How can advertisers actually begin to help networks stamp out the problems of click fraud?
In recent months click fraud has taken an insidious turn, expanding from a marketer's nightmare to one that threatens anyone unlucky enough to click on the wrong search ad or land on a compromised web page. Fraudsters now embed malicious programs right into landing pages, banners and PPC ads delivered via ad networks like Google and Yahoo! and even hijack entire brands through 'redirects', which spoof legitimate pages but are full of malicious content. Brands victimised by these attacks suffer immediate financial damage to their campaigns, loss of customers and, worse yet, damage to their hard-earned reputations as a result.
As if that wasn't enough, advertisers are still vexed by a near total lack of visibility into the actual performance of their PPC campaigns. None of the major ad networks release the necessary information to help advertisers tweak their campaigns for the best returns, and more often than not click fraud becomes a 'write off'. And there is zero transparency and accountability in regard to the performance of affiliate networks -- so advertisers just do not know where (or even if) their ads are being shown. Of course, many don't care so long as they see a return, but those worried about brand image wouldn't want their ads to appear on pages with questionable content, and even fewer advertisers want to be associated with adware, spyware and popups. This double threat -- brand equity lost to the ravages of malware and a complete lack of campaign accountability -- still make PPC campaigns risky business for brand marketers.
But what if advertisers could see into their clickstreams to filter out malicious code that might otherwise float unnoticed within text ads? And imagine if the networks provided a full PPC performance disclosure statistics page? This might take the shape of an advertising 'dashboard' that detailed the exact amount of clicks the advertiser received -- say 100, of which 20 were questionable. The dashboard would let the advertiser know it was only being charged for 80 clicks. This would show a good-faith effort on behalf of the ad network in combating the click fraud problem. This isn't to say the networks aren't trying to crush fraud now, but without admitting they even have a problem, it's hard for them to say that they have a solution.
If ad networks like Yahoo! and Google continue to keep their most profitable customers in the dark, they'll risk losing ads from the affiliate networks, and high-paying clients will only advertise on search where there is less incentive for fraud. That would significantly impact the major advertising network platforms and threaten the promise of the online channel, hurting everyone within the PPC ecosystem -- advertisers, ad networks, affiliates and publishers.
This latter group is especially vulnerable. As advertisers begin to scale back their Google and Yahoo! campaigns from affiliate networks, publishers who rely on Google and Yahoo! will see a drop in well targeted, high paying ads. Fewer ads lead to lower per-click prices and less relevantly targeted ads. And, just as advertisers lose money, publishers find themselves no longer able to command premium prices for their inventory. Unlike advertisers who can pull, edit and otherwise control their ads, publishers suffer as a whole.
So what can brands and ad networks do about click fraud to keep themselves and their customers safe?
1. A good first step is to start taking some responsibility for campaigns. Too often marketers rely on their agencies to handle the PPC campaign from start to finish, which includes the responsibility to the brand safe from click fraud. This is lazy and more than potentially harmful to the brand. Although most agencies have their clients' best interests in mind, they're primarily interested in generating traffic. But, the quality of that traffic isn't always top-notch. So instead of waiting until an advertising campaign is over and the budget is spent, marketers need to be proactive and address invalid (and potentially unsafe) traffic while a campaign is in progress to improve campaign performance. Pay attention to abnormal behaviour, including traffic generated from spyware, malware, hit bots and other 'black hat' sources.
2. Advertisers need to have third-party auditing tools at hand to make sure that the PPC campaign provides accountability and increases return on ad spend while ensuring the health of the brand's image. Ad networks benefit from this same remedy by being able to ensure their advertisers only the highest quality clickstreams, with no malware associated with the network -- keeping the customers' customers safe, as it were.
3. Education! Educate yourselves on the latest cyber attacks and issues, and how to thwart them, by reviewing sites like About Click Fraud.
As long as there remains a financial incentive for people to commit fraud, the click fraud problem will not fully disappear. But full disclosure by ad networks can alleviate advertiser and publisher angst and allow others help the major ad networks combat the quickly escalating fraud problem. How much data should the advertising networks provide without disclosing trade secrets? That's an important question, but staying quiet and denying the click fraud problem exists may soon lead to not having much performance data at all to hide.
By giving advertisers more visibility into their campaigns, advertisers will be more than happy to help the networks stamp out fraud. But as it stands right now, everyone is still operating in the dark.
Michael Caruso - The CEO of ClickFacts shares his views
Showing posts with label Publishers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Publishers. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The truth about Ad Network Transparency
Clearing up misconceptions
For all that has been written and said about ad network transparency, it's surprising how often the misconception still arises that networks do not provide transparency. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, at least with some networks.
Perhaps the confusion is because transparency takes different forms. To illustrate the degrees of transparency offered by networks, and why these different tiers are necessary, it's helpful to review the role of networks and how they deliver their inventory.
Ad networks were built to deliver performance and scale, not to sell individual sites. And while it's beneficial that most networks have adapted to advertisers' need for transparency, they were initially created to deliver audiences in ways that would help marketers reach a specific performance objective.
Most networks can provide an extremely high degree of transparency; however, as a general rule, more transparency comes at a higher cost. To better understand where the trade-offs related to transparency begin and end, look at how a network structures its relationships with publishers and the value proposition this creates.
Exclusive representation
Networks that offer exclusive site representation provide marketers with unique sponsorships, site takeovers and other custom opportunities on sites that are a match for their desired brand association or target audience. This offers the highest degree of transparency, but typically at higher rates and reduced reach.
From a publisher's perspective, exclusive representation is a great way to leverage the national sales force offered by a network when it may have a small sales team -- or no sales, ad operations or technology organization at all. The site and its network partner are highly motivated to be as transparent as possible, letting well-matched advertisers know they will bend over backward to create programs to maximize how an advertiser is featured on the site.
Key take-aways:
• Exclusive representation provides highly custom opportunities, but with limited reach and at a higher cost.
• The very nature of exclusive representation requires transparency between publisher, the network representing them and the advertiser.
Exclusive third-party
Another level of transparency is created when a network serves as the exclusive third-party sales representative for a site's inventory. In this instance, a site may sell some portion of its inventory directly but will rely heavily on one network to fill the remaining inventory at as high a rate as possible. To the extent that a site will allow its name to be used transparently, it can earn more because the sales organization can disclose the name to advertisers who would place a value on having that site be part of the plan.
On the other hand, because the site maintains its own sales staff, it must work out how to manage any potential channel conflict with the network that is selling alongside them. This may include agreeing on a protected account list, territory restrictions or prohibiting endemic advertisers. Regardless, whether or not to disclose a third-party exclusive relationship is up to the publisher, but it is typically in the best interest of the publisher to allow their network partner to name the site.
Key take-away:
• When a network serves as the exclusive third-party representative of a site, it is to the advantage of the publisher to allow transparency so the unique opportunities on the site can be presented to advertisers
Disclosed
Some sites will give permission for a network to name them as part of a site list or on a custom media plan, but not to the point where the network will report out specific statistics such as impressions, clicks or actions. For advertisers that require full transparency from a network, this form of representation provides the site name and aggregate statistics for the campaign with individual site metrics by anonymous site identification. In all cases, the advertiser is guaranteed to not run outside a list of approved sites.
This category of representation has become quite popular recently, as it seems to be an acceptable win-win for both advertisers and publishers in working with a network. Advertisers get to run on a transparent, approved list of sites, and publishers maintain their brand and rate integrity. If being on a specific site or having specific site metrics by site name is more important than overall performance and scale, advertisers should work directly with the site. The value proposition for networks is to deliver both brand and direct response performance with maximum scale.
Key take-away:
• Disclosed sites can be named on a site list but actual campaign statistics for individual sites are typically reported anonymously.
• Advertisers are assured of not running outside the list of disclosed sites, while publishers are able to maintain brand and rate integrity.
Blind
A blind site is one that a network does not have permission to name, mostly because the site has made a decision that its rate card and/or brand equity would be compromised by its disclosure as part of a network. In this instance, the quality of the site may be quite high, as most of its inventory is likely sold directly, by an internal sales team. The site accepts that it will receive a lower rate from the network by not being disclosed, but has made the strategic decision to sell its available inventory at a lower rate rather than not selling it all.
Caveat emptor! The only other reason an individual site would not be disclosed as part of a network is due to poor quality inventory maintained by the network. Quality of content is subjective, but even if a site contains user-generated content or other content that would be objectionable to some, it should be categorized as such by a network in ways that allow advertisers to make their own decision as to whether they care to run within that inventory.
Key take-away:
• In cases where a reputable network cannot disclose the name of a site, it is typically because the site has its own sales force and sells a majority of their inventory directly to similar advertisers.
• Advertisers should select a network partner with a spotless reputation when sites cannot be named to ensure that these sites will still meet a strict quality standard.
Conclusion
In this day and age of online advertising, and understanding what it takes to earn the trust and budget of an advertiser, it is surprising that some networks continue to push the envelope on unapproved or inappropriate content. Advertisers should choose their network partners cautiously and ensure they have a strong track record of operating with integrity.
Underscoring the entire transparency debate is the issue of credibility, trust and selecting an ad network partner you know will always make the right decision for your brand, even in your absence. A credible partner will give you as much transparency as you require, whether that means their entire site list or a custom media plan of named sites.
Author of this article: Matthew Boyd is senior vice president at ValueClick Media.
For all that has been written and said about ad network transparency, it's surprising how often the misconception still arises that networks do not provide transparency. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, at least with some networks.
Perhaps the confusion is because transparency takes different forms. To illustrate the degrees of transparency offered by networks, and why these different tiers are necessary, it's helpful to review the role of networks and how they deliver their inventory.
Ad networks were built to deliver performance and scale, not to sell individual sites. And while it's beneficial that most networks have adapted to advertisers' need for transparency, they were initially created to deliver audiences in ways that would help marketers reach a specific performance objective.
Most networks can provide an extremely high degree of transparency; however, as a general rule, more transparency comes at a higher cost. To better understand where the trade-offs related to transparency begin and end, look at how a network structures its relationships with publishers and the value proposition this creates.
Exclusive representation
Networks that offer exclusive site representation provide marketers with unique sponsorships, site takeovers and other custom opportunities on sites that are a match for their desired brand association or target audience. This offers the highest degree of transparency, but typically at higher rates and reduced reach.
From a publisher's perspective, exclusive representation is a great way to leverage the national sales force offered by a network when it may have a small sales team -- or no sales, ad operations or technology organization at all. The site and its network partner are highly motivated to be as transparent as possible, letting well-matched advertisers know they will bend over backward to create programs to maximize how an advertiser is featured on the site.
Key take-aways:
• Exclusive representation provides highly custom opportunities, but with limited reach and at a higher cost.
• The very nature of exclusive representation requires transparency between publisher, the network representing them and the advertiser.
Exclusive third-party
Another level of transparency is created when a network serves as the exclusive third-party sales representative for a site's inventory. In this instance, a site may sell some portion of its inventory directly but will rely heavily on one network to fill the remaining inventory at as high a rate as possible. To the extent that a site will allow its name to be used transparently, it can earn more because the sales organization can disclose the name to advertisers who would place a value on having that site be part of the plan.
On the other hand, because the site maintains its own sales staff, it must work out how to manage any potential channel conflict with the network that is selling alongside them. This may include agreeing on a protected account list, territory restrictions or prohibiting endemic advertisers. Regardless, whether or not to disclose a third-party exclusive relationship is up to the publisher, but it is typically in the best interest of the publisher to allow their network partner to name the site.
Key take-away:
• When a network serves as the exclusive third-party representative of a site, it is to the advantage of the publisher to allow transparency so the unique opportunities on the site can be presented to advertisers
Disclosed
Some sites will give permission for a network to name them as part of a site list or on a custom media plan, but not to the point where the network will report out specific statistics such as impressions, clicks or actions. For advertisers that require full transparency from a network, this form of representation provides the site name and aggregate statistics for the campaign with individual site metrics by anonymous site identification. In all cases, the advertiser is guaranteed to not run outside a list of approved sites.
This category of representation has become quite popular recently, as it seems to be an acceptable win-win for both advertisers and publishers in working with a network. Advertisers get to run on a transparent, approved list of sites, and publishers maintain their brand and rate integrity. If being on a specific site or having specific site metrics by site name is more important than overall performance and scale, advertisers should work directly with the site. The value proposition for networks is to deliver both brand and direct response performance with maximum scale.
Key take-away:
• Disclosed sites can be named on a site list but actual campaign statistics for individual sites are typically reported anonymously.
• Advertisers are assured of not running outside the list of disclosed sites, while publishers are able to maintain brand and rate integrity.
Blind
A blind site is one that a network does not have permission to name, mostly because the site has made a decision that its rate card and/or brand equity would be compromised by its disclosure as part of a network. In this instance, the quality of the site may be quite high, as most of its inventory is likely sold directly, by an internal sales team. The site accepts that it will receive a lower rate from the network by not being disclosed, but has made the strategic decision to sell its available inventory at a lower rate rather than not selling it all.
Caveat emptor! The only other reason an individual site would not be disclosed as part of a network is due to poor quality inventory maintained by the network. Quality of content is subjective, but even if a site contains user-generated content or other content that would be objectionable to some, it should be categorized as such by a network in ways that allow advertisers to make their own decision as to whether they care to run within that inventory.
Key take-away:
• In cases where a reputable network cannot disclose the name of a site, it is typically because the site has its own sales force and sells a majority of their inventory directly to similar advertisers.
• Advertisers should select a network partner with a spotless reputation when sites cannot be named to ensure that these sites will still meet a strict quality standard.
Conclusion
In this day and age of online advertising, and understanding what it takes to earn the trust and budget of an advertiser, it is surprising that some networks continue to push the envelope on unapproved or inappropriate content. Advertisers should choose their network partners cautiously and ensure they have a strong track record of operating with integrity.
Underscoring the entire transparency debate is the issue of credibility, trust and selecting an ad network partner you know will always make the right decision for your brand, even in your absence. A credible partner will give you as much transparency as you require, whether that means their entire site list or a custom media plan of named sites.
Author of this article: Matthew Boyd is senior vice president at ValueClick Media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)