RSSGoogle Tests Cost-Per-Action Ads
By Ed Oswald | Published June 22, 2006, 3:48 PM
In an attempt to protect its advertising partners from click fraud, Google is testing a new type of online ad that would only charge the advertiser when a user performs a certain action. This would assure advertisers that they are getting a return on their investment, while weeding out false clicks.
Click fraud occurs when a person displaying advertising on their pages either manually or automatically clicks a link repeatedly in order to generate revenue. The advertiser is then forced to pay for these false leads.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company has been testing out the new system with a small group of advertisers, which has been expanded as the test continues. The new program is apparently not intended to replace the pay-per-click system; rather, it would be offered as a separate option.
Its likely that the new ad type would sell at a higher price than the traditional ads, as it would take more impressions to create a chargeable click. However, it also poses the risk that as more companies transition to the new system, ad revenues at Google could fall as a result.
Google does stand to benefit from the switch. The company has already been the focus of a "click fraud" lawsuit, which it attempted to settle in March of this year. Showing its detractors that it is addressing the problem could ward off future lawsuits.
Also, in separate news, Google announced a partnership with Adobe to bundle the Google Toolbar with some Adobe products. Details on the agreement were scant, and the exact time frame and financial terms not disclosed.
Initially, the Google Toolbar will be shipped with Adobe's Macromedia Shockwave product.
This might not be such a big help detering click fraud if they won't be phasing out AdSense and if the PPA model is more costly.
Score: 0
|i never never never click on ads, it was not till i added ads to my own blog that i even started noticing ads on sites anyways. internet serfers have conditiond themself to be blind to ads, and when a add bliks to much we all move away from that page.
Score: 0
|Even pirates like click fraud i know there have been cases where if you want the password for the rar file go to their web site and start clicking links with the password hidden behind one of them.
Score: 0
|Firefox + AdBlock + FiltersetG AdBlock Updater = I don't view internet ads at all really. I hate advertising in any form, but most definitely the net since I use it for productivity. I don't need a 4 inch flash ad in the middle of an article I'm reading that has no relevance at all to the topic.
Score: 0
|Well, google ads tend not to be flash, and are usually relevant to what you're reading.. plus do you not realise that more of the sites you read that have ads, need them to stay afloat? How would you feel if all these resources just vanished? (ps not just directed at you.. seems the attitude of most people!)
Score: 0
|Let them use text ads - these are the only ads on the net that don't make my blood boil, the only ones I can't be bothered to block. If sites are going to engage ad partners who provide distracting, horrendous ads that are so irksome you cannot even read the article, they can hardly wonder that people jump at the chance to block them. Crucial (RAM memory, etc)are particularly heinous offenders in this regard.
PS Is it true Betanews has ads too? ;)
Score: 0
|PS Is it true Betanews has ads too? ;)
lmao...
Account deletion in 5....4....3...
Score: 0
|This goes to the core of the real issue which is, what's the actual VALUE of a site? I find betanews vaguely useful to keep up new software but I block all the ads. I also block all the ads at the NY Times and at the Wall St. Journal. The last however requires a paid subscription which I willingly pay because I find the information useful, well presented and organized.
But news sites (and software announcement sites) are a dime (a penny?) a dozen - there are too many of them, mostly doing the same thing. If sites need advertising to stay afloat, well, perhaps they shouldn't be staying afloat! If something has value such that people want it, then it's worth paying for (by definition). If BetaNews goes away, I'll find something else. If BetaNews decides to charge a subscription, I'll consider rationally whether it's worth paying for the subscription. In the mean time, my own time has value (at least to me!) and I choose not to waste it by being distracted (even for a moment) with ads.
By the way, note that this argument applies equally well to music, another place where silly args abound. If music has value to you, then it's worth paying for it - if the source charges more than you think it's worth, then don't buy it and don't steal it - then the record companies can't make the argument that they're losing sales through piracy and will simply have to recognize that for the most part, what they're selling is too expensive and/or people don't want most it because it's rubblish.
Just my two cents. Feel quite free to ignore this rant if you don't think it has value to you :-)
--->do you not realise that more of the sites you read that have ads, need them to stay afloat
Score: 0
|ad never bother me when they first apply in the internet, and now they cover more than half of the webpage. I just install adblock and filterset g to block most of them.
Score: 0
|I never click on ads because they usually cause me to be bombarded with more. If I see something on an ad I want to look at, I do a google or some other search for it. I NEVER, NEVER click on the ads. Why? Because I hate web advertising. To me every one of them are spyware, as they are all "controlled" by those trackers, AKA doubleclick.net, pointroll.com, advertising.com, smarttargeting.com/.net, etc. Those are all tracked by those wonderful tracking cookies, and those companies don't deserve a penny from me. I will block them from my browser until the day I die. They can rot and go hungry for all I care. I hate them because they always seem to have ties with spyware vendors. It's the computer terrorist network.
Yeah, I'm getting a little--extreme here, but they bug the living ^%&% outta me. I want to spend less time on betanews too as they keep adding more and more tracking cookies. It's that bad. Yes, I know BN 'has' to do it, I know web servers don't grow on trees. I don't have a solution for them. I only know I will do everything I can to NOT support the aggressive online advertisers, as it only encourages them to screw me with more spyware.
Score: 0
|What he said.
Score: 0
|To me, I feel like im being tricked into clicking any ads, Knowing that someone out there is making money of my clicks irritates me. So If i see something that interest me, i either google it or copy the link.
Call me cheap but its my way to keepin the system fair ( in my view )
Score: 0
|As a "medium" sized buyer ($20K/month) of ad words, I would love to go to a pay per purchase instead of a pay per click model. This would seem to eliminate most if not all possibility of fraud. If Google wants another beta tester sign me up!
Score: 0
|I always question how effective click ads are anyway. On this page there are 2 HP ads. If I have their printer, I'll buy their ink. While I might click on the link to find info on it, it didn't persuade me to buy it.
I can't recall every seeing a link and clicking it and buying something I wasn't already planning on buying anyway.
Score: 0
|Same here. On the rare occasion I'll see something and it interestes me, and then I go to my favourite online store and purchase it. I never get it from where I was supposed to, though. :P
Score: 0
|Well, I think the previous poster answered this one. He claims to be spending 20k/month on adwords - that is a LOT of money and unless he thinks Google is a charity, then he wouldn't be spending this money if the ads weren't effective.
Score: 0
|Me too - but just remember that you, me, and probably almost everyone who reads this kind of site is a very tiny percentage of people who surf the net and do internet shopping. Most people just blindly click on these things!
Score: 0
|Wow this is actually a good job by Google.
I think I'm going to fall over now. ;)
Score: 0
|While many ads annoy me I do think they serve a purpose. Another poster mentioned that if a site has enough value it should just charge a subscription fee. Thats fine for people who can afford a subscription but frankly, I'm happy putting up with ads so that I can keep going to my favorite sites without having to pay a penny. I might even click an ad once or twice to help the site going.
Score: 0
|