Shuman pooh poohed the methodology used by Outsell in coming up with its figures, claiming that the 407 companies simply gave a guesstimate of the figure. During an interview with Gord Hotchkiss, he said that "it's like asking a random group of people what they estimate the average salary in the US to be, ....when they don't even know how much their own salary is." Obviously Google is seeking to redress the damage done by Outsell's report.
Ghosemajumdar made a clear distinction between invalid clicks and click fraud, stating that not all invalid clicks are fraudulent clicks. He noted also that even for fraudulent clicks, not all of them are passed to the advertiser (according to Shuman, only a "negligible single digit number" is passed on). Fraud is only perpetrated when damage is done; in other words, it is when the fraud is actually done to the advertisers that it is click fraud. I infer that what Shuman means is that maybe Outsell's figures are inflated because they consist of discovered fraud attempts and invalid clicks, which are then added up and marked to reflect suspected fraudulent clicks that got through.
According to Shuman, Google claims that no advertiser is charged with a significant percentage of invalid clicks, and over at Webmaster World forums, marketers agree that reported cases are quickly dealt with and money paid back into accounts if a case is opened. Ghosemajumdar also insists that some (in fact most according to the Venn diagram) invalid clicks are benign clicks (not fraudulent) which occur when a user goes back and forth between an ad page and the ad landing page.
Invalid clicks make up less than ten percent of all clicks according to the Google manager; the percentage that filters through to the advertisers is less than two percent (again according to the Google manager). Gord Hotchkiss and Andy Beal agree with this figure. No other statistics were given except for the figures quoted by Shuman Ghosemajumdar.
收藏
推荐
评论(0条)