20060507

greed - who has it.

as many know i am not a big fan of huge corporations that make billions and give very little back to the community [like oil companies] - in relationship to what they earn. companies that pay a worker $6.00 an hour and complain about giving health benefits, while popping a "fat paycheck" of $400million on the top egg is not what i think of when i think "responsible corporate citizen" [a legal term with very little reality behind it] - not a big fan of that at all - but i was reading my yahoo news today and i think i support the companies in this one - you see, i think it is less "the companies" and far more the idea of the reality of the world we live in.

some people [the "voice" in the article is "radiator.com"] are suing [something new in america, right :)] google and yahoo for "click through fraud" - what they are complaining about is this; when people click the ads and visit the site, the site pays even if someone does not buy anything. they feel that google and yahoo should only charge if a person buys something from them. they see people "visiting" the site via a "chick through" as fraud.

let me see if i can put this into a "brick and mortar" line of thinking; if i visit target and do not buy, do they have the right to ask for the advertising dollars back that got me to go to the store, because i did not buy anything? what about the money that represents the teens who "come in the store with no intention to buy" and all they desire to do is "look around," can you get that portion back? can they ask the news papers, tv and radio for that portion of the bill that represents the people who just visit ["click"] and never buy?

i think if you place an ad on google, or yahoo, and it is a "pay when someone clicks the ad" you pay even if someone does not buy anything - if that does not work for you, don't put an ad on google or yahoo. it sounds like companies like "radiator.com" and others desire to have the exposure of google and yahoo, but are not willing to live up to their end of the deal.

it sounds like some lawyers see the deep pockets of companies like google and yahoo and think, "hey, let's sue." never once thinking that it just sounds so stupid to the rest of the world - now i know what some lawyers, and other, will say, "it's not stupid, the judge agrees that there are issues to be taken to court" - true, but remember, judges are lawyers who simply found a way to get paid for life :) seems like our "legal system" is simply a self serving system designed to help lawyers stay in business :) - but that's just what i think, i could be wrong :)

2 comments:

Rich said...

Actually, click through fraud is bigger than what you portray here. The problem is that many of the clicks are fraudulent.

Did you know there are whole businesses overseas devoted to clicking ads? India has many of these 'click farms'. Lots of these evil corps are hiring them to click through their own ads as well as driving up the ad cost of their rivals by clicking particulat ads at their sites.

They don't mind someone clicking and not buying. What they do mind is a robot or human at a click farm clicking with no intent whatsoever.

kevin h said...

Yes, it is bigger than just not wanting to pay for customers who click but don't buy.

Take, for example, Cogsley Cogs and Spacely Sprockets. Let's say Sprockets takes out an ad through Google. Cogs wants to see Sprockets go down, so they create a robot that does nothing but click on Google ads for Sprockets all day long, costing Sprockets thousands of dollars not for people who "went into the store and didn't buy anything" but for people who never went into the store at all. Cogsley Cogs is the perpetrator of evil here, but what level of responsibility should Google hold for detecting the fraudulent clicks and not charging Sprockets for them?

Google has technology in place to try and detect the fraudulent clicks so their clients are only charged for real people clicking on links. Part of the problem is that Google has not made public their algorithms for detecting fraudulent clicks, so there is no way to really know whether they are doing their jobs. However, if they make their detection process known, it makes it easier for the fraudsters to get around the system.