Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Wow, talk about beating the drum of lousy PR for AdSense publishers! The article really makes us sound like the dregs of the advertising world, and makes the SEs sound downright sleazy just for putting ads on our websites (quite apart from the issue of click fraud).
The quotes from Google reps continue their strategy of yelling "no problems!" while humming loudly and putting their fingers in their ears. But the article cites an example of a big AdWords buyer who repeatedly told Google that a particular AdSense publisher was delivering invalid clicks. Google denied and minimized, and then essentially said "uh, yeah, guess something's going on there we weren't detecting."
Geez, what a PR disaster this article is for AdSense. Google better get on top of the perception that AdSense is a giant rip-off for advertisers real quick, because the AdSense image is on a real downhill slide now.
The word "recycled" is used 5 times
Miscounted, make that 7 times for some form of the word "recycle" being applied to content network ads. This is not terminology Google wants to see become standard for talking about AdSense!
because the AdSense image is on a real downhill slide now.
The writing has been on the wall for the longest time now. The question is why didn't they see this, or do anything about it?
My suspicion is that the reason for this is the inverse relationship between these two facts: whatever is good for Google's integrity as a search engine, is bad for its profit as an advertising medium.
Anyway, one thing it mentioned that I found interesting was that Snap.com (who? hehe) is primarily CPA (cost per action...) Will CPC eventually fade away to these other models?
-kpaul
Still, the article is more interesting than most such stories, if only because it has so many interesting anecdotes and details--such as the public admission of a couple in Minnesota that they'd systematically committed click fraud until they "began to realize they were cheating unwitting advertisers." If I were a prospective advertiser, that story would be an eye-opener.
The article's underlying tone seems to suggest advertisers are losing all their money and accepts Fleischman's claims at face value. Eg, if he only wanted US traffic, why didn't he set the options in Adwords to only US visitors?
I think click fraud is an important issue, but any system where you pay per lead has it's problems and loss percentage. The real problem is knowing the extent to which it occurs.
This quote really irked me the most as it muddles and sensationalises various issues.
"Fleischmann is a victim of click fraud: a dizzying collection of scams and deceptions that inflate advertising bills for thousands of companies of all sizes. The spreading scourge poses the single biggest threat to the Internet's advertising gold mine and is the most nettlesome question facing Google and Yahoo, whose digital empires depend on all that gold."
the public admission of a couple in Minnesota
And the lady who just made $60/month or so and viewed her network of click fraud associates as a "family" that helps each other get through hard times. That one, I found downright creepy. I'm used to people just flat-out trying to steal because they have no integrity; the thought of an underclass of little old ladies and shut-ins who just quietly and politely steal to make ends meet is a new concept for me.
Regardless of its premise of digital doom, the article says some things that needed to be said. Maybe scammers and MFAs being outed in the mainstream will help provide the push we've been pleading for: get rid of the bad guys that cost Google, AdSense, and its publishers crediblity.
There is no "story" here...it's business as usual...except for some "reporters" starting to look outside of their belly-buttons for stories...
[edited by: BaseVinyl at 4:42 am (utc) on Sep. 23, 2006]
BW lost me at this quote from a guy who had supposedly set up a click fraud ring, that was presented straight-faced:
Gradually, he says, he and his wife began to realize they were cheating unwitting advertisers, so they stopped.
"Gradually." Right. I don't blame the fraudster for making such self-serving statements, but the reporter is supposed to have the minimal amount of common sense required to see how ridiculous this claim is.
I'm also highly skeptical of this guy's claims that he actually made $5,000 in 4 months (even though that's a whopping $15,000 a year, I'd still bet that number is exaggerated), and that he stopped willingly.
[nytimes.com...]
(Free registration required)
"dummy Web addresses like insurance1472.com, which display lists of ads and little if anything else. When somebody clicks on these recycled ads, marketers such as MostChoice get billed"
I'm not sure the journalist fully understands click fraud. Insurance1472.com may be a MFA site but someone has found it probably because they are looking for insurance, they have clicked on an ad because maybe they want to buy one of Fleischmann's products, no different than if his ad had been displayed in the Google results.
Now admittedly there is a problem if a team of people in Botswana are being paid to click on his ads... but he didn't even say that, he said he got some clicks from non-US countries. Like hello Mr MBA, the Internet is a global thing... maybe someone from Syria just happened to see one of his ads and thought he would look at the company.
This is not to negate the problem of click fraud but any advertising is a gamble. You put up some information about your firm and if you advertising is good enough people may buy your product to give you a return. In Mr. Fleischmann's world people reading magzines without replying to each advert would be guilty of "eyeball fraud"!
Funny you should say: 'In Mr. Fleischmann's world people reading magzines without replying to each advert would be guilty of "eyeball fraud"!'
Not long ago a TV exec was on record as saying that TV viewers have a contractual obligation to watch ads screened during the shows they watch.
[research.yale.edu ]
I believe all advertisers want their money to be spent on real potential customers. Clearly, there are different opinions on MFA's, however I wonder how a company like Porsche or Rolls Royce would feel if their ads where show through MFA medians? I know I would like to know that my ads are showing somewhere on par with my product and services.
Perception is reality...
My mission has always been to be a highly respected and great performing publisher. I want my advertisers to get their moneys worth and have done all that I can to accomplish this. I have wrote and published useful content resulting in increased traffic, organic advertisers, on-line sales, consulting and training services, however, my AdSense earnings have not echoed an upward trend. So, who do I blame for this anomaly? Google? Smart Pricing, MFA's? Could fraud across the AdSense network be causing the high paying customers opt out of the content network and advertisers to report poor performance across the network (smart pricing)? If 10% of your webspace competitors are crooked and gets away with click fraud and those advertisers are tracking this, likely this would effect your AdSense earnings as well via smart pricing.
Most of my marketing company managed advertisers also manage AdSense campaigns for their customers. Three have indicated to me that they never advertise on the AdSense content network. I quote one as saying "only the new advertisers use the content network, until they learn". He was referring to fraud and effective ROI.
My point in this rambling is the following:
1. The Businessweek editorial maybe honest and correct.
2. Fraud effects everyone
3. Websites of little or no value are not likely to be perceived positively by advertisers
4. Some advertisers do not trust the content network and have had bad experiences there.
5. Fraud and poor quality could sink the AdSense boat for publishers..
[edited by: Edge at 1:49 pm (utc) on Sep. 23, 2006]
Since the cover story is entitled "Click Fraud", we should set aside the MFA argument - despite the fact that the author confuses the two issues at times
Maybe, if the purpose of this thread is solely to practice journalistic criticism or to discuss click fraud. But the larger issue (which the article addresses, though imperfectly) is whether "content network" traffic delivers value for advertisers. As Edge points out, perception is reality, and if the presence of AdSense ads on parked domains, PPC-arbitrage sites, etc. creates a widespread perception that "content ads" are a waste of money, we're all screwed.
The article also makes me wonder if Magazines and Newspapers still make more from there hardcopy ads then they do from online ads. Maybe they are trying to deflect the wave of advertisers leaving hardcopy for the net.
With more people reading the news online, using classifieds online ,crosswords, sports, soon there will be many unread newspapers and magazines being recycled.
This attitude drifts down to the editorial staff and results in reporters writing about how crooked this new advertising medium is.
Of course, no one ever writes about the "special fulfillment" deals magazines come up with to meet their guaranteed minimum circulation. (They basically give the magazines away, is the short answer).
I don't really think all this breast-beating is necessary. Advertisers will advertise in the content network if it works for them. If it doesn't, they won't. It's pretty easy to measure, after all.
By the way, is it really necessary to have all this vituperation about journalists? Lots of us on this list have been shot at, thrown off buildings, thrown into jail and otherwise awarded the treatment working reporters become accustomed to. We take it quietly but we don't like it.
By the way, is it really necessary to have all this vituperation about journalists?
A lot of businesspeople (and non-journalists in general) are ignorant about journalism. For example, there was a complaint earlier in this thread that the BUSINESS WEEK story wasn't "balanced," as if that were a sin. (An AP news story may need to be "balanced," but an article doesn't have to be: It can begin with a thesis and use facts to support an argument.) Also, many people simply don't like journalists, especially journalists who question the status quo or refuse to let sleeping dogs lie.
I thought the BUSINESS WEEK article had some weaknesses, such as the nonsense about "recycled" ads and the assumption that low-quality traffic and parked domains are the same thing as click fraud. I also agree that traditional media have their own forms of waste circulation and fraud (such as the big newspaper-circulation scandal of a couple of year ago and recent auditing changes that allow newspapers to claim sponsored giveway copies as "paid circulation"). Still, the article does make some good points, and it draws attention to the darker realities of Internet advertising that many parties (both ad networks and publishers) would just as soon sweep under the rug.
Eg, if he only wanted US traffic, why didn't he set the options in Adwords to only US visitors?
Regardless of its premise of digital doom, the article says some things that needed to be said. Maybe scammers and MFAs being outed in the mainstream will help provide the push we've been pleading for: get rid of the bad guys that cost Google, AdSense, and its publishers crediblity.
Me, I would've rejected it outright. The simple fact is that it is unbalanced. The sources should be challenged on the facts that they claim to present.
From reading the article, the problem is that the writer doesn't seem to have a proper grasp of how Adsense/Adwords works.
My mission has always been to be a highly respected and great performing publisher. I want my advertisers to get their moneys worth and have done all that I can to accomplish this.
So, who do I blame for this anomaly? Google? Smart Pricing, MFA's?
As Edge points out, perception is reality, and if the presence of AdSense ads on parked domains, PPC-arbitrage sites, etc. creates a widespread perception that "content ads" are a waste of money, we're all screwed.
Maybe they are trying to deflect the wave of advertisers leaving hardcopy for the net.
An AP news story may need to be "balanced," but an article doesn't have to be: It can begin with a thesis and use facts to support an argument.
Yes, AdSense ads show better ROI than BW and NYT ads. It's no wonder they squeal and fib.
Then I read the article.
There's a human memory phenomena that trial lawyers are schooled to exploit: Primacy or "what you encounter first" and recency or "what you encounter last" - in a trial.
The cover is an interesting bit of psychology, starting with the colors (black background, big yellow "click fraud" and red "The Dark Side of Online Advertising") and nothing else to distract the reader from the message.
The wording, too, is fairly robust: "A BUSINESSWEEK INVESTIGATION". This is no article. This isn't just another cover story. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, IS AN INVESTIGATION.
They cover primacy pretty well.
Recency, the last word?
"But if we can't fix this click-fraud problem, then it is going to scare away further development of the Internet as an advertising medium. If there is an undercurrent of fraud, then why should a large advertiser be losing $1 million, or may not know ho much it is losing?"
I sense 1 part story and 1 part petition for a stay of execution . . of print media.
I'm surprised Google if doesn't monitor clicks more closely from certain suspect countries.
He owns about 20 paid-to-read sites, he says, as well as 200 parked sites stuffed with Google and Yahoo advertisements. But he says he will take down [the site named in the article] to avoid discovery.
I'd like to know how the author managed to track down so many sources to interview.
Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass
Even if it was researched by INTERPOL, somebody looked under a whole lotta rugs and rocks.
But Business Week is preaching to many who know less about Adsense, etc., than the journalist - and will take his word as gospel.
So whether the journalist has his facts right or not is irrelevant. The fact is it has been circulated and will be taken on board by potential advertisers and advertisers who aren't getting the ROI they desire. Remember the whole internet thing is still a mystery to most.
Ann
