Archive for the 'Click Fraud' Category

Google’s Slow March into the CPA Game

Monday, March 26th, 2007

Much has already been written about Google’s news last week that they are opening up “Pay Per Action” advertising opportunities within their AdSense network (Google Post here).  After digesting the news and the blogosphere discussion, I have the following observations:

This Won’t Change the World Overnight

  • Google has a huge cash cow to protect in its Cost Per Click revenue model.  But CPC advertising suffers from some growing problems (e.g., click fraud and search engine spam that will ultimately diminish its power)   Thus, Google is forced to move towards CPA advertising (which helps eliminate these problems), but I’m sure that Google’s moves will be slow and methodical.  This news is a case in point: the new CPA system is being rolled out in beta and is limited to its AdSense network of third party publisher sites (where click fraud and spam are at their worst).  But how quickly will advertisers, and most importantly third party publishers, move towards the model?
  • Bad actors in the Adsense system are not going to adopt CPA unless there is an equal opportunity to defraud the CPA model within AdSense.  If a publisher has built a network of click optimized sites, or developed click fraud practices that allow it to fly under the radar, I doubt that that publisher is going to jump at the Google CPA option.  A number of comments in the TechCrunch post highlight the fact that Google’s CPA system will allow a number of different kind of actions short of an actual sale that might create new kinds of “Action Fraud.”  So if the scammers do move over, it won’t help advertisers or consumers.  This is just one reason why Google is also pushing its Checkout product to control the shopping cart and measure conversions with precision. 
  • Legitimate third party publishers are being asked by Google to assume a significant amount of additional risk.  With CPC, publishers control the revenue generating activity (the click) on their own site; with CPA, that activity moves over to the end advertiser.  For publishers to jump in, they are going to have to see significantly higher advertising rates and a highly integrated relationship between advertiser and publisher that helps the publisher qualify traffic for conversions.  Google’s CPC system has thrived on a low touch, automated system.  Again, several of the TechCrunch post comments highlight this disconnect.  Google will need a long term, sustained effort to convince publishers that this added risk is worth it.  I suspect this will take several years.      

Google’s CPA System Will Create Some Benefits for Advertisers and Consumers

  • Jellyfish was the first comparison shopping engine to adopt a 100% Cost Per Action ad model, so we are happy to see a giant like Google help to push mainstream adoption of CPA.  As Google’s CPA system gains traction with legitimate publishers, the scam publishers may start to be isolated in the CPC system.  If this happens, Google’s AdSense model may reach a tipping point where CPC rates start to drop because the quality publishers are no longer subsidizing the scammers.  This will help make the Internet a better place (To this point I disagree with Scott Karp’s conclusion that Google’s CPA network will create direct response hell online.  It is easy to dupe users into clicking on things, you have to deliver value to them to get them to sign up for a service, order a product, etc.)   

Consumers Still Aren’t Getting the Full Value of their Attention with Traditional CPA

  • This is why Google’s news ultimately lands with a thud.  If we assume Google is wildly successful with their CPA model, it may help elimiate the search engine spam and click optimized sites that frustrate untold online consumers.  This is a good thing for consumers but it doesn’t go nearly far enough to deliver consumers the true value of their attention online (see my post on Buying Attention here).  At Jellyfish we take Cost Per Action one step further to create Value Per Action, which directly rewards consumers for making purchase decisions on our site.  In the Jellyfish VPA model, as advertisers bid higher and higher rates to reach buying consumers, the end consumers share directly in that competition for their attention through greater savings.  This won’t happen in Google’s CPA system.  As advertisers compete for CPA opportunities and bid up CPA rates, Google and third party publishers will make more money, but the end consumer will still be completely disconnected from this significant value creation.  Ultimately, this makes Google’s CPA moves of marginal benefit to online consumers.           

The Gross National Click (GNC) Versus the Gross National Product (GNP)

Monday, August 21st, 2006

I’m sure you’re familar with the Gross National Product, that all important measure of the value of goods and services produced in an economy.  But how important is the GNP in today’s online economy?  I’d argue that the Internet is running a bit fast and loose, somewhat unconnected from the realities of the GNP and its focus on the actual sale of goods and services. 

So you may be asking, if web sites aren’t measuring the sale of goods and services online, just what are they measuring?  The focus today, thanks to the remarkable success of Google and the Pay Per Click ad model, is on the click.       

Selling clicks is big business online.  A USAToday article titled “Google Search Ads find momentum” provides a great snapshot of this click selling bonanza and how Google Adsense has allowed millions of sites across the Internet to get into business of producing and selling clicks.  Citing figures showing the click market growing to over $20 billion, the article states pointedly, ”No wonder people are celebrating.” 

But how long will the party last?  The Pay Per Click model certainly advanced advertising by aligning it to a measurable action (the click), but how long will people be able to get by selling clicks without worrying much about whether the clicks they produce are actually converting to the sale of real products or services?  In otherwords, can the Gross National Click exist outside of the Gross National Product?  Will economics textbooks in the future replace their “Widget factory” hypo’s with ”Click factories”?  I don’t think so.          

At Jellyfish, we believe that the Internet is rapidly moving from a click-based economy to a conversion-based economy.  Five years from now, we will look back at this time as the zenith of the Gross National Click (GNC) economy online.  Google moved advertising from impressions to clicks, but at the end of the day it is the sale of goods and services that makes the world go around.  And the Internet makes it possible to create a new, more accountable kind of advertising that is directly tied to the GNP, and not just the click.  

Let’s look at some of the cracks in the wall that will ultimately bring down the Gross National Click (GNC) economy.  

Click Fraud.  Click fraud is quickly coming to the forefront as THE major threat to the GNC economy.  Lawsuits and studies estimating the size of the problem have the search engines on the offensive, but I’ve yet to hear anyway to effectively solve the problem in the Pay Per Click system.  The engines may play a cat and mouse game with the fraudsters, but the problem won’t disappear.  A recent article in Business Week sums this up nicely. 

Syndicating Clicks.  The syndication of click selling through programs like Google Adsense provide major fuel to the click fraud problem, unleashing armies of website owners with a financial incentive to join in click fraud.  But just as importantly, the sydication of the Pay Per Click system has also created a kind of black hole of sites that may not engage in fraud, but still have no direct incentive to drive sales for advertisers and are not held accountable if their sites don’t drive sales.  The Made For Adsense sites that do the minimum amount to create a click-selling site are the obvious example:

adsenseready.JPG

Adsense has created a financial model for these sites to work and remain almost completely unaccountable to advertisers.  And the more this occurs, the more of a threat we see for the Gross National Click economy. 

 

  

          

   

Spreading the Jelly(fish)

Thursday, July 6th, 2006

It has been just over a week since the Beta launch of Jellyfish.com was announced in the Wall Street Journal and we’ve been extremely pleased with the great coverage and feedback we’ve received to date. You can review a summary of some of the Jellyfish media coverage here.

Many of the articles and blog posts highlighted the great potential of Value Per Action (VPA) Search Advertising to be a major disruptor to the Pay Per Click model. This was an important goal of our beta launch: get people talking about VPA and thinking about better ways to connect buyers and sellers online.

Our mission at Jellyfish is to bring consumers directly into the value created by the advertising auction for their buying attention, and many of the articles and posts recognized the huge potential this represents. I think Aneil Weber summed this up nicely with the following comments on Jellyfish:

This is the model that brings the buyers interest into the equation. Basically, by altering the commission to Jellyfish, retailers are essentially “bidding” for our business. Jellyfish makes it really easy to figure out which retailer is the cheapest based upon price and commission pay out. Instead of just bidding to get in front of our eyes, these retailers are bidding for our actual business via virtual negotiation.

This is the power we see in our VPA search advertising; the consumer directly benefits in lower pricing through a behind-the-scenes advertising auction that is risk free to retailers. With today’s report that advertisers are reducing spending because of PPC click fraud, this couldn’t be more timely in my opinion.

I also wanted to highlight and respond to some of the negative feedback and challenges to the Jellyfish model we’ve seen.

  1. Cash back isn’t new, you guys aren’t anything revolutionary. I agree that cash back, deal sites, coupons, etc. have been around for some time. And we’ve never claimed at Jellyfish that the concept of cash back (ala eBates or FatWallet) is something we’ve invented. It isn’t. What we are trying to do is MUCH different and more radical than a simple cash back site that contains a directory of links to stores and static cash back percentages. The critical difference in the Jellyfish model is that we’ve incorporated cash back into a dynamic search marketplace, where stores compete for attention at a product level using cash back in much the same way they bid for attention at the Pay Per Click engines like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft. Google started its PPC auction at .01/click and many of the keywords are orders of magnitude more expensive now. As that competition happens at Jellyfish, consumers will share at least 50% of the gains. This is much different than simple cash back affiliate marketing.
  2. Your Search Functionality isn’t Great and You Have Limited Products.As I mentioned in my VPA post announcing Jellyfish, we wanted to be first to market with this concept and we made the decision (like many companies) to launch in beta with limited search functionality and products. I’ll continue to keep you updated on our progress, but we’ve already made substantial changes to our search features and are adding new products on a daily basis.
  3. The Savings Aren’t That Substantial. See my answer to number 1. The bidding has just started. I’m very excited to see what retailers that are pulling back on their PPC advertising will do in our risk free channel.
  4. Paying People is a Gimmick. People comparision shop online in large part to compare prices and find the best value. I personally don’t think that creating an advertising model that automatically lowers prices vis a vis other shopping search engines is a gimmick.
  5. Retailers will Just Jack Up Their Prices and Commission Levels. I’ve seen this several times in blog comments, but this really isn’t possible. We sort results by net price which factors in both the store price and the total cost after our cash back. Thus, the old method of “let’s raise our prices and constantly kick out coupons” won’t work on Jellyfish. This is yet another difference from a simple cash back site.
  6. Google, et al. will Copy You. Not necessarily a bad thing :-) I agree with Om Malik that Google Checkout is simply Google’s first step to CPA, but I think changing how your company makes money is something that none of the major engines is going to do overnight and certainly not because of a start up like Jellyfish.
  7. People are Lazy and You Won’t be able to Curb their Habits. This is our key challenge in my humble opinion. We are banking on the fact that when you have your credit card in your hand online, you are going to think of Jellyfish and wonder “why would I buy anywhere else?” But you’re right, Mr. Naysayer, without lots of people buying, Jellyfish will never reach the game changing status we hope to attain. I’ll certainly keep you updated on our progress.

Will Click Fraud Settlement Unravel?

Monday, May 8th, 2006

Google’s recent $90 million click fraud settlement has led to an increased level of discussion about the fraud problem inherent in PPC advertising.

Now comes the inevitable rumbling over whether the settlement will be approved by the affected advertisers and ultimately, the judge in the case.

Michael Liedtke at the AP started tracking these developments yesterday in his piece “Click Fraud Concerns Hound Google.

Click Fraud’s Evil Twin

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

The Washington Post reports that a new PPC fraud lawsuit has been filed this week against Yahoo. Interestingly, the complaint cites a new flavor of click fraud (called “Syndication Fraud” in the suit) that involves Yahoo’s alleged partnership with spyware companies and typosquatters to unjustly drive up click revenues. One of the attorneys in the case, Ben Edelman, highlighted these practices here.

The complaint cites a classic example at www.expedai.com of how typosquatters are partnering with Yahoo, using its syndicated PPC advertising as a tool to collect click tolls from unsuspecting users who type in a wrong address. In the example cited, Expedia’s own PPC ad is included and I’m sure lots of vistors click on this Expedia ad without realizing their poor spelling just cost Expedia $. What a waste.

Lawsuits like this will raise awareness, but until we change the underlying PPC system to add transparency (so users understand when they click on the Expedia link they just charged them a fee) or better yet align the underlying incentives between advertiser and intermediary, these practices will continue.

Parked Domains–Google’s Army of Cheesy Salespeople

Monday, May 1st, 2006

The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal just covered the parked domains problem. We highlighted Google in our title, but both Google’s Adsense and Yahoo’s syndicated advertising program are fueling the domain name speculation market, giving the speculators a powerful new way to earn rents on their .com property.

We think this activity (for example cellphoneplans.com or hotmial.com) is bad for consumers, cheapens the Internet experience, and doesn’t do credit to the web’s vast potential for connecting buyers and sellers. Posts at Google Blogoscoped and Threadwatch tend to agree. In reality, these parked domain sites are just a very basic collection of paid links that create an unfocused user experience and rack up millions (soon to be billions) of dollars of fees for the search engines and the domain speculators, all at advertiser expense.

(more…)