Is Click Fraud a Tired Topic?

Thursday, July 19th, 2007 by Andy Beal

Is Click Fraud a Tired Topic?

Click Forensics has issued a new click fraud report, claiming the rate has increased to 15.8% compared from 14.1% last year.

Until this announcement, it appeared the debate had died, mostly due to greater transparency from Google and Yahoo about click fraud. Still, Click Forensics has a living to make, hence the need for more reports – this time claiming the increase is due to increased botnet activity.

I almost didn’t cover the news, but I just had to share Google’s response with you…

“These estimates continue to count clicks Google does not charge to advertisers as fraudulent, so they are not actually click fraud estimates. Furthermore, their estimates have never reflected the invalid click rates we see at Google. It is also worth nothing that in all of 2007, only two advertisers have contacted us regarding click fraud data from Click Forensics, and in both cases we found that the suspicious activity was not charged for in the first place.”

Google = 1

Click Forensics = 0

Social Media Monitoring in Just 60-Seconds. Guaranteed!

Similar Stories in: Research, Search | Forward: Email This Post

Share this post

13 comments on “Is Click Fraud a Tired Topic?”

Favorite Web Browser Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am

I actually love to read about click fraud, not because I love click fraud, but because I know how to control it and how other companies poorly controls that
TextAdSearch Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am

Click fraud will be reported as long as PPC exists.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Google goes CPA. In fact they have already. The only way to eradicate click fraud is not to charge per click.
Bruce Swedal Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

PPC will eventually evolve to a better system of traffic tracking. Which will help click fraud decline in its present form.
Favorite Web Browser Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Maybe yes, maybe no.

Depends on networks.

I’ve seen fraud which looks like a 100% natural traffic, so some low tech networks just keeps paying for it. I also some some ways where even big G still pays for that fraud.
Churchill Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

Surely there is a huge market of “low scale clickfrauders” whom are clicking on their own site, every so often, from different computers! It must be happening, and not everyone can be getting caught. Please explain how I may be wrong?
Favorite Web Browser Says:

July 19th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Some “pro thiefs” are making more than x10000 USD per month from click fraud…
Omadsense Says:

July 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am

Click fruad – well, i’ve cut back my use of adwords becuase it seems that if google is not jacking up the price – the clicks are irrevelant [ little sales] . most may blame my short sales on my sales picth – but my free vistors who come from other sources – buy and a much higher rate…….?
Publicz Says:

July 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Major problem is not click fraud but inexperienced net users unintentionally clicking on the PPC ads, only impulsive buy items sell when a user unintentionally clicks on a link.

It took about 3 years for banner advertisers(large ad agencies before 2001 crash) to realize this how long it will take PPC advertisers (mostly small biz) to realize this? one more year perhaps……
Study Guide Says:

July 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am

Nothing new really. It still depends mainly on what type of business you’re running. Some have a lot of CF to deal with, while others have almost none.
PPC Hero : Click Fraud, Invalid Clicks and Everything In Between Says:

July 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

[...] No matter what you call it, this is a much debated and discussed topic in the search marketing world (thus my smarmy opening comments). What can be certain is that search marketers and the search engines alike are fully aware of the danger and the threat click fraud poses to the pay-per-click industry. For the most part, advertisers have limited visibility into the true nature of any given click that they have paid for. But this is a knowledge gap that is slowly closing. [...]
CPCcurmudgeon Says:

August 1st, 2007 at 10:59 pm

A few thoughts:

OK, suppose the clicks that ClickForensics are reporting aren’t
fraudulent. But they’re not converting, either (at least to the
satisfaction of the advertisers they represent). Something out there
is clicking, but not providing revenue to those advertisers. How long
will the advertisers continue to pay for these nonconverting clicks?

If Google, Yahoo, etc. truly have technology that can detect almost
all invalid clicks (fraudulent or not), this technology would be
capable of detecting all other types of invalid (unwanted) traffic,
such as spam, phishing, stuffed All-Star ballot boxes, etc. So let’s
see these companies’ software adapted to solving these problems.

I have long argued that PPC is vulnerable to click fraud because of
how the underlying Internet architecture works. People ignored me,
said I didn’t “get it”, etc. But it seems that some people
who actually understand Internet architecture actually agree with
me.
Andy Beal Says:

August 2nd, 2007 at 9:03 am

@CPCcurmudgeon – if the clicks aren’t fraudulent, then shouldn’t we also look at the quality of the advertiser’s web site? Surely they may have more to blame than the traffic Google sends.
CPCcurmudgeon Says:

August 2nd, 2007 at 10:43 am

Andy,

The advertisers make complaints such as “I shouldn’t have to pay for
the same user who comes to my site multiple times.” There seems to be
little acknowledgement in the search engine/ad network industry that
determining whether “the same user” is accessing a site cannot be done
reliably, in all circumstances. This is very well understood
among members of the technical Internet community. This is another
flaw of PPC. Paying by fixed fees would alleviate the problem. I am
looking forward to the day when all the engines and networks offer a
variety of payment models as options, so advertisers can best budget
for the type of traffic they’re getting.

Marketing Pilgrim