• curiouscat.com
  • About
  • Books
  • Glossary

    Categories

    • All
    • carnival (41)
    • chart (8)
    • Cool (35)
    • Credit Cards (45)
    • economic data (62)
    • Economics (439)
    • economy (126)
    • Financial Literacy (292)
    • Investing (324)
    • Personal finance (356)
    • Popular (43)
    • quote (194)
    • Real Estate (120)
    • Retirement (65)
    • Saving (90)
    • Stocks (158)
    • Taxes (51)
    • Tips (129)
    • Travel (7)

    Tags

    Asia banking bonds capitalism chart China commentary consumer debt Credit Cards credit crisis curiouscat debt economic data Economics economy employment energy entrepreneur Europe Financial Literacy government health care housing India interest rates Investing Japan John Hunter manufacturing markets micro-finance mortgage Personal finance Popular quote Real Estate regulation Retirement save money Saving spending money Stocks Taxes Tips USA

    Recently Posts

    • New Health Care Insurance Subsidies in the USA
    • Individual Stock Portfolio Investment Planning
    • Finding Great Investments Keeps Getting Harder
    • Huge Growth in USA Corporate Debt from 2005 to 2020
    • Retirement Portfolio Allocation for 2020
    • Tencent Gaming
    • Tucows: Building 3 Businesses With Strong Positive Cash Flow
    • The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – Jan 2019
    • 20 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog in 2018
    • An Inverted Yield Curve Predicts Recessions in the USA
  • Blogroll

    • Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog
    • Freakonomics
    • I Will Teach You to be Rich
    • Jubak Picks
  • Links

    • Articles on Investing
    • fool.com
    • Investing Books
    • Investment Dictionary
    • Leading Investors
    • Marketplace
    • Trickle Up
  • Subscribe

    • RSS Feed

    Curious Cat Kivans

    • Making a Difference

Investing and Economics Blog

Click Fraud = Friction for Google

Fraudulent web click are friction in Google’s business. Fraudulent clicks ad costs to the system without a benefit to the performance of the system. Google’s profit is derived from improving the system (of finding customers for advertisers) and taking a cut of the profits that their system creates. Google makes a great deal of money because their system of matching advertisers with dollars to spend to customers. Google does this through ads on their search results pages and on third party web sites. Google engineers will do whatever they can to find ingenious ways to reduce that friction.

There have been many stories over the last few years about click-fraud. But none I have seen explain the simple idea that Google is the company with the most to gain by eliminating it (and Yahoo next). They often point to companies suing Google about fraudulent clicks instead.

Companies like Google run ads on web sites and charge the advertisers for each click (anywhere from a few pennies to several dollars for each click). Advertisers want to get potential customers when someone clicks on their ads, obviously they don’t want to pay when there is no chance the “visitor” is going to become a customer. Obviously, fraudulent clicks are bad and those that engage and encourage such behavior are acting unethically and immorally and should be stopped and punished.

Now, Lets look at other advertising. Advertisers pay large (say tens of thousands of dollars or more) for ads in magazines and on TV. They base those ads on guesses about how many potential customers they may reach and how many will actually look at the ad. I think this is important to understand to set the context of measuring advertising success. Advertisers normally have to rely on making tenuous connections between ad spending and benefit to the company.

With web based advertising, companies can much more easily measure the effectiveness of ads (especially for immediate responses – “brand building” can also be measured more effectively but not quite as easily as immediate purchases). So If an advertiser choose to pay Google $30,000 for ads last quarter they can get a very good idea of what the payback on those ads were (especially compared to traditional advertising). They can decide whether it was worthwhile or not.

That decision can be made irrespective of fraudulent clicks. To make things easy lets say the company says they received a benefit of $40,000. Again to make things easy lets say the $30,000 figure and $40,000 factor in all other costs and expected returns… That is the company has a net gain of $10,000. That means they are likely to want to continue such advertising.

Now lets look at the fraud. If there is fraud involved that the $30,000 figure has been “inflated.” The $40,000 is the benefit (regardless of how much fraud happened to be involved). Well lets look at some options, if the company measured the return at $20,000 instead of $40,000 they would decide to stop running ads since the cost was greater than the benefit. Again we are making the numbers represent all factors (in an real example, a company might expect that they improve how they use the advertising over time so even if they took a loss might see it as worth continuing for the future). So in this case the $20,000 return factors in all benefits to the company.

So they stop running ads; what happened. Again to make things easy lets say Google makes a 40% profit, the fraudsters make 10% of the total click cost, legitimate web sites make 30% (given the $20,000 benefit the company saw that some clicks were legitimate), and 20% is taken in costs of running the system. Google made $12,000 (40% of $30,000) the fraudster made $3,000, legitimate web sites running Google ads make $9,000 and the company lost $10,000. The next quarter no one makes anything – they run no ads. These numbers are just made up but the logic is not dependant on what percentages are chosen.

So future ads would not be placed as the company did not see a return. Google does make some money from the short term fraud. As the market moves to equilibrium however advertisers will run ads when they make money and not when they don’t. For the sake of this argument we only look at ads on non-Google sites that run Google ads.

Google is able to make money by serving as the intermediary between those wanting to run ads and those wanted to buy ads. Those wanted to buy ads will pay Google for ads that pay them, they won’t pay Google if ads don’t pay them back. So assuming zero fraud, Google does very well, the web sites running ads do well and advertisers do well (they chose to run ads that make them money and not others). When the advertisers are making a great deal of profit they will buy more ads. For example, they might increase the price they are willing to pay to get there ads placed on more web sites (Google’s system will give more prominence to ads that pay higher amounts all other things being equal) and add news ads about related topics (since the ads they have so far are so profitable).

If fraud increased the costs for advertisers, Google would get a portion of that money. So I can see why people could look at this and say Google benefits from web click fraud. But this is only true in a very limited view. Google already has the advertiser committing to run ads. They will keep that advertiser paying them money as long as the advertiser is making money. It is in Google’s interest for the advertiser to make money so they will increase the amount of money they pay Google. It is true some poorly run companies focused on short term gains and without ethics (there sure are plenty of such example) would kill their long term viability for a boost to earnings today that fraudulent clicks would provide (not that the company would encourage it, but they would fail to take vigorous action to prevent long term damage to their business to try and gain huge bonuses… by short term effect of not preventing click fraud).

However that is a very stupid business strategy and not one Google would adopt. You don’t even have to assume they are ethical. It would just be far too dumb for Google’s long term interest and number focused culture to proceed on such a path.

At this time I am very confident Google is spending huge amounts of money to combat fraud. Because that fraud will cost them much more in the long term than it costs advertisers in the short term. If the fraudsters can successfully steal money that would otherwise go to sites Google places ads on (that in turn provided those advertisers potential customers) that will be a huge loss of potential business for Google.

On top of that, my belief is the people at Google just think the fraudsters are bad people. And they love to use technology to prevent people they think of as bad from taking money from good people. Engineers in general love to work on making things work well. They don’t like inefficiencies and friction in systems. Fraudulent web click are friction in Google’s business. Google engineers will do whatever they can to find ingenious ways to reduce that friction.

I am a bit confused why Google doesn’t adjust the contract to state that the charges are per click, Google does what it can to prevent false clicks and that is the way it is. I don’t really understand how these law suits have any merit. If Google were being fraudulent ok, then yes but…

If they are paying $1 a click and making 90 cents then they cut what they will pay and Google losses. If they then say that well that isn’t fair if I pay only 90 cents per click my ads don’t make it because others pay more well that is not a Google issue. Unless they claim they are subject to special fraud that other advertisers don’t have. This can then get into the “clicking on competitors” ad fraud that is mentioned in some of the articles. I hope that this is illegal (fraud is illegal in whatever form it takes…). And so hopefully the people that engaged in such behavior would be fined and put in jail. And while it is different, it is also just friction to the system. To the extent that exists the system functions less well and therefore there is less profit from which Google can take its share. So again logic dictates Google would do everything they can to prevent, in the short and long term, such behavior.

“I would have written a shorter [post], but I did not have the time.”
– Blaise Pascal


Tags: google adsense – adwords

October 22nd, 2006 John Hunter | 4 Comments | Tags: Economics, Financial Literacy, Investing, quote

Comments

4 Comments so far

  1. Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog » Google to Let Workers Sell Options Online on December 13, 2006 11:05 am

    […] A good idea that reduces friction in the marketplace. Options are transferable, the problem with employee granted options is there is no reasonable marketplace to exchange the options for cash (the friction is very high). Google’s engineers focus on reducing friction in many processes. Many others just accept that the level of friction is inevitable. Google realizes it is not. More on Google Management. by curiouscat December 13, 2006   Tags: Investing, Stocks   Permalink to: Google to Let Workers Sell Options Online […]

  2. Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog » Google Website Optimizer on April 7, 2007 10:53 am

    […] Decision Making at Google I think this tool is a very smart move by Google. As I described before, Google’s potential revenue is related to how profitable advertising with Google is for custome…. If Google can improve the return of advertisers, the advertisers have more reason to advertise on […]

  3. CPCcurmudgeon on November 26, 2007 1:39 am

    “I am a bit confused why Google doesn’t adjust the contract to state that the charges are per click, Google does what it can to prevent false clicks and that is the way it is.”

    I imagine one reason the contract isn’t worded that way is because it would make it look as if Google didn’t (or wouldn’t) have any control over click fraud, and this would make advertisers reluctant to maintain their current level of ad spend. The “mystique” of Google is to make people think they are capable of doing great things with mounds of data, and even though they have admitted they cannot determine whether every click is fraudulent, they have left open the issue of how much fraud they can actually detect (and either refund or shut down the source of the fraud). So there are advertisers out there who believe that someday, Google will figure out a way to eliminate almost all of the fraud, so rather than reduce their spend, they maintain (and even increase it), so as not to lose their competitive advantage. Some advertisers don’t even pay much attention to their campaigns; they are allocated budget (as they were in traditional media), and are at liberty to spend all of it, despite fraud. Some say they are not worried about fraud (because there is fraud everywhere); some say they don’t have time to worry about fraud. I don’t think they realize that the Internet architecture as currently constituted is particularly susceptible to this type of fraud.

    “I don’t really understand how these law suits have any merit.”

    Perhaps they don’t. But they reveal that Google did not do an appropriate job of guarding against a kind of fraud that was well understood in Internet engineering circles until they were sued. Google has claimed that the company was too small to deal with the problem when it first surfaced. I find this claim questionable, in light of other things the company has claimed about how resources were allocated at the time, and about the general level of intelligence and engineering acumen they claim.

  4. CuriousCat » Car Powered Using Compressed Air on February 25, 2008 11:10 am

    Jules Verne predicted cars would run on air. The Air Car is making that a reality. The car would be powered by compressed air…

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

« Cash Flow
Retirement Tips from TIAA CREF »
Copyright © Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog

    Personal Finance

    • Credit Card Tips
    • IRAs
    • Investment Risks
    • Loan Terms
    • Saving for Retirement
  • Archives

      All Posts
    • March 2021
    • January 2021
    • August 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • May 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • June 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • October 2005
    • July 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • April 2004