Saturday, July 29, 2006
Google CPA network: antidote to click fraud?
by ZDNet's Donna Bogatin -- Will the CPA model present the next battle against "click fraud"?
In “Google goes for the hard sell: New 'Content Referral Network' targets higher click-throughs, ad rates and new GBuy transactions” I discuss Google’s recent testing of a Cost-Per-Action (CPA) Content Referral Network:
The Google AdSense team would like to invite you to test a feature that provides you with a new way to earn revenue from your website by hosting ads that are compensated based on a Cost-Per-Action [CPA] basis. These ads are very different in that you will be able to choose amongst a selection and you will also have more flexibility in promoting them.
Actions referred to in a CPA model include consumer lead generation activities such as customer survey completion or Web site registration, as well as consumer product purchases.
In “Will new Google CPA ads and GBuy online payment system turn the Social Web into a marketplace?” I postulate on how such a Google CPA model might play out:
While Web publisher partners in the Google AdSense network simply display Google ads in a hands-off manner, Web publisher partners in the Content Referral Network are being asked to actively promote the new Cost Per Action (CPA) Google ad units by aggressively soliciting the desired “actions.” In other words, Google Web publisher partners in its Content Referral Network will not receive any payment from Google, unless they are able to convince their Web visitors to both click on the new Google CPA ad units and then complete the targeted transactions, generally product purchases.
Google directly advises its Web publisher partners for its CPA ad units to present the Google ads at their sites with personal solicitations to their Web visitors such as:
• I recommend this product
• Try JetBlue today
The new Google hard-sell strategy will presumably provide an avenue of higher payout opportunities for Web publisher partners.
Many deem a CPA model to be immune to the “click fraud” PPC models are subject to.
Given that a CPA model may yield higher payout opportunities, however, it is unlikely that a nefarious element of society will not diligently explore ways to defraud a CPA network as well.
Google’s prospective Content Referral Network, in fact, has been likened to an affiliate network and affiliate networks have, themselves, been subject to fraudulent activity.
Illicit ways to generate fraudulent revenues in an affiliate network may involve:
Multiple Web site registrations/surveys completed under assumed identities
Purchases transacted with stolen credit cards
Google may not be committed to a CPA Content Referral Network, however.
In response to a question about Google’s possible move into a CPA model at last week’s Q2 investor conference call, Larry Page, Google Co-Founder and President of Products, said:
I know there's a lot of talk about the CPA, or paying per purchase. One of the issues with that is people look around a lot before they buy something. So it's probably not the only information you want to look at when you're paying for advertising. But we're also excited about using more data like that in our models.
Page seemed to suggest that Google prefers the lucrative upfront PPC model, rather than a more drawn out, and uncertain, CPA model.
Page also suggests, however, that Google is always interested in leveraging user and advertiser data.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
3 Powerful Tools To Protect Your Advertising Budget From Click Fraudsters
We feel obliged today on this news platform to lead our readers to the some of the tools released by Google AdWords Help Center to counter or prevent the incidence of invalid clicks. Dectection, filtering, Monitoring and human intelligence are what we can summarise as these tools.
Until recently, I use to wonder why at adsense forums some of the posters refuse to reveal their URL which makes them the most money from Google Adsense. Now, I know better, it is because of abuse by click fraudsters and competing niche publishers who could get them banned by the almighty Google. If at our level we refuse to reveal the strategic Goose that lays the golden egg into nest of our Adsense earnings, it would be unfair too to stridently accuse Google of not revealing the methodology of how it dectects invalid or fraud clicks.
The most potent argument of these our industry colleagues is that Google cannot be an accused, a judge and arbiter in her own case, and that there is need for an independent third party using independent metrics to determine invalid and fraud clicks. They easily forgot that in a market economy, the real arbiters are the invincible forces of free enterprise, not even the self-appointed "independent judges".
We feel obliged today on this news platform to lead our readers to the some of the tools released by Google AdWords Help Center to counter or prevent the incidence of invalid clicks. Dectection, filtering, Monitoring and human intelligence are what we can summarise as these tools.
Until recently, I use to wonder why at adsense forums some of the posters refuse to reveal their URL which makes them the most money from Google Adsense. Now, I know better, it is because of abuse by click fraudsters and competing niche publishers who could get them banned by the almighty Google. If at our level we refuse to reveal the strategic Goose that lays the golden egg into nest of our Adsense earnings, it would be unfair too to stridently accuse Google of not revealing the methodology of how it dectects invalid or fraud clicks.
The most potent argument of these our industry colleagues is that Google cannot be an accused, a judge and arbiter in her own case, and that there is need for an independent third party using independent metrics to determine invalid and fraud clicks. They easily forgot that in a market economy, the real arbiters are the invincible forces of free enterprise, not even the self-appointed "independent judges".
Click Fraud or Invalid Click: What is The Difference?
Part of industry controversy revolves around the definition of what is a fraud click and an invalid click. We had to go to get the broader definition from google herself, through her Business Product Manager for Trust & Safety, Shuman Ghosemajumder; this interview from her blog also threw light on the fraud estimation controversy. It is Google's believe that the independent consultants who "arrived" at the outrageously high click fraud estimation of 30%, did so in order to hype-market their product, and that such "estimation" was not based on any scientific and statistical premisce.
Google insisted for the umpteenth time that these cases of invalid clicks remain insignificant, saying: "Fighting invalid clicks aggressively is in Google's best interest and essential for us to maintain a viable business".
Part of industry controversy revolves around the definition of what is a fraud click and an invalid click. We had to go to get the broader definition from google herself, through her Business Product Manager for Trust & Safety, Shuman Ghosemajumder; this interview from her blog also threw light on the fraud estimation controversy. It is Google's believe that the independent consultants who "arrived" at the outrageously high click fraud estimation of 30%, did so in order to hype-market their product, and that such "estimation" was not based on any scientific and statistical premisce.
Google insisted for the umpteenth time that these cases of invalid clicks remain insignificant, saying: "Fighting invalid clicks aggressively is in Google's best interest and essential for us to maintain a viable business".
Vindicated! Google "Deep-Tackles" Fraudsters
It has always been my opinion here on this platform that Google has a sincere motive in tackling click fraudsters. I maintained in the past that it is in the interest of Google , Yahoo and other PPC companies to tackle the growing incidence of click frauds in order to protect the integrity of our industry. I do not belong to the school of thought that says that Google subtly encouraged and even surreptitiously sponsored the activities of click fraudsters because of the intrinsic gain in it for her.
Yesterday, Google came out with additional preventive tool for Adwords advertisers to comprehensively estimate the activity of click fraud in the on-going battle to monitor, expose and minimize the activity of click fraudsters. You can read or hear further about this from the 'horse's mouth' Google Adwords Blog ...
It has always been my opinion here on this platform that Google has a sincere motive in tackling click fraudsters. I maintained in the past that it is in the interest of Google , Yahoo and other PPC companies to tackle the growing incidence of click frauds in order to protect the integrity of our industry. I do not belong to the school of thought that says that Google subtly encouraged and even surreptitiously sponsored the activities of click fraudsters because of the intrinsic gain in it for her.
Yesterday, Google came out with additional preventive tool for Adwords advertisers to comprehensively estimate the activity of click fraud in the on-going battle to monitor, expose and minimize the activity of click fraudsters. You can read or hear further about this from the 'horse's mouth' Google Adwords Blog ...
Sunday, July 23, 2006
At Last: Google Click Fraud Settlement Suit in View
We have witnessed an avalanche of news that support our PPC news objectives on this site in the last few days, we hope to serve you as many of these reports as we can, over time, meanwhile, news on how Google's effort to win the battle against click-fraudsters is being reinforced independent Reports, Please, read on:
This new week may likely witness the final settlement of the lawsuit filed against Google last year by a U.S. based company- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana. On Monday and Tuesday, Arkansas judge, Joe Griffin would be hearing and probably be giving final approval to the settlement between Google and Lane's Gifts in the $90Million suit.
The investigation by independent analysts reveal that both parties may agree to settle out of court and that Google's attorneys see the $90million settlement as fair.
the crux of the case is the anger of advertisers who claimed that they were overbilled by the search engine giant and that this overbilling was traceable by them to click fraudsters who wanted to deplete their advertising budgets.
These click frausters were described as "swindlers or mischief makers who repeatedly clicked on a Google Adwords Ads without any legitimate interest in the product or service".
This case, once again, brings me to the emphatic conclusion that Google is a fair player in the PPC game. It is this goodwill generated by her "fair-play" that, I believe, makes her revenue to soar tremendously(about 77% increase over the corresponding period of last year). With her second quarter reports already released last week, I see Google hitting the $10 Billion mark this 2006, her best ever!
There remains however, a sharp division among online advertising practitioners as to the proportion of fraud clicks, while some alleged incidents of 14-30% Google and Yahoo insist that such claims are wildly exaggerated.
I belong to the school-of-thought that says: "Any subtle encouragement of click frauds by the big players would only help to erode the integrity and growing confidence of the market in PPC ads". Market forces would naturally drive down the revenues as a result of declining interest in unchecked fraudulent clicks. It is therefore we believe, in the interest of google and yahoo giants to protect the integrity of PPC advertising. We don't suscribe to the arguments of our some of our colleagues that Google nad other PPC companies subtly encourage website click frudsters. the fallacy of that argument is in the fact that it is not sustained or supported by economic science.
We have witnessed an avalanche of news that support our PPC news objectives on this site in the last few days, we hope to serve you as many of these reports as we can, over time, meanwhile, news on how Google's effort to win the battle against click-fraudsters is being reinforced independent Reports, Please, read on:
This new week may likely witness the final settlement of the lawsuit filed against Google last year by a U.S. based company- Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana. On Monday and Tuesday, Arkansas judge, Joe Griffin would be hearing and probably be giving final approval to the settlement between Google and Lane's Gifts in the $90Million suit.
The investigation by independent analysts reveal that both parties may agree to settle out of court and that Google's attorneys see the $90million settlement as fair.
the crux of the case is the anger of advertisers who claimed that they were overbilled by the search engine giant and that this overbilling was traceable by them to click fraudsters who wanted to deplete their advertising budgets.
These click frausters were described as "swindlers or mischief makers who repeatedly clicked on a Google Adwords Ads without any legitimate interest in the product or service".
This case, once again, brings me to the emphatic conclusion that Google is a fair player in the PPC game. It is this goodwill generated by her "fair-play" that, I believe, makes her revenue to soar tremendously(about 77% increase over the corresponding period of last year). With her second quarter reports already released last week, I see Google hitting the $10 Billion mark this 2006, her best ever!
There remains however, a sharp division among online advertising practitioners as to the proportion of fraud clicks, while some alleged incidents of 14-30% Google and Yahoo insist that such claims are wildly exaggerated.
I belong to the school-of-thought that says: "Any subtle encouragement of click frauds by the big players would only help to erode the integrity and growing confidence of the market in PPC ads". Market forces would naturally drive down the revenues as a result of declining interest in unchecked fraudulent clicks. It is therefore we believe, in the interest of google and yahoo giants to protect the integrity of PPC advertising. We don't suscribe to the arguments of our some of our colleagues that Google nad other PPC companies subtly encourage website click frudsters. the fallacy of that argument is in the fact that it is not sustained or supported by economic science.
