April 10, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

Google settlement or not, click fraud won't go away

With a planned $90 million settlement, Google could soon dispense with a class-action lawsuit involving so-called click fraud.

But while that may be good for Google, it doesn't mean the problem of bogus clicks on online ads--which advertisers have to pay for--is going to disappear anytime soon. A lack of clear standards for determining what is a fraudulent click, or some sort of third-party clearinghouse to monitor the situation, means some advertisers believe they can't do much more than head to the courts when they think there's a problem.

Certainly, Google and Yahoo, which run the two largest pay-per-click advertising networks, say they're addressing the problem. But some click auditing companies still claim that between 20 percent and 35 percent of clicks on Net advertisements are fraudulent.

"The proof will really be in the pudding going forward," Danny Sullivan, editor of Search Engine Watch said last week. "If this lawsuit gets settled and people six months later still feel like Google is charging them for fraudulent clicks on ads, there could be another lawsuit."

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer. Some experts say the solution is to have an independent auditor that would use data from the search engines and advertisers to determine in a neutral environment whether clicks are fraudulent.

Google and Yahoo, however, appear reluctant to embrace that idea. Google, which makes 99 percent of its revenue off ads on search results and partner publisher sites, says it doesn't want to give up data that rivals could use to improve their business. "Detecting invalid clicks accurately is a competitive advantage and differentiator, and as such, we compete with Yahoo and others to provide the best detection possible," said Shuman Ghosemajumder, business product manager for trust and safety at Google.

A Yahoo representative said in an e-mail: "We're open to coordinating with third parties as long as they truly understand the intricacies of the search advertising space, but feel that it's more important right now for the industry to establish some standards around how to measure click fraud."

What Yahoo and Google think about the issue is critical, because they're the primary networks for online ads. Marketers can bid on keywords that will appear on search results pages through Google's AdWords and Yahoo's Search Marketing programs. Google AdSense and the Yahoo Publisher Network allow marketers to advertise on Web sites that contain content related to the ads. Advertising on America Online's network is powered by Google. Yahoo powers search advertising on MSN, and MSN is launching its own contextual ad network with publisher sites.

Click fraud can occur in several situations. Sometimes, a company clicks on a rival's ads in an effort to deplete the rival's online advertising budget. But usually, it's due to Web site owners clicking on ads on their own sites to drive up revenue. Click fraudsters can either pay people to click on ads for hours in so-called "click farms;" use "clickbots," software programs written to automate the ad clicking; or "botnets" that hijack numerous machines for that purpose.

There is no way to tell for certain how big the problem is, because search engines refuse to provide any statistics or data. They simply say that they have systems to detect the majority of fraudulent clicks and that they credit or reimburse advertisers who are charged for bad clicks that somehow slip through the filtering software cracks.

The perception among advertisers, however, is that it's a growing problem. A study released in February by the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization found that the number of online advertisers and search engine marketing companies that believe click fraud is a serious issue has tripled in the past year to 16 percent.

Despite those figures, click fraud is not deterring spending on search marketing, which JupiterResearch predicts will rise from $4.2 billion in 2005 to $7.5 billion in 2010.

With that much money at stake, it shouldn't be a surprise that advertisers are looking to companies such as the click audit firm Alchemist Media and credit card transaction auditor Fair Isaac, which are studying the pay-per-click (PPC) market.

"Many advertisers are just at the beginning stages of looking at their traffic data," said Alchemist Media president Jessie Stricchiola. "They don't know how big of a problem it is. They are just relying on the reports search engines send them, even though the search engines don't have access to post-click data" such as purchases.

Google said it gets post-click information, including conversion data, from thousands of advertisers.

Google last month announced the proposed settlement to a lawsuit filed a year earlier in Arkansas by Lane's Gifts and Collectibles and Caulfield Investigations. Google is offering advertising credits to customers who say they were not reimbursed for invalid clicks on their ads, with a cap on expenses of $90 million. It is unclear when the court will rule on the settlement. Meanwhile, the case is still pending against Yahoo and several smaller search companies.

See more CNET content tagged:
click fraud, advertiser, settlement, online advertising, Internet search advertising

5 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Akin to magazine circulation fraud
Lot of parallels here with why the <a href="http://www.memwg.com/blog/adsense/Click-fraud-akin-to-inflated-magazine-circulation.html">Audit Bureau of Circulations</a> was created. Google and Yahoo will resist exposing any of their data, but if forced to they may try a self-regulated route like the ABC.
Posted by Eric Giguere (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's been over ten years ...
There has been click, impression, and other types of Internet ad-related fraud for over ten years now. I think it is time that the method of charging per click, or "impression" (ad requested from web server or rendered in web browser) is closely examined. IMO, the anonymous nature of Internet use makes it difficult to construct strong tracking mechanisms that will reliably and robustly identify and reduce click fraud.
Posted by CPCcurmudgeon (51 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So what's the problem?
&gt;&gt;&gt;A lack of clear standards for determining what is a fraudulent click, or some sort of third-party clearinghouse to monitor the situation, means some advertisers believe they can't do much more than head to the courts when they think there's a problem.&lt;&lt;&lt;

With all of the millions of lawyers we have in the US today... you mean to tell me that there isn't even ONE who can define fraudlent click?

ALL non-validatable clicks (validatable via VeriSign or some other credible source) ARE invalid.

Require them to validate clicks using irrefutable means and that will solve the problem.

So what's the problem?

Walt
Posted by wbenton (522 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Click fraud services
With something like www.clickprotector.com you can nail offenders and get your money back!
Posted by kintax (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Click fraud services
With something like www.clickprotector.com you can nail offenders and get your money back! I use it on two of my sites, and while i havent found any fraud yet, it's kinda like good piece of mind to know that there's a service that is watchdogging your clicks. now what to do about impression fraud... lol
Posted by kintax (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.