There's little question on which side of the click fraud debate Wired columnist Adam Penenberg resides. In
describing the problem and one case that's slowly moving forward, Penenberg
writes this: "Don't count on
the search engines to confront the problem, though. Sure, they pay lip service to cleaning up click fraud, and issue
credits — not refunds — to businesses they identify as having been victimized by false clicks. Usually, however, these
refunds are a pittance compared to the revenue click fraud generates for them." Yow. That's strong, and possibly
actionable, language. Search companies protect fraudulent clickers because they don't want to lose the revenue? I doubt
that Penenberg has the sources to back up that astounding and damaging claim.
Moving on, the column describes a case of click fraud that is being put together piece by agonizing piece. It involves
two karaoke supply companies battling it out in the contextual search space, and is worth following. Penenberg reports
that Overture (now Yahoo! Search Marketing) revoked the advertising status of one of the plaintiff karoake company
without explanation, when that company's investigation allegedly got too close to the truth.
Another Click Fraud Lawsuit Brewing
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Thanks for the comment.
I didn't feel the need to repeat every point of your column. I linked to it; readers can read it for themselves. Besides, the paragraph about Blowsearch contains more unsubstantiated assertions from you that Google and Yahoo! are protective of their fraudulent click revenue, an assertion that is as startling now as when I first read it.
The question isn't whether revenue would plummet without click fraud. You don't know the answer to that and neither do I, because neither of us knows the true extent of click fraud--and don't pretend you do. The question is whether Google and Yahoo! would hinder an investigation, in direct opposition to their every public statement, in order to guard fraudulently gained revenue. That is your assertion in this latest column.
1. Actionable? Want to make a bet Google won't take legal action on my saying it has little incentive to end click fraud? It wouldn't want to open itself up to discovery, which might only confirm what I wrote.
It's interesting you didn't include the part of the column that deals with the meta search engine Blowsearch, and that when it tested software that could block click fraud its traffic plummeted. One would infer from that it is you that it is you that have staked out a position on click fraud without access to facts.
Posted at 4:42AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Adam Penenberg