Google ad push spurs action reaction

In a move that has shaken up parts of the Web advertising world, Google announced Tuesday that it would begin testing a new ad program that lets advertisers pay only when consumers take action, whether it's making a purchase, signing up for a newsletter or performing some other predetermined task.

The Pay-Per Action test is a step away from cost-per-click ads, where advertisers pay when a reader clicks on an ad and is delivered to an advertiser's site.

The change is designed to weed out fraudulent clicks generated by people paid to click ads over and over or through automated software programs.

Bloggers predicted the move would hurt affiliate networks, which manage customized networks of Web publishers and advertisers. And some wondered whether the push to make consumers take action could end up backfiring.

Blog community response:

"Look for serious publisher leakage from the big affiliate networks over time as this new product scales up. If you want to argue this point, note what happened to the stock price of Commission Junction's parent company, ValueClick, today. And that's even though the market has largely adjusted for this news already--this move to add PPA ads has been rumored for some time."
--TechCrunch

"To me, it sounds like a clear threat to the likes of Commission Junction or LinkShare--or any other affiliate marketing network. Google, for all intents and purposes, has just entered the affiliate marketing arena, with the battle cry that they can do affiliate marketing better than the affiliate networks can."
--Marketing Pilgrim

"With cost-per-click ads, spammers create bogus pages where confused consumers click on ads in an effort to escape. But with CPA ads, clicking is not enough. The game is now to manipulate consumers not only to click, but to take some further action. And I don't use the word 'manipulate' arbitrarily. This is about turning the web into one big pile of junk mail, aimed at getting you to sign up, buy, or commit to something that you hadn't necessarily wanted."
--Publishing 2.0