PPC Fraud Service - Beta Testers Needed

[Jeff Martin]

Im looking for beta testers willing to evaluate a PPC fraud auditing service Ive created. If your willing to participate, in exchange for regular interval beta testing AND providing constructive feedback on the service, you can track as many campaigns as you like (within reason of course) while the service is in beta.

http://www.vericlix.com/beta.asp

[clasione]

Sounds interesting Jeff, is there a FAQ or anything for more details on exactly how it works before signing up?

[Jeff Martin]

Yes clasione, the FAQ page can be found at http://www.vericlix.com/faq.asp.

More FAQ material will be added as I get feedback.

Thanks for your interest.

[clasione]

Ok Jeff, I'm signing up.. I llike the idea of this and want to help test it out...

[Jeff Martin]

Good to hear, I'll be looking forward to your ideas and comments.

[clasione]

I originally wanted to asign it to Google Adwords, but considering the fact that I had to except a new TOS when logging in that specifically discussed sharing information about clicks I backed off...

I'm affraid that adding the script and allowing you to generate reports based on clicks would violate that TOS....

However, I added one to a listing in Yahoo Search Marketing, but it is pending approval...

Google is treating me too good these days to play games with them...

[Jeff Martin]

I'm affraid that adding the script and allowing you to generate reports based on clicks would violate that TOS....

Please send me the link to the section of the TOS that you are mentioning.

Thanks.

[Jeff Martin]

You shall not, and shall not authorize any party to: (a) generate automated, fraudulent or otherwise invalid impressions or clicks;

Is this what your refering to?

IANAL but I believe this refers to malicious/fraudulent activity on your part by generating fraudulent impressions or clicks.

From what I have read, there is nothing in the TOS that states that you may not track your clicks with your own reporting, after all...its your data generated from your web server.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

From what I have read, there is nothing in the TOS that states that you may not track your clicks with your own reporting, after all...its your data generated from your web server.

I agree, but in the new TOS Google specifically oint out that ONLY thri data can be used to varify clicks. So my question is: How do expect to present fraud data to Google in a form and shape they will accept - or be forced to accept?

[clasione]

I didn't make a copy of it, but it stated somethign o the effect that I agree not to share any clickthru data with any thrid party....

[Jeff Martin]

Mikkel - didnt understand the question/point you were trying to make.

Clasione - I saw nothing to those regards in their TOS. In my above post I mentioned that I saw that you and noone on your behalf would engage in fraudulent activity.

Again, there is nothing I saw about third party monitoring of click-thru data. Agencies monitor CTR and conversions for many clients all the time, I myself have monitored for clients in the past and spoken to Google on behalf of my clients.

Perhaps you should email your Adwords rep about third party clickthru monitoring if you need something official.

Jeff Martin

[clasione]

I'm going to try and find it somehow, maybe in google desktop cache....

let me look around for it....

[clasione]

I can't believe it!

I just got an email back.... Yahoo declined the listing with the vci code attached..... :mad:

[Jeff Martin]

Do you mean they declined your ad for editorial reasons?

I have tracking codes and other ad specific data in my and my client URLs with Adwords and Overture and never had a problem outside of ad copy editorial reasons.

[clasione]

I took an ad that I have had running for a few months and added the code to the end of the url and they declined the change.... :confused:

I didn't change anything except add on the additional
vci=Yahoo

[Jeff Martin]

Then I would send your Overture rep an email and ask them to explain why it was declined.

Ads are reviewed by different people at different times, some more strict than others on ad copy and landing page content. When you resubmit everything is looked over again.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

jeff, I will try an formulate my question differently :)

In Googles new TOS they specifically state that ONLY their own tracking data can be used for verifying validity of clicks. If they stick to that how will the data you supply be of any help?

[Jeff Martin]

In Googles new TOS they specifically state that ONLY their own tracking data can be used for verifying validity of clicks. If they stick to that how will the data you supply be of any help?

I believe it boils down to this:

You can either:

1. Sit on the sidelines of your own advertising campaign and hope the Google will be ever vigilant with your advertising dollars while you, yourself, never see any data other than what Google wants to show you.

-Or-

2. Take full control of your PPC advertising campaign and dollars and monitor your PPC activity and fully know what is going on with your campaigns. Then, when you spot something wrong, you can pull the reports and give them to your rep and ask them to investigate. The material you can provide them can make their job easier which in turn:

a) Helps you recover lost advertising dollars and
b) Helps get back those advertising dollars more quickly.

In addition, this beta service provides a significant amount of valuable data from each hit your PPC ads receive collectively.

If I were in Google's shoes I would do the same thing from a legal standpoint. What they are saying in the end is they will use their data to make the final call. I wouldn’t expect to just hand over a report and for Google to cut me a refund on the spot. The purpose of this service is to:

1) Help keep you informed as to what is happening with your campaign
2) Provide your rep with enough information so they know where to start looking
3) Help lend credibility to your request for an investigation

If we think that fraud wont be a growing concern we are wrong. Wherever the money is, fraud wont be too far behind and it’s already started to show its ugly face, and I plan on being prepared.

Maybe the big question is if we invest $10,000 a month in PPC advertising should we spend $100 to protect that investment?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

OK, I get you now - a "suggetion tool" :)

Regarding pricing and click fraud detection the problem is that most accounts outside the very large countries are each so small that fraud detection is too expensive to handle with any solution I've seen. In Denmark, for example, the majority of accounts are in the $1-2000 range which effectiveley leave very little for click fraud only detection - especially if I can't assure clients that Google and Overture will actually consider this "evidence" at all.

My clients would love to buy an "insurrance" but it has to be a real one that matters to the providers. I am still waiting for evidence that they will ...

[Jeff Martin]

OK, I get you now - a "suggetion tool"

More like forensic evidence.

In Denmark, for example, the majority of accounts are in the $1-2000 range which effectiveley leave very little for click fraud only detection

Not so. Depending on the client's industry they could be losing 20% or more due to fraud $2000/20% = recoup $400/month. Thats not small potatoes. A PPC fraud service should be inexpensive when compared to your full PPC campaign. So if you were to invest $2000 monthly into a PPC campaign why would paying $49 or less (2% of your PPC investment) a month to protect that investment be such a large leap?

especially if I can't assure clients that Google and Overture will actually consider this "evidence" at all.

This is evidence. Its evidence to you, the PPC manager or advertiser, that something is probably wrong and that you need to review the data and pass it on to your rep to begin an investigation. Without a PPC fruad service many PPC advertisers may never know when anything is wrong. Its about empowering advertisers with the information they need to have to full control and understand what is happening with the advertising dollars.

My clients would love to buy an "insurrance" but it has to be a real one that matters to the providers. I am still waiting for evidence that they will ...

Again:
Without a PPC fruad service many PPC advertisers may never know when anything is wrong. Its about empowering advertisers with the information they need to have to full control and understand what is happening with the advertising dollars.

So would advertisers rather not know that fraud was happening with their advertising dollars or would they rather be informed and seek out a refund and/or modify the way their online advertising dollars are being spent?

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You forget one very important factor in your calculations: My time. I charge $300 per hour on consulting which very quicly eat any money paid back. Oh yes, I forgot, Google won't even pay you back in cash - so if I am lucky I can get a credit after the campaign is over. Sorry, I can't sell that.

On the other hand, if you feel so sure about the value of your product why not offer it on a performance basis. I am sure my clients will be happy to pay you 30% for all money you collect for them.

My clients are looking for the best ROI and I just don't see this product improving it.

[seomike]

Jeff and I have spent a lot of time discussing the thresholds for this program and what he has produced is pretty thorough. My answer to the debate is plug it in and try it and see if there are issues with your clients campaign.

I've always been bugged by click fraud. I've seen it on many levels of competition. From $700 a day spends to $10 a day spends.

If Vericlix can trend just a handful of frauds that the Adwords and Overture thresholds can't detect then more power to him. He'll have legitimate proof because the clients server logs (uri requests and ip's) can be matched up againts the Vericlix data (which ties dynamic ip's to a cookie variable on his system). He can group what may look like unique visitors into 1 user.

Savings and refunds are just icing on the cake. If Jeff were to pick up a huge account and finds that lets say 10,000 dollars was waisted due to click fraud then he could be able to prove the ppc's couldn't detect an obvious flaw in their system. Plus there are potential grounds for a lawsuit.

Google auditing itself is about the equivolent of Enron or MCI auditing their own holdings. You can see a definite conflict of interest since PPC is a major revenue backbone/lifeblood for GOOG on the exchange floor. If any system could break the credibility of their internal audit then sell sell sell.

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

Google auditing itself is about the equivolent of Enron or MCI auditing their own holdings

Totally agree! That is why I would like some third party validation or approved tool. newspapers managed to work this out and so can search engines. It's in their interest that marketers trust them and right now they don't

Don't get me wrong :)
I do think click fraud is a major problem for the PPC model in general. And I do think it's getting worse. Also, I don't think search engines do what they should to protect the model (which I really don't understand given the fact that it's such a huge chunk of thir revenues).

Sometimes I actually wish that some "evil" virus maker would launch the "perfect" click-bot-in-a-virus type of attack - an attack so powerfull that all advertisers would pause all campaigns right away cutting off ALL revenues from the engines. Maybe THAT would teach them to get their act together and prioritize this issue.

[Jeff Martin]

Thanks Mike, Mikkel.

This is starting to go a little off topic of its original purpose:

Im looking for beta testers who would like to evaluate a PPC fraud auditing service. (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5379)

[Mikkel deMib Svendsen]

You might be right - maybe we should split it into a "What is the value of third party click fraud detection tools" thread or something like that ...

[orion]

Thanks Mike, Mikkel.

This is starting to go a little off topic of its original purpose:

Im looking for beta testers who would like to evaluate a PPC fraud auditing service. (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5379)

I agree with both, Jeff and Mikkel.

Without having first-hand testing of a tool, it makes no sense trying to trash the beta service offerred.

On the other hand, clients want the best service available, period.

Please feel free to open a focused thread if you feel is necessary.

Cheers.

Orion

[Jeff Martin]

I have decided to keep the beta testing enrollment open for the next week or so to get a good load on the service. Please visit the site at the posted URL (http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5379) if you are interested.