[adwords.blogspot.com...]
Today, we’re announcing the launch of a new AdWords feature enabling advertisers to have a much more detailed picture of invalid click activity in their account. The metrics of “invalid clicks” and “invalid clicks rate” will show virtually all the invalid clicks affecting an account.These clicks are filtered in real-time by our systems before advertisers are charged for them. The resulting data will of course differ from one advertiser to the next. In addition, a much smaller number of invalid clicks may also be credited to advertisers’ accounts after-the-fact, as the result of a publisher being terminated from the AdSense program for invalid click activity. These will appear as account-level credits.
[edited by: engine at 8:24 am (utc) on July 26, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] added quote [/edit] [/edit][/1]
Three letters why there should be click auditing: S-E-C
That judgment will be made by Google's lawyers, not by us.
And even if [the establishment of an independent click audit firm] happens, the chronically unhappy naysayers won't be satisfied--they'll just post messages on Webmaster World about how the Audit Bureau of Clicks is a front organization for the greedy, small-business-hating corporate crooks at Google, Yahoo, and MSN.
There are people who are chronically unhappy with various other independent audit bureaus but that doesn't mean they don't serve useful purposes. The idea is to promote fairness using logically and statisically defensible techniques.
There are people who are chronically unhappy with various other independent audit bureaus but that doesn't mean they don't serve useful purposes. The idea is to promote fairness using logically and statisically defensible techniques.
Don't forget, there's one essential difference between a PPC campaign and most traditional media campaigns: With PPC, you can directly track your ROI.
John Wanamaker, the department-store magnate, once said: "I know that half of my advertising doesn't work. The problem is, I don't know which half." With AdWords, you don't have that problem.
As others have pointed out, the cost of third-party click auditing would have to be passed along to advertisers, and there's no guarantee that the benefits to the advertiser (if any) would exceed the added cost. So the question becomes not only, "How many AdWords advertisers are suspicious enough to pay extra?," but also "How many AdWords advertisers care enough to pay extra so that suspicious advertisers have greater peace of mind?"
Paying "extra" for click fraud detection is like paying a bribe to the butcher to use a fair scale, it doesn't work that way.
Poor analogy. Click-fraud detection is like store security: It's a cost of doing business, and the business that doesn't cover its costs and make a profit won't be in business very long.
What some of you have been asking for (third-party auditing of clicks) is yet another layer of cost on top of the click-fraud detection that's already built into Google's overhead. To use your butcher example, it would be like having the butcher hire an auditor to double-check each packet of meat. That cost inevitably would be passed along to consumers.
MSN and Yahoo! are already revealing in part via significantly higher ROI numbers on their respective systems that they are doing a much better job on click fraud than google and I don't see them charging "extra".
Okay, let's see the proof.
Okay, let's see the proof.
If you were an advertiser, you'd already have it.
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 12:50 am (utc) on Aug. 1, 2006]
Google has no financial incentive to stop click fraud unlike stores that lose inventory and money from theft G$$G makes profits.
Google obviously does have a financial incentive, because excessive click fraud will tend to drive away customers and discourage new ones. Of course, people who engage in short-term opportunitistic thinking may have trouble grasping that simple business reality.
If you were an advertiser, you'd already have it
Different advertisers will have different results with different networks--as you can readily see for yourself by reading other forums (or even this one).
To repeat a mantra that I've used on the AdSense forum, "Never assume that your own experience is universal."
Seems like that would be a handy use for advertizers.
As a publisher I like to think my site would come out looking pretty good, and that should lead to higher bids for my ad space.
MSN and Yahoo! are already revealing in part via significantly higher ROI numbers on their respective systemsOkay, let's see the proof.
If you were an advertiser, you'd already have it.
I am an advertiser and the ROI on Yahoo! was significantly lower than Google -- so I dropped them.
Of course, I don't pretend that my experience represents your experience or the overall performance of Yahoo! or Google.
Returns aren't in for MSN yet - so far the conversions/ROI look good, but since the traffic is on so much of a smaller scale to this point, it's not really comparing apples to apples.
you know very well that it took google 3 years to stop charging advertisers for double-clicks, and when did they ever refund anyone for that?
and didn't google provide information to the chinese authorities that resulted in political dissidents going to jail? sounds to me like the google profit margin is the top priority.
a third party for click monitoring could indeed be the best solution.
>>>"I know that half of my advertising doesn't work. The problem is, I don't know which half." With AdWords, you don't have that problem.<<<
not quite... with adwords there is this thing called "click fraud", it sorta skews the stats :-)
>>>europe you come in here preaching like it is, yet you've never used AdWords.<<<
[edited by: mona at 6:11 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] off topic [/edit] [/edit][/1]
you know very well that it took google 3 years to stop charging advertisers for double-clicks, and when did they ever refund anyone for that?
Well, I don't know when you figure they "started" refunding, but I've received refunds since the beginning. Sorry you haven't.
[edited by: mona at 6:12 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] off topic [/edit] [/edit][/1]
you got refunds for exactly what? and how do you know that you got all the refunds you deserved? show us the google url where i can get some of my money back.
[edited by: mona at 6:13 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] off topic [/edit] [/edit][/1]
I don't know if anyone else filled out the settlement form, but in the form it asks you what "you think" your invalid click percentage is. Don't you think it would be in google's best interest to put out some deflated numbers?
Here's the secret. Take any number they give you and multiply it by at least 5.
And while we're discussing coincidences - Do you think that this latest algorithm is any coincidence, when they knew that their payment for this click fraud settlement would be in the form of adwords credits? HMMMMMMM...
...By the way, I've been involved in advertising one way or another since 1973, and I using PPC advertising back when Yahoo/Overture was called GoTo.com. So (unlike several of the more bellicose posters in this forum) I'm able to look at the bigger picture instead of viewing PPC- and Google-related advertising issues from a strictly "me, myself, and I" perspective.
Do you think that it's any coincidence that google comes out with this feature, the very same week that they settle the click fraud lawsuit?
Yes. Don't you?
[edited by: mona at 6:15 am (utc) on Aug. 6, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Off topic [/edit] [/edit][/1]
so how come you won't use adwords?
is it because of the click fraud?
so how come you won't use adwords?
Because I don't need to.
so how come you won't use adwords?
In case it hasn't occured to you, some webmasters build pages, and have really good content, so they actually generate FREE traffic in large volumes through natural search engine results.
I use adwords at relatively low levels because it augments the free traffic. I much prefer organic traffic, and building site reputations based on content.
Remarkably, I don't need to get caught up in worries about click fraud that way.
If you have the skills and subject knowledge to build such sites, imagine how much more money you could make from your sites. You should try it.
If you don't, then I guess you're stuck relying on paid ads.
So, I'm curious. There are lots of folks here who seem to "know" exactly how much fraud they're getting. How is that? If you know it so well why aren't you selling your services to other webmasters, or selling your solution to Google et al.?
I've managed PPC campaigns for some pretty big names, and some pretty small ones; when we were considering our response to click fraud we wanted to hire a company that would evaluate our traffic for fraud and make a report for us so we knew what we were dealing with. After my own research I found that there are (or were, at the time) exactly zero firms out there that had the know how, scale and ability to measure our traffic. That's a big business opportunity.
I hear all the cries for "a better solution" but what does that solution look like? what does it do? I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear others' concrete ideas too.
Don't forget, there's one essential difference between a PPC campaign and most traditional media campaigns: With PPC, you can directly track your ROI.
So? Does this mean all people should be happy to pay for fraudulent clicks?
So the question becomes not only, "How many AdWords advertisers are suspicious enough to pay extra?," but also "How many AdWords advertisers care enough to pay extra so that suspicious advertisers have greater peace of mind?"
And this is why we have forums like this, so the issue can be debated, and all concerned parties can participate.
So? Does this mean all people should be happy to pay for fraudulent clicks?
Of course not. What an odd thing to ask.
What some of you have been asking for (third-party auditing of clicks) is yet another layer of cost on top of the click-fraud detection that's already built into Google's overhead. To use your butcher example, it would be like having the butcher hire an auditor to double-check each packet of meat. That cost inevitably would be passed along to consumers.
At least where I live, butchers must adhere to certain government standards for the proper preparation and handling of meat. In this case, the cost passed on to customers is not so burdensome that people refuse to buy meat, and it provides incentives for the butchers to obey the standards. Also, there is a well-understood process for handling violations, such as if spoiled meat incorrectly marked causes illness.
At least where I live, butchers must adhere to certain government standards for the proper preparation and handling of meat....
It appears that you've found the solution. Now all you need to do is convince the government to regulate PPC networks the way it does butcher shops.
It appears that you've found the solution. Now all you need to do is convince the government to regulate PPC networks the way it does butcher shops.
Between the SEC and various Attorney Generals it's inevitable that gov't will get involved, G$$G and its little "problem" is firmly on the radar. Fraud always trickles down to consumers, its shortsighted to think that advertisers don't pass the cost along, so like EVERY other business that charges for goods and services there is vigilance on the part of law enforcement to ferret out fraudulent schemes and deal with them.
[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 10:46 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2006]
Between the SEC and various Attorney Generals it's inevitable that gov't will get involved...
OK, be sure to let us know when that happens.
So, I'm curious. There are lots of folks here who seem to "know" exactly how much fraud they're getting. How is that? If you know it so well why aren't you selling your services to other webmasters, or selling your solution to Google et al.?
What people are saying is that they can calculate their ROI (because they can tie a subset of their traffic to conversions on a channel basis with greater reliability than on traditional media). That's not the same as being able to tell how much of one's traffic is fraudulent. No one can do that unless they are omnisicient. (The intent of the click is not communicated via the HTTP protocol.)
I hear all the cries for "a better solution" but what does that solution look like? what does it do? I have my ideas, but I'd like to hear others' concrete ideas too.
A system based on auditing would take the traffic is received by advertisers, publishers, and SEs/ad networks, and based on some agreed-upon common criteria (e.g. a maximum number of clicks per time period to charge for), determine which impressions, clicks, etc. are the ones that should be charged for.
As you can imagine, even if the traffic is obtained statistically (via sampling), it is still a challenge. My personal preference would be that advertisers migrate to less risky business models. Since there are many advertisers who want to stick with PPC, at the very least, a common criteria for determining what traffic should be charged for at least gives the advertiser some sense that the SEs/ad networks are acting in good faith.
Better to defend your own ideas and, if those defenses do not stand up, to realize that the outcome is positive for all (an increase in knowledge) than to turn upon those who would show the faults in our ideas.
The greatest influences on my work are people who can provide a fresh point of view. If I limited my counsel to only those who thought as I did and had only the same experiences I did, there would be no benefit in seeking their views as I could achieve the same answers on my own.
Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread.
As you can imagine, even if the traffic is obtained statistically (via sampling), it is still a challenge. My personal preference would be that advertisers migrate to less risky business models. Since there are many advertisers who want to stick with PPC, at the very least, a common criteria for determining what traffic should be charged for at least gives the advertiser some sense that the SEs/ad networks are acting in good faith.
As an advertiser, what google has done doesn't have any value for me. Similarly, if a third party was involved (and that has all kinds of challenges), I'd not find that any more useful or reassuring than if google did the reporting.
The reason is, of course, that I look at return on my investment. That covers it all off from a business sense. Sure, I'd like to eliminate click fraud, but the reporting of it doesn't eliminate it. And it doesn't reassure me unless I know exactly how they are determining it all.
Anyway, regarding the "less risky business models". We can debate the issue, but each method (are there just the three -- CPC, CPM, CPA) each have signficant fraud risks. CPC has click fraud. CPM has impression fraud and that's been around a LONG time. CPA appears to be "safer", except that the fraudulent use of credit cards, for example, may be "harder" to do, but the consequences, if you have a merchant account, is MUCH worse. At least bogus CPC doesn't result in bogus orders that I have to produce and ship (and then not get paid for).
Not to mention the difficulties of coming up with a CPA system that can't be gamed. The only way I see that working is if the "authority" responsible for eliminating CPA fraud ALSO is the company processing the orders. Which I guess is what google may be trying to do.
BUT, I'm not going to trade in my ecommerce provider for a google based provider, because my provider handles the catalog, the delivery (at least electronically), the affiliate program, in addition to the standard stuff.
If there are other non-risky business models (there's site micro-payments I suppose) I'm not considering, let me know.
