A
day or so ago, Shuman Ghosemajumder from Google posted two blogs on his
personal site questioning Click Forensics data, methodologies and
motivation. While it is really unfortunate that we have to take time to
address these issues, I will. It is unfortunate because Shuman and I
have had numerous phone conversations, email exchanges and meetings
over the past nine months and we discussed many of the topics he
brought up in his post. Let me begin…
1) Many third parties have not counted clicks properly
Click
Forensics counts clicks properly. We do not count back clicks. We count
page views correctly. As a matter of fact, we use click ID’s (including
Google’s) and other methods to ensure that our reports are the most
accurate in the industry.
2) Inflated click counts result in even more inflated “click fraud” estimates
Google
calls them “invalid clicks.” Click fraud is a subsection of this
category and does include malicious attacks, competitive clicks and
affiliate fraud. Shuman has said on many occasions that Google does not
charge for invalid clicks. This is a game of semantics. Our report
focuses on what we call “high threat level clicks.” These are clicks
that our rating engine and algorithm identified as being unwanted by
the advertiser. These are clicks that advertisers should not be paying
for and the reality is that in Q4 of 2006 14.2% of all clicks we scored
fell into this category.
3) Even if they fixed those problems, they’re not actually measuring click fraud
Actually
the truth is Click Forensics measures and reports on all suspicious
click activity and attempted click fraud across search engines and
their content network advertising channels. Google has admitted that is
has not charged for some clicks. Shuman told Andy Beal that this number
was .2% of all clicks. Our advertisers (and
Google’s) can see the number of clicks that they credited and it is far
lower than the number of unwanted clicks search engines credit them for
in their campaigns. As a matter of fact, many of the 3,000 advertiser
members of the Click Fraud Network report that they have never been
discounted more than 2 percent for the invalid clicks. It is clear
search engines are not catching all bad click activity. Part of the
reason is their lack of advertiser-side information and the difficulty
in policing content networks alone.
4) Industry metrics are not necessarily the same as Google’s metrics
True. Our
industry metrics a representative of virtually every search provider
large and small in the industry. This is why we have a statistically
accurate view of the true rate of industry click fraud levels. We used
to separate our click fraud figures by search engines tiers but stopped
reporting this way this quarter because there is a growing disparity
between individual search providers as to the click fraud levels. We
didn’t think it was fair to lump the good with the bad so we will begin
to report on individual providers later this year. The results may
surprise you.
5) ROI on the content network is the same as it is on search
That is an interesting way to spin the story. The
fact is that content networks produce a higher amount of fraudulent and
invalid click activity. We reported that 19.2% of clicks coming from
content networks are fraudulent and fall into the high threat
category. I’m glad Google agrees with us on this one. Its clear
advertisers have been justified in their views on the click quality of
content networks because the threat level is so high. We help
advertisers identify publishers in the content networks that they
should avoid. This approach actually helps improve the ROI on all
content networks and gives advertisers peace of mind, thereby
accelerating the growth of pay per click advertising.
Shuman’s first post ends with this, “The
key point here is not that their (Click Forensics) numbers are "too
high". The point is that their data collection methods are inherently
flawed and any resemblance their numbers could have to reality would be
coincidental. Even so, given that they are not measuring click fraud,
they apparently don't intend their numbers to reflect reality.”
At
Click Forensics we stand by our numbers, our methodology, our people,
our clients, our partners and the 3,000 plus members of the Click Fraud
Network. And we are not alone in defending our approach. In March
2006, our methodology was examined by Dr. Tuzhilin, the same expert who
examined Google's click fraud practices and wrote the report as part of
the $90 million click fraud settlement case. Dr. Tuzhilin said:
“Click
Forensics has good data and this is a source of their advantage over
the search engines. My role is to work with them to refine the scoring
methodology to improve accuracy. Their approach is to incorporate as
much data as possible to improve accuracy. The search providers simply
don't have enough data to have the most accurate approach."
The final false accusation from Shuman, responding to a post, charged us with releasing data to “…promote flawed industry estimates in order to attract business.”
Nothing
could be further from the truth.
We are not compensated based on how
much fraud we find. But each time a fraudulent click occurs and is
missed by a search engine, they get paid for it.
Our
goal is to continue to build a great company than helps advertisers
ensure they get what they pay for in the tradition of Nielsen and
Arbitron. Google would do well to take a less confrontational and more cooperative approach embraced by their competitors. That
said, I look forward to discussing these issues with Shuman and
continuing to work together to accelerate the growth of online
advertising by fostering trust and accountability.
Tom Cuthbert
President and CEO