My company’s revenue is highly dependent on managing cost-per-click (CCP) campaigns for multiple SMEs, and as such, the problem with CCP fraud is one that we take with the utmost seriousness. How many potential clients are scared off by the mere mention of the word when it comes to this form of advertising? This form of marketing remains one of the most cost effective and certainly the most transparent throughout the entire marketing spectrum, and it is a shame when an SME declines to be part of the program due to these rumours.

So now you know my point of view in this issue: and I have told you right away so that I might avoid any accusations of bias as you read my article. My company is an agency that specialises in online marketing, and CCP is a very important part of our business.

Overture have defined fraud as: “clicks arising for reasons other than the good faith intention of an Internet user to visit a web site to purchase goods or services or to obtain information.” Google also have there own definition: “invalid clicks, as any method used to artificially and/or maliciously generate clicks or page impressions.” Such a problem can put off potential clients from the very outset; some are afraid that some malicious tyke will force them to increase their ad-spend by clicking on their sponsored links, others are reluctant to hand over control to a third party who would have the ability to manipulate the results and the click-through rate.

What then, can be done to reassure the industry and maintain the honesty that is necessary for CCP campaigners to flourish?

The first thing is simple security: Google and Overture have their own systems that they use to track CCP adverts, and they employ complex algorithms to identify any untoward behaviour. Overture collects information about every click for example, storing the IP addresses in order to identify repeat offenders, whilst Google employs technology that will identify any automated attempt (or hitbots) at driving up a company’s ad-spend.

Indeed, if Google does discover this invalid clicking, then the advertiser can be credited for the loss, and they have stated their commitment to reimburse, possibly retrospectively, any company that falls victim to this malicious practice.

But there is a certain cause for rejoicing in the industry however: for recently there has been a surge of interest in CCP fraud that can only be a good thing. Awareness of a problem is the first step to finding a solution. However, is this enough to reassure clients?

At Babel, we are frequently asked about the possibility of CCP fraud and its affects on the campaigns we run. The first thing we inform our clients is what I have briefly touched upon so far – that the search engines and providers are aware of the problem and do have instruments and, more importantly, the will to do something about it. The next step is to limit the ad-spend of those clients to a certain amount so that if they do fall victim to the fraudsters, then their bills will be negligible.

It is also important to note that we do not use ‘third party CCP campaigns’ where some unscrupulous webmasters have been known to use fraudulent clicks on context sensitive adverts in order to increase their own commission.

But all these devices are not a solution to the problem; rather they are forms, at best, of damage limitation that are still an inconvenience to us all. But is there a solution to this global problem?

At present the industry is aware of the fraudsters, and some have been uncovered and suitably fined for their misdemeanours, yet you can be absolutely certain that Google and Overture are not standing still with regard to this problem – and it is my belief that big-time, organised fraud is on the wane, for the technology to uncover it, and the will to prosecute, is here. Fraudsters, you have been warned!

Tom Church, MA.
Director, Babel Interactive Ltd.