The biggest one is that the search engines can not possibly know the overall trends and analytics of the advertiser's site. A good analytics package would be able to provide the statistics which show the optimal path to conversion, places where abandonment may happen, the average time taken reading the “top” pages etc. This is the “signature” may very well include time spent on the path, conversion, on site search etc. of a genuine client. Basically, the serious visitor has a certain pattern which a malicious user or a bot would not be able to simulate. Similarly, for a certain site, the fraudsters too have their own “signature”(i.e. a statistical pattern). When making a decision whether a certain visitor is a likely fraudster, one of the techniques used is to match against the “genuine” signature and then against that of “fraudster”. The search engines don't have access to this data(since they are unable to track visitors once the visitor click), while a good click fraud detection software or service has access and is able to do such detection.

Furthermore, the search engines can't track traffic from multiple search engines belonging to same network(a favorite of the “classic” competitor click fraud). For instance, Overture network is composed of Lycos, MSN and Alta Vista. The click fraud artist could potentially click on an ad using Lycos, move to MSN and then Alta Vista clicking on the same ad. Overture/Yahoo will not mark/catch the perpetrator. It's even worse when the ad is displayed across Google and Overture! It is possible that the situation will be exacerbated when the upcoming Yahoo “Publisher” program(the equivalent of Google Adsense) goes mainstream. However, a dedicated click fraud detection effort, if based on rigorous analytics, website statistics and software pattern matching should have no problem nailing these guys.

Lastly, some efforts need to be done with customized reporting, when the pattern of abuse is more complicated. The search engines don't have the resources(or interest) to drill deep into the analytics data and audit individual advertisers website stats. However, they will consider refunds if presented with detailed and convincing data. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Google is the tightest with AdWords fraud refunds, while Overture(Yahoo) is somewhat more liberal. Naturally, you would want to present yourself as a competent, organized person or organization when applying for refund. The arguments need to be backed up with statistics and actual events to be credible. If you are a regular PPC customer, you have the unfortunate task of defending what's rightfully yours from the click fraud artists. This can be done with the help of expertise for auditing and reporting click-fraud developed in-house or by outsourcing to an analytics based click fraud detection company.

The FTC has been cracking down on the consumer fraud and the fraudsters, by increasing resources to track down and prosecute the “fishers”, the “investment schemes” and the “real estate opportunity” guys. However, Eileen Harrington, director of marketing opportunities has declined to deem “click fraud” as something that directly affects the consumer. Therefore, the FTC does not want to tackle the click fraud. The search engines too are unable to fully detect fraud, due to the reasons described above. One wonders who is there to look after the best interests of an advertiser trying to make it on the web and getting cheated by fraudsters. Given the PPC fraud rate, the advertiser has to really question her conversion numbers. Is that conversion ratio of 1% really natural, or could it be higher if the fraudsters are excluded from the traffic, and the money wasted on them refunded.

Page 3 of 3 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 | Next