Category: Click Fraud

Google CPA, Meet Google Checkout

Reading Time: 2 minutes

I was reading a CNET blog post Google deems cost-per-action as the ‘Holy Grail’ by Stephan Spencer. At the Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference in San Jose, Marissa Mayer, Google’s VP of Search Product and User Experience, delivered a keynote in which she talked, inter alia, about the Cost Per Action (CPA) model for advertisers and that it is a long way off.

In a CPA scenario, the advertiser pays only when a pre-agreed action takes place, such as filling out a form, making a purchase, speaking to the advertiser by phone, etc. Google has been testing CPA with select AdWords advertisers in several ways.

For example, in its Click to Call experiment, the advertiser bids, say, $25 as opposed to $2 per click to have a high position (subject to other factors, such as Quality Score) but pays only if someone clicks and speaks to the advertiser via the Google-arranged phone call. The high bid makes it fair to regular PPC advertisers who pay for every click, fraudulent or otherwise, who are also bidding high to be in the higher PPC positions. The CPA bid could be 8 to 12 times higher – I have no idea how it is worked out, but Google has access to the conversion stats of advertisers if they choose to track conversions for online transactions. Where e-commerce is present, it is easy to tell what percentage of clicks end in transactions.

If CPA does catch on, Stephan opines that SEO will become more diversified into helping clients with conversions, perhaps by offering organic search cost-per-click (CPC) which is offered, coincidentally, by his own company. 🙂 Yes, a few SEO companies are already offering similar solutions.

Google apparently uses the example of buying an airline ticket to explain the CPA scenario. As things stand, I don’t think this would happen. For one, affililate commissions on airline tickets are low and probably impractical for cheap fares.

Google Checkout and CPA

Google SERPGoogle’s PayPal-like offering is Google Checkout, which I rarely encounter in real life, where PayPal is still king. Over 12 months ago, Om Malik wrote about some connection between Google Checkout and CPA, and a few others linked to his post, but I haven’t seen the obvious killer connection that is staring Google in its face.

There is some unused space on a Google search results page that could be reserved for CPA without making it too expensive. For example the 8 ads on the right could have some CPA ads interspersed, say in the fourth and lower positions. Or they could start below the least attractive 8th PPC ad but be highlighted to draw eyeballs that would not otherwise be looking here. The usability experts can work something out. Or, Google could use something like Peel-Away Ads for CPA advertisers.

The way Google can win at CPA is to leverage Checkout by offering cheap CPA clicks to advertisers who switch to it exclusively for e-commerce. As Checkout transactions are visible to Google, it would be easy to measure the conversions (Actions). How about a tiered price structure:

  • Sale CPA = 50% of Checkout sale amount or Average CPC rate x 5, whichever is lower
  • Form Completion CPA = Average CPC rate x 3

I am just throwing some numbers there – don’t take them literally. The final numbers should make business sense to the advertiser.

Google Pay-per-Action Beta Goes Global

Reading Time: < 1 minute

One of the hazards of a PPC advertiser is the possibility of Click Fraud. Google is one of a few companies to have tested a Pay-per-Action (PPA) model where the advertiser doesn’t pay for the click, but pays only when the clicker goes to the website and completes some pre-defined action, such as filling out a form or making a purchase.

PPA is a brilliant, albeit partial solution to click fraud that works for websites that have a measurable action. It does not work for information sites or affiliate sites where the purchase takes place on the merchant’s website.

Google has just extended its PPA beta globally, reports MediaPost, but in a staged roll-out, beginning with publisher sites that have turned on Conversion Tracking and have had over 500 conversions this month. Yes, only Content sites will show the PPA ads initially; I imagine this is because advertisers are shying away from the Made-for-Adsense (MFA) sites.

The price for a PPA conversion is defined based on the type of action. The official Google AdWords Blog says, “For example, you may wish to pay $1 every time a user fills out a lead form on your site and $5 when a purchase is made.

If PPA pricing is similar to the pricing for Google’s Pay-per-Call beta, then I bet you will be paying a lot more to have your ad showing high, in the first ad unit on the publisher page. I will be among the last to be invited to this beta, so you will know the real cost before I do.

YAOAACF by San Jose Business Journal

Reading Time: < 1 minute

No easy answers for advertisers suffering from online click fraud
By Mark Larson

Small businesses are increasingly turning to third party “click monitoring” companies as a way to help prevent being charged for the type of phantom business that recently cost Google Inc. $90 million in an Arkansas court settlement.

Nothing new here apart from exposure for a couple of companies.

Yet another click fraud lawsuit (YACFL)

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Why am I not surprised to read about yet another click fraud lawsuit?

This eweek article mentions a proposed class action against Google by one Samuel Lasoff. He seems to be an advertiser but the article talks about aggrieved publishers:

“and accuses Google of exposing publishers to click fraud following a breach of contract,”

I can’t find the original filing in the PA courthouse (what a quaint, 1990s web site!) so I can’t tell if he is a publisher or advertiser. He certainly appears to be an affiliate, so I suspect he had Adwords pointing to his sites.

Let’s see what happens.

Click! Mouse fraud bytes web advertisers

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Emma Connors and Mark Jones have written about click fraud in today’s Australian Financial Review. Unfortunately the article cannot be viewed online for free. They write that Nielsen/NetRatings is starting research into this issue in Australia. They are going to look at the behaviour of IP addresses, exactly what I said in the same article!

Also quoted is ClickSentinel, which claims that 30% of clicks are fraudulent. I wonder if Shuman Ghosemajumder’s team at Google will look into this claim next. 🙂

Google’s analysis of click fraud detection

Reading Time: 2 minutes

This 17-page report from Google’s click quality team makes a lot of sense. Look at the US search engine conference speaker list for the past three years and witness the same names saying much the same things. Most of them represented click fraud detection services. I don’t blame them for promoting their services and I don’t claim to know how good they all were. There had been this figure of 30% click fraud bandied around as an industry norm. I have not seen this in the few accounts I have access to but I am not in a position to guess what it might be.

The Google report on third-party click fraud auditing is critical of poorly substantiated estimates of click fraud. Quote:

Over the last year, these estimates have received widespread media coverage. A different kind of report (from Outsell, Inc.) has also been widely cited for estimating the scope of the problem. But in fact that report did not measure click fraud ? it was an opinion survey of advertisers asking them to guess at the extent of the problem. Thus the report?’s conclusions about the percentage of fraud and financial loss for the industry are essentially a poll of the perception of the size of the problem (with the backdrop of the previous coverage of high estimates) rather than actual size of the problem. This is analogous to estimating crime rates in a country by asking some residents how much crime they think there is, and averaging those guesses to state that number is the actual rate.

The main problem seems to be fictitious clicks of two kinds:

    • Fictitious clicks due to detection of page reloads as ad clicks.

 

  • Fictitious clicks due to conflation across advertisers and ad networks.

The page-reloading behaviour problem is handled very nicely by Visitlab (now defunct). Their reporting shows a visitor’s path through the site and shows the initial paid click and subsequent traversals of the same page as internal clicks. A poorly designed click fraud detection mechanism might show each reload as a separate click.


In the early days of Visitlab, such clicks showed as multiple (suspicious) clicks but no more.

I have not seen the second kind of problem, where each click goes through a third party audit service and clicks within the site are counted, as are clicks arising on another advertiser service such as Overture/Yahoo.

IAB announces the formation of industry-wide Click Measurement Working Group

Reading Time: < 1 minute

It is heartening to read about the formation of a working group comprising the major PPC ad companies including Ask.com, Google, LookSmart, Microsoft and Yahoo!. They will initially define Click Measurement Guidelines, thereby defining a click.

Although this is a start, I’d like to see a consortium of such companies team up with other major web sites such as Amazon and eBay to develop what I loosely refer to as an “IP address score”. It would be a multidimensional, not flat numeric, score, and be available to consortium members to use as an additional input to their own proprietary click quality algorithms. It could have other uses outside this click fraud space.

Mastodon