Click Fraud corrections

Freshness Warning
This article is over 12 years old. It's possible that the information you read below isn't current.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says that click fraud has a built-in economic solution—as advertisers see less of a return on their ads due to fraud, they’ll reduce the amount they’ll pay for ads thereby making the value of click fraud drop off.

Scott Johnson disagrees.

Ebay spends $90 million dollars per quarter on Google ads. So lets say that 15% of those dollars are due to fraud. How do you think Ebay feels about spending $13.5 million as a “cost of doing business” with Google. Its easy to make the “cost of doing business” argument when you use percentages or when you’re not dealing with giant campaigns but $13.5 million is real money; there’s no way to rationally say “Let me waste $13.5 million”. None.

Scott’s just plain wrong—but a little right at the same time. Economic laws tell us that click fraud will sort itself out. But I don’t think that Google or anyone else wants to wait for that to happen. There’s something that Schmidt seems to be missing.

As advertisers realize that click fraud is costing them business, they will reduce the amount they are willing to pay for ads. Ad click payments will drop. But click fraud won’t drop at the same rate. You see, there’s just too much economic incentive to create fake clicks. So we have a reduction in ad rates, and a non-similar reduction in fraudulent clicks. We still have fraud, so advertisers continue to reduce the amount they pay. This continues on until CPC rates decline to the point that they’re irrelevant.

The problem is that the benefit to the advertiser approaches zero much faster than the benefit to the fraudster. It is cheap—and getting cheaper—to create click fraud. This isn’t a scenario that CPC ad vendors should look forward to.

Daniel
July 17, 2006 11:44 AM

"It is cheap — and getting cheaper — to create click fraud." Hum, wondering how you know the economics of these operations. ;) Click fraud like any other internet crime (spamming, hacking, virus deployment) needs a motivation to ignite it. Sure there are plenty of coders who have a thing against ebay. But is it really some the average small business, spending say $1000 a day, needs to worry about. Who's really going to target them or their keywords.

Jim
July 18, 2006 10:56 AM

The problem is with the affiliate business model. No one should stand to profit from clicks except Google or Yahoo. This alone will eliminate most of the fraud.

Your comments:

Text only, no HTML. URLs will automatically be converted to links. Your email address is required, but it will not be displayed on the site.

Name:

Not your company or your SEO link. Comments without a real name will be deleted as spam.

Email: (not displayed)

If you don't feel comfortable giving me your real email address, don't expect me to feel comfortable publishing your comment.

Website (optional):

Follow me on Twitter

Best Of

  • How not to apply for a job Applying for a job isn't that hard, but it does take some minimal effort and common sense.
  • Movie marketing on a budget Mark Cuban's looking for more cost effective ways to market movies.
  • California State Fair The California State Fair lets you buy tickets in advance from their Web site. That's good. But the site is a horror house of usability problems.
  • Customer reference questions. Sample questions to ask customer references when choosing a software vendor.
  • Comment Spam Manifesto Spammers are hereby put on notice. Your comments are not welcome. If the purpose behind your comment is to advertise yourself, your Web site, or a product that you are affiliated with, that comment is spam and will not be tolerated. We will hit you where it hurts by attacking your source of income.
  • More of the best »

Recently Read

Get More

Subscribe | Archives

Recently

Assumptions and project planning (Feb 18)
When your assumptions change, it's reasonable that your project plans and needs change as well. But too many managers are afraid to go back and re-work a plan that they've already agreed to.
Feature voting is harmful to your product (Feb 7)
There's a lot of problems with using feature voting to drive your product.
Encouraging 1:1s from other managers in your organization (Jan 4)
If you’re managing other managers, encourage them to hold their own 1:1s. It’s such an important tool for managing and leading that everyone needs to be holding them.
One on One Meetings - a collection of posts about 1:1s (Jan 2)
A collection of all my writing on 1:1s
Are 1:1s confidential? (Jan 2)
Is the discussion that occurs in a 1:1 confidential, even if no agreed in the meeting to keep it so?
Skip-level 1:1s are your hidden superpower (Jan 1)
Holding 1:1s with peers and with people far below you on the reporting chain will open your eyes up to what’s really going on in your business.
Do you need a 1:1 if you’re regularly communicating with your team? (Dec 28)
You’re simply not having deep meaningful conversation about the process of work in hallway conversations or in your chat apps.
What agenda items should a manager bring to a 1:1? (Dec 23)
At least 80% of a 1:1 agenda should be driven by your report, but if you also to use this time to work on things with them, then you’ll have better meetings.

Subscribe to this site's feed.

Contact

Adam Kalsey

Mobile: 916.600.2497

Email: adam AT kalsey.com

Twitter, etc: akalsey

Resume

PGP Key

©1999-2019 Adam Kalsey.