search marketing blog: ambergreen

New figures from ClickForensics have shown that click fraud continued to rise in the last quarter of 2006, with the highest level all year being recorded.

The Click Fraud Index figures imply that the average click fraud rate was 14.2%, compared with 13.7%, 14.1% and 13.8% for the previous quarters respectively,

The report also found that the average click fraud rate of PPC ads appearing on content networks was 19.2% for Q4.

However, Google isn’t exactly in agreement, claiming that the actual click fraud rate is lower than 2%.

Shuman Ghosemajumder, business product manager for Trust & Safety at Google, hit back on his personal blog, saying that the data was: “not at all representative of the actual statistics of our network.”

Ghosemajumder points out problems in the ClickForensics methodology, saying that Google had found serious flaws in their counting process, and that the “source of this problem is incorrectly counting page views – from users browsing through an advertiser’s site – as clicks.”

I think we can leave them to fight it out…

Microsoft hosted an adCenter Labs event last week which saw a few hundred advertisers treated to a viewing of the latest updates and innovations to the adCenter advertising platform. Microsoft was keen to demonstrate it’s latest adLabs projects prior to the adCenter release expected in the next few months, which is set to include a pilot release of Microsoft Content Ads, the new contextually-targeted ad program that shows text ads on Microsoft-owned sites.

Future projects currently being researched by adLabs were demonstrated, with keyword optimization, video display ads, and consumer orientation emerging as the key focus for development.

Kevin Newcombe was lucky enough to get a sneak preview of Microsoft’s developments which he reviews over at SearchEngineWatch

Microsoft is offering a webcast on adCenter and the tools that it provides to help target the right audiences by demographics.  The adCenter webcast will discuss the system and related tools and offer case studies and demonstrations designed to focus on improving ROI. 

To be broadcast on Wednesday 17^th Jan 8:30 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) – sign up here.

Google has started embedding adverts within clips on the Google Video upload sites.  Featuring an “Ads by Google” message, this is believed to be the first demonstration of Google’s ‘click to play’ ads programme which sees publishers taking a share of the revenue when the video is played off site.

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has not yet displayed any evidence of use of embedded ads, although the site recently advertised vacancies for sales executives.

The old debate over trademarked PPC terms continues, with a US court ruling that ““The court holds that, as a matter of law, the use of keyword-triggered ads and keyword metatags cannot confuse consumers if the resulting ads/search results don’t display the plaintiff’s trademarks”.

Eric Goldman has written an analysis of the ruling on his marketing and technology blog.  While trademark law is supposed to avoid consumer confusion, this debate seems that it may rumble on for some time.  Although this ruling found that simply buying a text ad based on a  competitor’s keyword is not a violation, buying an ad containing a trademarked term may be different a matter. 

At this point at least it seems that the law holds the same views as Google.

Miva’s six year partnership with Yahoo! will come to an end as of 27 January, when a new affiliation with Google will start.  SEC papers filed on Wednesday indicate that Yahoo!’s loss is Google’s gain as Miva moves to use Google’s search and AdSense services on websites and applications.

The two year deal sees Miva move to capture Google’s advertising network which has many more advertisers and greater coverage than Yahoo! 

Google’s Adwords team is always fielding questions regarding trademarks and how trademarked terms are handled, and it’s something that we here at ambergreen are constantly dealing with too.  Now over at Inside Adwords they have attempted to tackle questions asked by trademark owners and advertisers trying to use their trademarks in ads or keyword lists.

In the first part of a two part series, some common questions asked by trademark owners are addressed, including how to prevent unauthorised advertisers from using trademarked terms in their ads, plus how to add authorised trademark users. 

Following yesterday’s report on click fraud with Google’s business product manager for trust and safety, Shuman Ghosemajumder, talking to Andy Beal of MarketingPilgrim.com, Ghosemajumder has posted on his blog to clarify his comments and add more information.

It seems that, according to Ghosemajumder, there was a level of misunderstanding and, “I never said that our click fraud rate is less than 2%.

Instead, what I said is that the quantity of invalid clicks which we detect as a result of reactive investigations is a “negligible proportion” of the total number of invalid clicks. Andy asked me if that percentage is less than 2%. I told him that I was not able to provide a bound, but yes, “negligible”

MarketingPilgrim.com recently managed to have a conversation with Google’s business product manager for trust and safety, Shuman Ghosemajumder, on the subject of click fraud. Ghosemajumder told the site that invalid clicks at Google was “on average is in the single digits, quarter over quarter.”

Then rather surprisingly they managed to get some real Google info on what the issue really looks like from the inside.Showing the site’s Andy Beal an apparently ‘for Google eyes only’ presentation at the recent SES, Ghosemajumder showed how Google determine which clicks are fraudulent, using a four-stage identification and filtering process.

It makes interesting reading and shows that not only are Google apparently becoming a little more transparent, but that they are also becoming increasingly fed up of the speculation which has put figures as high as 30% in some cases.

A forum thread over at WebmasterWorld has seen discussions going on round alleged automated cold calls from Google Chicago about buying Adwords ads.

Moderator werty is a pretty legitimate source for this type of information which makes it interesting, albeit quite shocking. Werty told the forum that;

“I looked around and did not see anything on this, but yesterday my phone rang twice with “Google” on the caller ID.

I pick up the phone and the message was slightly cut off the first time:

“Please press 1 if you spend less than $5000 per month, Please press 2 if you have the budget to spend $5000 or more per month and are interested in our Premium Services. Please press 3 if you are interested in job opportunities.”

I hit 2 and am taken to a voicemail box. Hit zero to speak to an operator, and I am transferred to the Google Chicago office and leave a voicemail.

Less than 5 minutes later the phone rings again, Google on the caller id. Same message. This time I hit 2 and leave a voicemail. “

Are you surprised that the US Adwords team seems to be moving in this direction and what might it mean for agencies such as ambergreen?