martinibuster
msg:3140042 | 5:34 pm on Oct 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>>Kimberly-Clark, Colgate-Palmolive and Ford Motor... How suitable are their brands for PPC?
|
donpps
msg:3140083 | 6:20 pm on Oct 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I wander if they would do the same thing for the Radio or TV ads? Huum me thinks not ... Don
|
BillyS
msg:3140212 | 8:46 pm on Oct 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Who's twisting anyone's arm to advertise online? Besides, how many marketers would actually understand any kind of logical explanation? And I completely agree with the TV comment too. Do we need auditors peeking in homes during the Super Bowl to make sure they're watching ads and not taking a P? Hey, audit away. Getting rid of invalid clicks is only going to drive the price of a valid click through the roof.
|
jessejump
msg:3140325 | 10:45 pm on Oct 30, 2006 (gmt 0) |
They just want to get what they're paying for? What's wrong with that? Darn New York Times for "printing" this article in their news"paper"!.
Yeah, what're they up to?
|
cwnet
msg:3140459 | 12:52 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Read the article? *they will demand that online publishers hire auditors to check their ad and viewer counts.* How is that PPC? Sounds more like impression and/or user counting to me. *Other companies...* thats where the article starts going into the topic the headline suggest. A good example of really bad journalism...taking big names and connect them with a message those names didn't mention. Just because it is hip to write about *click-fraud* and doing so may produce more impressions than the true story does not turn an editorial piece of BS into a newsworthy story that needs to be reproduced on a board that really does not need to do impression-whoring.
|
cwnet
msg:3140478 | 1:07 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Chuckle.... From the article: *The bureau joined these marketers in a public letter stating that Web publishers need to have their ad tracking systems monitored and certified by the Media Rating Council, a nonprofit group based in New York. The council has certified media tracking since the 1960s and is the main arbiter of Web site tracking. * Looked up the website and yes it looks right from the 60s but the hit counter seems to be stuck at 2103... Sorry, but while the topic is a VERY interesting one, articles like this are so far of the mark that the whole threat should be removed...its just a bad start for a meaningful discussion.
|
gregbo
msg:3140487 | 1:12 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0) |
As always, the more the "press" covers the issue of click fraud, the more G, Y!, etc. will be asked to provide reasonable explanations of what they consider to be fraudulent, and how good they are at screening it out. WRT the "one person is counted as two when using both a work and home computer," this type of measurement "error" is inevitable when the criteria used are cookies, useragents, etc., rather than statistical sampling of a user base.
|
ronburk
msg:3140660 | 5:29 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0) |
| Do we need auditors peeking in homes during the Super Bowl to make sure they're watching ads and not taking a P? |
|
Ahem. You do realize that Tivo knows how many times you rewound to review the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the half-time show, right?
|
percentages
msg:3140708 | 6:53 am on Oct 31, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>by the middle of 2007, they will demand that online publishers hire auditors to check their ad and viewer counts. Only says to me that these companies are totally incompetent! For anyone working with any large PPC or affiliate programs, based upon clicks or impressions, this has been in place for several years already! The audit trail can be done electronically and relatively easily. I guess the old world is a long way behind the new world.....money to be made there as they won't catch up quickly!
|
|
