Search Companies Team Up Against Click Fraud

isabotage3 writes to tell us that the top three search companies, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, have teamed up to create an alliance to combat click fraud. The fact that these three bitter rivals can team up shows just how serious the industry has become about preserving the current online advertising boom that is currently underway. From the article: "Click fraud has attracted an increasing amount of attention amid class-action lawsuits and industry studies asserting advertisers have been collectively overcharged by more than $1 billion for bogus sales leads during the past four years. Google and Yahoo contend that those estimates are gross exaggerations generated by opportunistic lawyers and online advertising consultants hoping to cash in on the anxieties triggered by their calculations."

Comments

Spend Here, or Spend There.

[fragmentate]

The primary concern about "click-fraud" is that you're being charged for clicks that were meant to intentionally drive your costs up. In essence this means wasting money, since you can't really track who meant to click and who didn't. This adds up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly.

The irony is that many of the companies that are uncomfortable with this medium for advertising is that they're perfectly willing to spend millions on TV and print advertising where they can't even reliably track anything. And worse, they have to hope the people that actually give a damn about their product or service are even in the market. I don't know about you, but I get my drink, go to the bathroom, and pop popcorn during commercials. With online advertising -- especially on search engines -- people only see your commercials [ads] because they were looking for something related. (I could go on a tangent here about how a clothing company will bid on keywords related to automobiles... maybe later.)

Having worked in the online advertising/marketing industry (tech sector) for over 2 years now, this problem is not easily solved. The fraudsters know all about proxies, onion routing, and a host of other tricks to drive up the costs of competitors. Then, there are those that simply think it's clever to generate traffic (on IRC we called them spammers, floodbots, etc.).

We provide our clients with click-fraud reporting using our algorithms. They're pretty accurate. But, this accuracy is based on a model, which is based on 50% hard data, and 50% conjecture. What's missing with our reporting is that Google, Yahoo!, and MSN don't give it any weight, and frankly dismiss it.

I'm hopeful that this "coming together" will help client confidence so they can move away from [nearly] untrackable advertising on TV, print, and radio. It all starts with "the big 3" -- if they're willing to assist, it's much better than a 3rd party trying to decipher 3rd party results and then have to prove it to "the big 3."

Don't forget their other approach

[The Famous Brett Wat]

It's impressive that these rivals have banded together to address click-fraud, but don't forget that Google has other tricks up its corporate sleeves. As seen here a little while back, they are also looking into "cost per action" ads, which would eliminate the fraud unless the action itself could be performed in a fraudulent manner. (Bruce Schneier mentioned it in a commentary about click fraud.)

Pay-per-click isn't the only way

[The Famous Brett Wat]

The irony is that many of the companies that are uncomfortable with this medium for advertising is that they're perfectly willing to spend millions on TV and print advertising where they can't even reliably track anything.

Woah there! You had it right in the first paragraph when you said that the problem was "being charged for clicks that were meant to intentionally drive your costs up". Now all of a sudden you're on a completely different subject: the question of whether you can measure viewer response to the ad. If you sign up for a traditional TV, print, or radio ad, you can only estimate your response rate based on market research, but you know exactly what your outgoing costs are. With pay-per-click web ads, the situation is pretty much the other way around: you get good data about user activity, but your costs can only be estimated, and are subject to escalation by fraud.

But pay-per-click isn't the only revenue model out there. Pay-per-impression is considerably less prone to fraud (it can't be easily targeted if ads are randomised), and pay-per-day returns costs to the known-in-advance state. Both of these still allow tracking of user activity.

As a small-time ad-space provider, I'd far rather be hosting this kind of fraud-proof ad. That way the ad-broker can't arbitrarily accuse me of click fraud and suspend my account. It hasn't happened to me, personally, but I'm acutely aware that it could happen at any time without notice, and this precludes me from even considering it as a reliable source of income.

Re:Odd thing to measure anyhow

[Prof.Phreak]

If you read the article, one of the things they say is how hard it is to determine the "intent" of the person clicking the ad. Are they serious shoppers, casual browsers, or even one of those teenagers who sign up for those click-for-profit type schemes. Well duh!

I often find myself clicking on many links for sites I dislike, knowing that each click is costing them money; just 'cause I feel like it :-/

Also, opening a page in a Firefox tab, and closing the tab (without viewing it), is also a pretty nice way to run up costs for some sites. And if thousands of people do this per day...

It's a silly business model these advertisers have.