. I do have my own domain name, but nonetheless I am hosted by prestostores.

Sharon,

That is exactly what I was talking about. I don't know the answer, but hopefully there's someone who does.