Comments on: 17% of all Pay Per Clicks are Fraud (New York Times) http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times Search Engine & Affiliate Marketing Blog Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:07:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeff http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-164672 Jeff Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:29:48 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-164672 Even if the 17% of clicks are fraudulent PPC is worth it when you get the right conversion. Great article, Thanks! Even if the 17% of clicks are fraudulent PPC is worth it when you get the right conversion. Great article, Thanks!

]]> By: Kris Jones http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-163051 Kris Jones Sun, 17 May 2009 23:20:51 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-163051 Excellent comments! Thanks. :) Excellent comments!

Thanks. :)

]]> By: Sandeep http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-163021 Sandeep Sun, 17 May 2009 10:20:35 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-163021 Ohhhh i have a doubt if 17% clicks are fraud clicks then advertiser surely will be in loss of 17% but will Google or yahoo etc...... give them extra 17% clicks to the advertisers?? And the main cheating is showing fraud clicks Google or yahoo etc which ever it may be they will not pay it to their publishers(not only that their accounts will be canceled even the revenue they earned from genuine clicks will be lost .Who is asking them to pay for genuine clicks??) I think both the publisher and advertiser are losing and the companies are gaining for these fraud clicks. Ohhhh i have a doubt if 17% clicks are fraud clicks then advertiser surely will be in loss of 17% but will Google or yahoo etc…… give them extra 17% clicks to the advertisers?? And the main cheating is showing fraud clicks Google or yahoo etc which ever it may be they will not pay it to their publishers(not only that their accounts will be canceled even the revenue they earned from genuine clicks will be lost .Who is asking them to pay for genuine clicks??) I think both the publisher and advertiser are losing and the companies are gaining for these fraud clicks.

]]> By: John http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162977 John Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:34 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162977 I think that 17% is accurate *if* they are including ALL ppc sources (not just Google, Yahoo and MSN, but all the other 2nd and 3rd tier networks.) I would easily believe 17% of everything lumped together is fraudulent. As far as adsense traffic, I have found a surprising *increase* in the traffic quality I have been getting from them over time, so I think google is doing a decent job at it (there is room for improvement) but they are still the leader in this area. Most of the dips in quality (superpages, looksmart and business.com I am looking at you) happen when the ppc engines use various traffic channels and move you from one to another or add another traffic channel to your account since you have been paying consistently, and you might not notice a drop in quality for a month or so. Averaged overtime it isn't that big of a deal (at least that is how I imagine they justify "testing" these new traffic sources), and you can always get refunds (if you dont mind dealing with the hassle) Short version click fraud will *always* be here. (Just like those "rebill" affiliate offers... they aren't going away) Google is the leader in fraud detection/prevention and everyone else is just playing catchup... still. John I think that 17% is accurate *if* they are including ALL ppc sources (not just Google, Yahoo and MSN, but all the other 2nd and 3rd tier networks.)

I would easily believe 17% of everything lumped together is fraudulent. As far as adsense traffic, I have found a surprising *increase* in the traffic quality I have been getting from them over time, so I think google is doing a decent job at it (there is room for improvement) but they are still the leader in this area.

Most of the dips in quality (superpages, looksmart and business.com I am looking at you) happen when the ppc engines use various traffic channels and move you from one to another or add another traffic channel to your account since you have been paying consistently, and you might not notice a drop in quality for a month or so. Averaged overtime it isn’t that big of a deal (at least that is how I imagine they justify “testing” these new traffic sources), and you can always get refunds (if you dont mind dealing with the hassle)

Short version click fraud will *always* be here. (Just like those “rebill” affiliate offers… they aren’t going away) Google is the leader in fraud detection/prevention and everyone else is just playing catchup… still.

John

]]> By: Greg http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162862 Greg Fri, 15 May 2009 01:57:41 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162862 I will counter with this to ponder... If click fraud is xx%, then due to the dead-on trackability of PPC, is the corresponding click prices actually decreased by that same actual xx% or at least a fraction of that xx% making the end impact nil? Case in point...are $1.00 PPC VALUE clicks actually "selling for" $0.83? I do not know the answer to this, but I do know we know the "full-loop" EPC (net) on our PPC spend and if everyone has the same expertise (bad assumption) and is conscious of waste (bad assumption #2) then the costs adjust for fraud inflation (pay less per click). All of above assuming general, not targeted click fraud. What I believe is the biggest waste in PPC is not fraud, but rather users who think the Search bar is the same as their Browser bar and type URLs into the query, click the paid link, and spend ad money to get to the site they knew they wanted...can we get some user navigation grant money? The final variable I would impose is the end definition of "click fraud". Is it merely malicious clicking, does it include inadvertent clicks, do some user navigation issues get tossed in...does anyone have an accurate definition? Seriously interested in different views of fraud. I will counter with this to ponder…

If click fraud is xx%, then due to the dead-on trackability of PPC, is the corresponding click prices actually decreased by that same actual xx% or at least a fraction of that xx% making the end impact nil?

Case in point…are $1.00 PPC VALUE clicks actually “selling for” $0.83?

I do not know the answer to this, but I do know we know the “full-loop” EPC (net) on our PPC spend and if everyone has the same expertise (bad assumption) and is conscious of waste (bad assumption #2) then the costs adjust for fraud inflation (pay less per click).

All of above assuming general, not targeted click fraud.

What I believe is the biggest waste in PPC is not fraud, but rather users who think the Search bar is the same as their Browser bar and type URLs into the query, click the paid link, and spend ad money to get to the site they knew they wanted…can we get some user navigation grant money?

The final variable I would impose is the end definition of “click fraud”. Is it merely malicious clicking, does it include inadvertent clicks, do some user navigation issues get tossed in…does anyone have an accurate definition? Seriously interested in different views of fraud.

]]> By: Wendy http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162822 Wendy Thu, 14 May 2009 15:08:53 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162822 I have to say I am very much a newbie here. I started a general blog after I lost my medical billing job after 6 years and being in the field of medicine for over 14. I started with adsense and did mediocre (100.00 in 2 months). However, after they shut my adsense account stating my site was a threat. I have since changed my blog over to wordpress and been reading the book Search Engine optimization By Kris Jones. GREAT BOOK! I was truly offended by google adsense as my hits and clicks done on my blogs were genuine. I am going to read the article, but I also feel thatwe as adsense users aren't given the benefit of the doubt. Just accused and assumed. no prior notice given. That stings! I have to say I am very much a newbie here. I started a general blog after I lost my medical billing job after 6 years and being in the field of medicine for over 14. I started with adsense and did mediocre (100.00 in 2 months). However, after they shut my adsense account stating my site was a threat. I have since changed my blog over to wordpress and been reading the book Search Engine optimization By Kris Jones. GREAT BOOK! I was truly offended by google adsense as my hits and clicks done on my blogs were genuine. I am going to read the article, but I also feel thatwe as adsense users aren’t given the benefit of the doubt. Just accused and assumed. no prior notice given. That stings!

]]> By: Kris Jones http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162817 Kris Jones Thu, 14 May 2009 13:28:51 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162817 Jim, Excellent points! Mat, SEO is 1/2 the game. If all an advertiser does is focus on SEO the other 50% of market share is going to competitors. Kris Jim,

Excellent points!

Mat,

SEO is 1/2 the game. If all an advertiser does is focus on SEO the other 50% of market share is going to competitors.

Kris

]]> By: Mat http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162782 Mat Thu, 14 May 2009 07:49:46 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162782 An interesting article. PPC can be hugely useful, but i still believe that if you have the time, and organic SEO process is better and more cost effective. Also, it seems, more impervious to fraud. An interesting article. PPC can be hugely useful, but i still believe that if you have the time, and organic SEO process is better and more cost effective. Also, it seems, more impervious to fraud.

]]> By: Jim Jansen http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162763 Jim Jansen Thu, 14 May 2009 02:30:26 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162763 One could put this click fraud thing to bed with a straightforward experiment, but would need the collaboration of Google. Basically, one would set up 'fake' businesses with AdSense and/or AdWords accounts, but the Google click fraud teams would *not* know. Then, execute various click fraud against the business accounts. Do this for a few billing cycles. Then, get all *three* logs -- the businesses, the Google AdWords/AdSense logs, and the log from the click fraud teams. One needs all three data points to get an accurate assessment. So, if Google doesn’t play, no valid experiment. One could put this click fraud thing to bed with a straightforward experiment, but would need the collaboration of Google.

Basically, one would set up ‘fake’ businesses with AdSense and/or AdWords accounts, but the Google click fraud teams would *not* know.

Then, execute various click fraud against the business accounts. Do this for a few billing cycles.

Then, get all *three* logs — the businesses, the Google AdWords/AdSense logs, and the log from the click fraud teams.

One needs all three data points to get an accurate assessment. So, if Google doesn’t play, no valid experiment.

]]> By: Kris Jones http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/2009/05/13/17-of-all-pay-per-clicks-are-fraud-new-york-times/comment-page-1#comment-162722 Kris Jones Wed, 13 May 2009 14:38:14 +0000 http://www.pepperjam.com/blog/?p=447#comment-162722 Jim, Thanks for your response! I only had a short period of time this morning before Kris Jr. woke up so I couldn't fully explore this issue. However, it's my opinion that 85% of click fraud occurs within Google's content (aka, AdSense) and distribution partner network (i.e through their partnerships with AOL, Ask, etc.). If I'm not mistaken when you visted Pepperjam we briefly spoke about this issue. We strongly encourage you to put together a team to explore the role of click fraud in Google's content network. Kris Jim,

Thanks for your response!

I only had a short period of time this morning before Kris Jr. woke up so I couldn’t fully explore this issue.

However, it’s my opinion that 85% of click fraud occurs within Google’s content (aka, AdSense) and distribution partner network (i.e through their partnerships with AOL, Ask, etc.).

If I’m not mistaken when you visted Pepperjam we briefly spoke about this issue. We strongly encourage you to put together a team to explore the role of click fraud in Google’s content network.

Kris

]]>