July 5th, 2006

What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising?

by

I predicted months ago that click fraud would cause advertisers to lose faith in pay-per-click advertising, and so it is coming to pass, according to a new study by Outsell that estimates click fraud at $800 million (not so far from the middle of my back-of-the-envelope estimates):

The perception of pervasive fraud has prompted many advertisers to change their spending. Many are asking why they should fork over money – significant amounts, in some cases — for phantom shoppers.

The study found that 27 percent of advertisers reduced or stopped spending on click-based advertising. An additional 10 percent said they intend to curtail spending.

Among the predictable responses to this news was this fascinating analysis from Michael Rogers on the potential of cost-per-action to replace cost-per-click:

But CPA is a very slippery slope. The issue goes back to why online publishers traditionally resist cost-per-click pricing for display advertising: your revenue becomes dependent on the advertiser’s creative. A good ad is going to get more clicks than a poorly executed one. CPA action takes that dependency a step further: the search engine’s revenue depends on both a well-designed pitch after the click plus an enticing offer. If the advertiser fails on either of those points, you’re not going to get paid and your inventory isn’t generating revenue.

If I ran a search engine, I’d be spending a lot of time and energy trying to maintain the credibility of my cost-per-click business. If the market really does turn to cost-per-action, we may end up looking back on these as the Golden Days of search engine advertising, when the money just fell from the sky.

First, he’s right that the days of “easy money” from pay-per-click are numbered — it doesn’t matter (Danny) how big click fraud actually is — the system can’t escape the inexorable death spiral of negative advertiser perceptions. Google knows this, and that’s why they’ve been chasing offline media and experimenting with cost-per-action.

But what about Michael’s theory that cost-per-action might not work because of the publisher’s “dependency” on the advertiser having a “a well-designed pitch after the click plus an enticing offer”?

If you simply converted the current AdWords model to a cost-per-action payment, then I think you would have a big problem. Publishers would still be dependent on advertisers writing good ad copy and they’d be even more dependent on what happens when someone clicks off to the advertiser’s site.

But what if there were an approach to cost-per-action that could overcome these problems?

Sounds like an opportunity for someone to eat Google’s lunch.

Comments (44 Responses so far)

  1. l’activité d’un média d’information produisant son contenu. Alors que l’on comprend pourquoi de nombreux blogs et intermédiaires simples agrégateurs de contenus s’en contentent. Sur ces points lire: > le billet de Publishing 2.0 “What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising?” >l’analyse du phénomène de la fraude aux clics sur Searchenginewatch

  2. publishing2 y en Blogmundi. Según se desprende, un 27% de los anunciantes ha reducido o eliminado el gasto efectuado en publicidad de este tipo y otro 10% lo tiene planeado. Y por otro lado hablan del CPA o Click por acción el cual está teniendo una

  3. -Advertisers who said they reduced click-based advertising or plan to: 37% -Advertisers who request refunds because of fraud: 7% -Average refund: $9,507 Ok, this has been going on for a long time. I competely agree withScott Karp and Brian Clark in thier blogs on this topic and Brian’s view that Affilate Marketing is on a major comeback. My company and my clients have been using Adsense for years and it needs serious attention from Google. In the meantime, we’ll manage it as

  4. advertising is a big problem. The report reveals that 14.6 percent of all clicks are bogus, and that 27 percent of advertisers reduced or stopped spending on click-based advertising. That type of reaction is to be expected, and it’s reflected inScott Karp’s post asking What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? However, closer inspection shows that the majority of the fraud comes from third-party publisher sites, not in the actual search engines themselves, and that vindicates a pay per click model that

  5. Publishing

  6. La verdad es que personalmente me encantaría ver algo así :) Quizás quien lo pueda ofrecer es alguien independiente en esta cadena, y que disponga de la información, alguien tipo Alexa.. En otroartículo más reciente también de Publishing 2.0, se analiza la dificultad que conllevará pasar del modelo del pay per clic al modelo que parece que va a remplazarlo, el cost per action. Y es que la web de turno depende para cobrar de lo bien que lo haga el

  7. La noticia la puedo leer en menéame que enlaza apublishing2 y en Blogmundi. Según se desprende, un 27% de los anunciantes ha reducido o eliminado el gasto efectuado en publicidad de este tipo y otro 10% lo tiene planeado. Y por otro lado hablan del CPA o Click por acción el cual está teniendo una

  8. Publishing 2.0 » What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? thoughts on what’s next in online advertising

  9. I still don’t know that I can fully maintain two blogs, and I can’t quite give up my Xanga yet. This whole Myspace thing is just too much to ignore anymore (and I need another excuse when procrastinating…) I’ve been getting some cool messages from out there about my ON TOUR series. Sad to say that I don’t know if there will ever be

  10. -Advertisers who said they reduced click-based advertising or plan to: 37% -Advertisers who request refunds because of fraud: 7% -Average refund: $9,507 Ok, this has been going on for a long time. I competely agree with Scott Karp and Brian Clark in thier blogs on this topic and Brian’s view that Affilate Marketing is on a major comeback. My company and my clients have been using Adsense for years and it needs serious attention from Google. In the meantime, we

  11. Publishing

  12. eyeballs and traffic are the new gold. Better yet, you don’t need to leave home or get your hands dirty in this version of the gold rush. Shit – just sit in your underwear and think dirty. SWEET! To think this goldrush will end soon is silly. I do think we need to find a better way to monetize the content

  13. bogus (or rather, according to the article 14.6% of clicks were “believed by advertisers to be fraudulent”). As a consequence, advertisers are cutting back on spending, causing lost business of about $500 million for Google and Yahoo in the US. Some bloggers now spell the end of pay-per-click advertising. I think that might be a false conclusion. First, 15% bad clicks mean there are still 85% good ones. As long as you know that, it’s easy to calculate your real cost for click-through

  14. Click fraud a huge problem / Study finds practice widespread; many cut back online ads What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? » Publishing 2.0 Best Web Companies and Innovators of 2005 Official Google Research Blog Web 2.0 financial success: Easy as ‘two weeks and $700 bucks’? Digital Micro-Markets ZDNet.com

  15. Respetando tu blog: cuida tus anuncios – Juguetes y herramientas para Adsense – Nuevos resultados de clicks inválidos en Adwords – AdSense lanza su blog en español – Spanair apura al máximo las ventajas de Adsense – Estiman en 800 millones de dolares el fraude cometido en los clics de anuncios de Google,Yahoo,… – Algunos detalles sobre Google AdSense Audio – IVA en Adsense – How to – Sacarle un dinerillo al blog – Nueva red publicitaria de Google: CPA Affiliate Sales – Bomba!: Los sitios baneados de Adsense podrán volver a solicitar su reincorporación

  16. No no no, Scott. Click fraud is bad, and it needs to be fixed. And it can be.

    But please… compared to magazine ads, radio, TV, etc., PPC is still a measurable environment. If you can’t make money with it, you know right away… unlike when you place a magazine ad and wait 3 months to see if it worked.

    Only the same stupid advertisers that have been paying for un-measuable media for decades are surprised and alarmed. And if they leave the PPC arena, we can get those click prices back down and aligned with realilty.

    Maybe not good for Google, but the rest of us don’t buy Google stock (too risky). :)

  17. Brian, it’s almost axiomatic at this point that PPC makes traditional offline advertising look like flushing money down the toilet — at least the advantage of the old model is that you didn’t know how much you were flushing, ignorance, bliss, etc. Now we got the dollars and cents measurements of waste, fraud, and abuse — the sword cuts both ways thing.

    Click fraud obviously needs to be fixed (especially for Google stockholders), but the question is — can it be fixed? As long as the system is vulnerable to abuse, people will find a way to abuse it.

    Click fraud was a revolutionary step forward, but why should the path end there?

  18. Since I’m betting — well, everything — on local CPA advertising, we’ve thought through some of these issues. We think that CPA gets smaller advertisers at least out of the creative game. The publisher makes the best creative he can within certain parameters, as he should know best what sells on his site. Want to make your own creative? That costs extra.

    That’s not so far-fetched. ClearChannel has gone this route in local advertising in recent years, with some success.

    And, CPA creates a near-perfect marketplace for ad inventory. What performs best runs most and in the best positions, and lesser-performing advertisers that want the juice pay an old-school premium for positioning.

    Lotsa theory still, but we’ll be practicing soon…

  19. The debate over yield in CPA advertising has been raging for years in affiliate marketing, and it’s been answered. The best convertising advertising, on an earnings per click or earnings per impression basis, gets the most inventory. Advertisers have to respond to this with good advertising, websites that convert well, and fair tracking, or publishers will give the space to someone else.

  20. There’s no doubt that you’re asking the right big question, but perhaps we need to break it down a bit. There’s two flavors of PPC — search marketing and contextual advertising on third-part publisher sites.

    Search advertising is great. Contextual advertising is not. Smart marketers have known from early on not to participate in the “publisher” side of Google AdWords (otherwise known as “AdSense”). It’s bad ROI even without the fraud.

    To make matters worse, that’s where the fraud occurs — on all the millions of junk AdSense pages. Google even teaches “respectable” publishers how to “blend” in the ads to prompt inadverdant and pure curiosity clicks, which, while not the type of organized fraud the report discusses, is still not in the advertiser’s best interest.

    PPC itself will come out of this fine — in the SERPS. It’s no surprise that Google is now rolling out CPA options, since even early-adopting AdSense publishers are moving back to affiliate marketing.

    They know the AdSense party is almost over.

  21. CPM &/or CPC = CPA for advertisers. In any case, if advertisers haven’t CPA, they stop CPM or CPC campaigns ! For publishers, it’s the same; CPA must be transformed into CPC or eCPM commissions average.

  22. [...] To think this goldrush will end soon is silly. I do think we need to find a better way to monetize the content , but because of the money involved in the right solution, I assume it will evolve. [...]

  23. One of the problems here is the definition of click fraud. Just because a click comes through a publisher that we consider less then “respectable” (another very subjective term), does not make it fraudulent. It may be less desireable in terms of conversion to a sale, but it is not fraudulent. Click fraud is something that Google and Yahoo are very aware of and spend time filtering out of the final billable click. So I am not too convinced by results of outshell’s study. If I were an advertiser that did not have first hand knowledge into click fraud I too would likely say that spikes in clicks and a lower roi were the result of fraud.

    The reality is that certain partners, delivery mediums, and placements will have different ROIs. The question is will Google/Yahoo want to give the advertiser the all the levers necessary to control these different factors.

  24. That report is a load of crap.

    http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2006/07/06/click-fraud-is-nothing-more-the-fear-mongering/

  25. [...] Click Fraud Costs Advertisers $800M By: David Utter 2006-07-06 The numbers are in from research firm Outsell, Inc, and they are not pretty; neither are the accusations that the companies who profit the most from it do the least to stop it. Oh no, not me/We never lost control/You’re face to face/With the man who sold the world — from the best MTV Unplugged episode ever, with Nirvana performing Kurt Cobain wasn’t talking about Bill Gross, the man who invented cost per click advertising at GoTo.com, which became Overture before Yahoo (YHOO) purchased the company. But the numbers reported by the San Francisco Chronicle about click fraud may make online advertisers feel like they have been sold something like a bill of goods. That report cited Outsell research on click fraud. Respondents to their study claimed three out of four of them had been victimized by illicit clicks. They also complained that 14.6 percent of all clicks made on their ads were fraudulent. “In our opinion, it is not acceptable that advertisers fund the illicit profits of the scammers,” Chuck Richard, vice president of Outsell, said in the report. Those profits comprised some $800 million of the collective budgets of online advertisers. These are businesspeople who very likely look for anything that drains their profits and act to stop the bleeding. Outsell noted that 27 percent of its study group reduced or eliminated their spending on cost per click ads, with an extra 10 percent planning to reduce such spending. Yahoo denied contentions it is weak when it comes to policing such clicks. A spokesperson for the company said in the article it filters numerous suspicious clicks, and has a refund procedure in place for advertisers to request one should they think they were billed for fake clicks. Although Google (GOOG) had no comment on the Outsell report, it has in the past espoused a similar opinion to Yahoo’s. Danny Sullivan at Search Engine Watch updated his site’s post on the Outsell report, and questions the numbers in contained: The $800 million cited in the San Francisco Chronicle article comes from the report taking that 14.6 percent average and applying it to the entire estimated $5.5 billion search ad spend from 2005. Some problems with this being an accurate stat are: Advertisers might be off in their estimates The average rate might not be applicable across the entire spend. In some industries, it might be much higher — while spend in those industries might be a small percentage of overall search ads spend. Or it could be the reverse. Scott Karp, writer of the Publishing 2.0 blog, opined that it isn’t the dollar amount that matters, but the perception of click fraud that will hammer cost per click advertising dollars: …it doesnt matter (Danny) how big click fraud actually is ” the system cant escape the inexorable death spiral of negative advertiser perceptions. Google knows this, and thats why theyve been chasing offline media and experimenting with cost-per-action. — Tag: Click Fraud Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl Bookmark IFN – View All Articles by David Utter About the Author: David Utter is a staff writer for InternetFinancialNews and WebProNews covering technology and business. [...]

  26. CPSCost per Sale!   It all comes down to the cost of advertising relative to the margins of the goods or services eventually sold. If the margin outstrips the CPS, then advertisiers will keep on doing it.

    With Checkout, Google can make a very realistic guess at this.

    So what?     Instead of offering the display ad to the highest bidder, per se, Google could offer it to the “most likely to make a profit” … the advertiser who will keep on advertising at Google.

    Expect Google to use that and change the game!

  27. [...] Sur ces points lire: > le billet de Publishing 2.0 “What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising?” >l’analyse du phénomène de la fraude aux clics sur Searchenginewatch [...]

  28. Michael Cooper (comment above this one) is right on.

    The “creative will suck and the advetiser has no incentive to make it better” argument is dumb. CPA advertisers still have an incentive to create good creatives: they want to sell their stuff. And in a competitive bidding environment, with the ability to monitor conversions, (Google Checkout or integration w/ 3rd party services) won’t google just serve the ad that converts to sales?

  29. CT, you’re right that click fraud is a “spectrum disorder” to borrow a medial phrase. Maybe we need a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a pretty crappy click and a 10 being a totally fraudulent bot click.

    Markus, from the post on your site:

    As both an advertiser and adsense user i’ve noticed a LARGE percentage of users will use your ad as a bookmark.

    Do you have to pay for each of these “bookmark” clicks since they pass through Google? If you do, that’s insane.

    Michael/Peter,

    How can Google maximize efficiency if it doesn’t control the middle piece, i.e. what happens on the advertiser’s site after the click on the ad but before the purchase in Google Checkout?

  30. Scott everyone does, in fact if you look up domain names of top brands you can see advertisers are bidding on their OWN domains.

    At the end of the day NON of this MATTERS. Adwords is based on a market model and advertisers will pay the max price they can afford. If this percieved click fraud didn’t exist then advertisers would bid 30% more and find something else to complain about.

  31. [...] That type of reaction is to be expected, and it’s reflected in Scott Karp’s post asking What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? However, closer inspection shows that the majority of the fraud comes from third-party publisher sites, not in the actual search engines themselves, and that vindicates a pay per click model that actually works. [...]

  32. Google estima en 800 millones de dolares el fraude cometido en los clics de sus anuncios…

    El problema que se deriva es claro, los anunciantes dejarán de confiar en ese sistema de anuncios, de hecho un 27% de ellos ha reducido o eliminado si gasto y otro 10% lo tiene planeado. Parece que Google ha empezado a experimentar con un sistema denom…

  33. Gosh, I feel baited :)

    > Among the predictable responses

    and

    > it doesn’t matter (Danny) how big click fraud actually is — the system can’t escape the inexorable death spiral of negative advertiser perceptions.

    Sure, perceptions are important. And they are key to understanding this report. About 400 advertisers were asked how much click fraud, on average, they felt they incurred. Overall, 15 percent was the average response. That’s a big rate — and used to come up with the $800 million figure, as I explained in my post that you referenced.

    Now half of those advertisers also said they do nothing to analyze their clicks. So how did they come to the estimates they gave? They guessed.

    That’s like me wondering how much air escaped from a car’s tires over a month. I ask 400 people to give me their estimates. 200 of them don’t bother getting out the pressure gauge each month and actually checking. They just shout out whatever they think is right. And from that, you make some scientific conclusion on air loss?

    That estimate is half-guess work and deserves debunking as such. As I said, for all we know, the situation is much less worse than described or equally much more worse.

    But back to perceptions. Definitely interesting that about 30-40 percent say they’ll cut some spending because of concerns. But the majority remain comfortable with it. Will that majority continue into the death spiral you talk about? Who knows.

    What we do know is advertisers would like more options. CPA is coming not just as a solution to click fraud but because it’s an option some advertisers simply would prefer to have. But what’s the CPA you want to charge to a non-profit protest site, just trying to raise awareness of an issue through ads? They’re after eyeballs, and that’s why they might prefer CPM (and why Google gave them that in contextual ads some time ago).

    No one ad pricing model is going to be the perfect solution for everyone. And there’s always going to be some degree of fraud or inefficiency in everything. But today, the click fraud crisis has hardly faltered the industry, both in terms of spend or big legal payouts. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but even despite click fraud (in whatever degree it is out there), search overall remains an extremely efficient advertising medium. That’s why people are spending with it and pulling away from other areas to fund it (other areas that never, ever come under near as much examination about true circulation, wasted impressions and so on, because compared to search, you can hardly measure them at all).

    Finally, the report had 63 percent at Google extremely satisified or somewhat satisified with the response they got on click fraud complaints. That’s a pretty high figure. Google should make it 90 to 99 percent, of course. But that’s not a figure that underlines a death spiral to me. And the other key figure, the fact that practically no one follows up with the search engines on complaints is important. The perception of click fraud is clearly strong. The actions advertisers take, according to this survey, is to sit back and do little except maybe reduce spending. More proactive moves on the part of the search engines might reverse that.

  34. Danny, what a surprise, so glad you could join us :)

    That’s like me wondering how much air escaped from a car’s tires over a month. I ask 400 people to give me their estimates. 200 of them don’t bother getting out the pressure gauge each month and actually checking. They just shout out whatever they think is right. And from that, you make some scientific conclusion on air loss?

    If after a couple of months you’ve got a flat tire, the rate of air escape isn’t really the issue. You know you’ve got a problem with your tires.

    I’m not saying it can’t happen, but even despite click fraud (in whatever degree it is out there), search overall remains an extremely efficient advertising medium. That’s why people are spending with it and pulling away from other areas to fund it (other areas that never, ever come under near as much examination about true circulation, wasted impressions and so on, because compared to search, you can hardly measure them at all).

    It will happen because new models will come along (soon) that will exceed PPC in efficiency the same way that PPC exceeded the old models in effciency.

    I should make the distinction that you taught me, which is that “search” advertising is a seperate issue from PPC. I don’t think annyone questions that a search results page a is a great place to deliver ads related to search terms. But how those ads function won’t remain PPC forever.

    Finally, the report had 63 percent at Google extremely satisified or somewhat satisified with the response they got on click fraud complaints. That’s a pretty high figure. Google should make it 90 to 99 percent, of course. But that’s not a figure that underlines a death spiral to me. And the other key figure, the fact that practically no one follows up with the search engines on complaints is important. The perception of click fraud is clearly strong. The actions advertisers take, according to this survey, is to sit back and do little except maybe reduce spending. More proactive moves on the part of the search engines might reverse that.

    With all due respect, this really sounds like spin. Which is why I labeled your post predictable. This survey marks a point on a trend line — what’s your basis for concluding that the trend won’t continue in a negative direction? “Death spiral” doesn’t mean it’s “dead” NOW, it means that things seem to be getting worse over time, so there is reason to expect that they will continue to get worse if the trend continues in the same direction.

  35. CT, you’re right that click fraud is a “spectrum disorder” to borrow a medial phrase. Maybe we need a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a pretty crappy click and a 10 being a totally fraudulent bot click.

    Here is the thing. The fraudulent bot clicks are largely if not completely fitlered out. In fact , if memory serves me correct, even a person clicking back and forth on the link repeatedly, does not cause additional billable clicks (on the old Overture anyway). Danny and Makrus are correct in stating that click fraud is largely a perception among advertisers.

    The fact that 63% of advertisers are dissatisfied with the response on click fraud complaints is a tough one as the only answer that would satisfy them is to get some form of reimbursement. Makrus is also right in saying that even if the perceived click fraud did not exist the advertisers would find something else to complain about – and that is ultimately what is happening here. Unfortuantely, this is one of the cases where you have to trust the “black box” behind Yahoo and Google – which I realize is difficult if you don’t have insight into it.

  36. If after a couple of months you’ve got a flat tire, the rate of air escape isn’t really the issue. You know you’ve got a problem with your tires.

    Sure, unless you aren’t losing air at all, or enough air to notice. Any business is likely to have some degree of fraud, theft and waste. No one wants it, but the degree is what has the impact. We still don’t know the degree of the click fraud problem.

    Let me be clear. I’m not, absolutely am not, trying to downplay it as a serious issue. What I dislike, however, is being told there are some new industry stats that you can poke all types of holes in. This report gives me a figure that may be much lower than the real rate or much higher. Half the people not doing analysis but giving a click fraud rate is guesswork — it’s a stat based on guesswork. I want more than guesswork to quantify a problem. But that there is a problem, I don’t disagree. We just don’t know the degree.

    But how those ads function won’t remain PPC forever.

    I agree. In fact, I’ve written ages and ages ago about how at some point, you’ll likely see flat rate purchases from those more after branding or those who don’t want to play the bidding game. They’ll be happy to write a big check just for the simplicity. PPC is not the only payment model, nor has it ever been (Google originally used CPM).

    This survey marks a point on a trend line — what’s your basis for concluding that the trend won’t continue in a negative direction? NOW, it means that things seem to be getting worse over time, so there is reason to expect that they will continue to get worse if the trend continues in the same direction.

    The point on the trend line is the percentage of advertisers who have said they actually have reduced spend. That also appears to be the first point, given this is the first time this survey has been done.

    For all we know, if you asked this question to this group a year ago, even more might have said they reduced spend.

    It is a concern, definitely, that so many people have said they reduced spend (though it would help to know more — like was that spend on second tier engines? contextual ads?).

    SEMPO, in contrast, has a survey that gives you more than one data point. Here’s the write-up from 2004. For 2005, you have to be a SEMPO member to have the stats. But here’s the summary from the slide deck:

    +Nearly 2 out of 5 advertisers and nearly half of agencies have tracked fraud; 16% of advertisers say it’s serious, nearly triple from 2004

    +Yet a quarter do not believe it’s a problem

    +A third of advertisers and a third of agencies are concerned but not tracking fraud

    Now that’s your death spiral argument, at least that from 2004 to 2005, the percentage of those who thought it was a serious issue rose. But that might also be because awareness of the issue rose.

    Stats also said that 40 percent of advertisers said they’d been a victim of click fraud (though note that a third of those surveyed said they weren’t tracking at all). Stats also say that 80 percent have gotten some credit on complaints.

    Overall, it’s serious problem, one that alarms and concerns advertisers and that the search engines need to do more on, both in terms of preventing and also educating and changing perceptions (when half your advertiser just flat out guess they have click fraud, that’s not a good thing). But I still come away from the stats with a mixed feeling of whether things are getting worse or not, in terms of the actual fraud happening. I guess we’ll see if it’s a death spiral or not.

  37. The fact that 63% of advertisers are dissatisfied with the response on click fraud complaints is a tough one as the only answer that would satisfy them is to get some form of reimbursement.

    It’s the opposite — 63 percent were satisfied with the Google response on click fraud complaints.

  38. [...] Some bloggers now spell the end of pay-per-click advertising. I think that might be a false conclusion. [...]

  39. [...] In theory, he’s right, but theory may not be the issue. The market-driven solution will only work if advertisers are willing to play along, and as I’ve pointed before, they may not be. [...]

  40. I’m coming late to the discussion, but I would like to point out that there is reason to be skeptical of the numbers that have been published so far estimating the amount of click fraud as a percentage of all clicks. There are quite a number of ways that click fraud can go undetected, because it is easy to manufacture clicks that just look like any other traffic that does not convert. This can be automated via spyware, or manually generated by a click ring.

    My general opinion has always been that CPC is a poor business model. I am also surprised that Google did not realize that it would be so easy for fraudulent clicks to be generated, that they would be generated, that advertisers would become upset, and that lawsuits would be filed. It seems to me, as bright and talented as their engineering group is, they would have initially taken steps to at least provide advertisers both tools and options (such as CPA) to control their ad spend, thus reducing their exposure to fraud, or at least nonconverting clicks.

  41. [...] Publishing 2.0 – What will replace PPC? PC Pro – Google Tries CPA   Bloggingstocks:goog – Click fraud worsening? [...]

  42. [...] That type of reaction is to be expected, and it’s reflected in Scott Karp’s post asking What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? However, closer inspection shows that the majority of the fraud comes from third-party publisher sites, not in the actual search engines themselves, and that vindicates a pay per click model that actually works. [...]

  43. [...] What Will Replace Pay-Per-Click Advertising? over at Publishing 2.0 from Scott Karp is a good roundup and debate on some of the issues of CPA perhaps as the solution to CPC issues. [...]

  44. ???????
    ???
    ??????
    ??
    ??
    ???????????
    ??
    ???? ????
    ??????
    ?????
    ?????
    ?????????
    ????
    ?????
    ????
    ?????????
    ??????
    ????
    ?????
    ????????????
    ??????
    ????
    ????
    ??????????
    ??????
    ???
    ?????
    ??
    ??
    ??????????
    ??????????
    ????????
    ?????
    ?????????
    ????????
    ????????
    ????????
    ???????
    ?????????
    ???????
    ???
    ????????
    ?????????
    ?????
    ???
    ??? ????
    ??????
    ???
    ????????

Add Your Comment

Subscribe

Receive new posts by email