14 replies to this topic

[webpromoter]

Hi,

I've just received Google's email regarding their new pay-per-impression AdSense feature. While I'm excited about this new feature, I'm equally concerned about generating false impressions by surfing my own sites, which I do regularly to ensure that my sites work properly. It's hard enough to edit my pages without inadvertently clicking on my own ads.

How does Google address this problem? I've written Google but have not gotten a response from them yet. Does anyone know? Personally, I think this new feature is quite flawed since that there are many ways to fraudulently inflate impressions (thru pop-ups, for example). This may lead to false terminations of some advertisers' accounts.

[BobetteKyle]

I had a similar first thought when I read the email...I have been doing a lot of format changes to my site and I generate a lot of impressions. Well...probably only 100+ a day, which, in the big scheme of things, is not really a lot. But, if I were an AdWords advertiser I wouldn't want to pay for those extra. Could add up over severl sites.

Anyway, I don't know, but seems like Google must have some sort of system that invalidates impressions from a single URL after so many or something. Otherwise - with all the recent concern about click fraud - seems they wouldn't be able to convince advertisers to try it.

[Haystack]

It would be great is they had a way to block your own browser from racking up impressions or clicks. I doubt anyone has had their account dropped by inadvertently clicking on their own ads, but it sure wouldn't hurt to simply block it.

[nedguy]

If they don't have a system for ignoring owners views, or... just ignore it, they'll have a real problem. I can resist clicking their adverts on my site but I can't and won't stop looking at it!

I'm more bothered about what it'll do for revenue. It could be loads better, but I'm not unhappy with the click-through rates.

If I find the rates drop, I'll drop Google - I can get cpm rates anywhere.

NG

[davenaff]

It is probably worth noting that:

1. Much in the same way that Google detects some click-fraud, they will also have methods to detect impressions inadvertently generated by webmasters. Despite lots of comments to the contrary, I don't believe that Google is launching the CPM program to combat click-fraud (internally they believe that the problem is under control) - it is being done to acquire different types of advertisers.

2. Advertisers that bid on a CPM basis, will only have their ads shown if that CPM > CPC & CTR (the current method). Unless advertisers convert en masse to CPM (unlikely IMHO), most publishers probably won't notice a difference.

3. Publishers will never know whether their advertisers are paying on a CPC or CPM basis.

[Martin C]

It is probably worth noting that:

(internally they believe that the problem is under control) .

[ElizabethReynolds]

If they come up with a way to do this I would thank my lucky stars. I have product managers who constantly click on their own ads to make sure they're working, regardless of the fact that they get charged $ every time.

[tempy]

[robbinsr]

I would imagine that Google doesn't care if the person paying for the ad clicks on their own ad but it becomes an issue when the person profiting from the ad clicks on their own ad! However, as hard as it is not to click on ads on my own web site (hard yes but doable yes) I too am going to keep on checking my site to see if what I did will work, so impressions are going to get racked up, not deliberately but they are going to. Besides, if I can't check my Google Toolbar for PageRank (Jill won't let me, she told me not to ) then I have to check something!

[Martin C]

Okay how does the term cost-per-impression get abbreviated to CPM? What is wrong with CPI?

[BobetteKyle]

It is really cost per thousand impressions. Thousand is often shortened to M ($35,000 is $35M, etc.). So, cost per thousand = CPM.

[Martin C]

Thanks BobetteKyle - Do people still use Roman numeral M to indicate 1,000?

I thought that cockney rhyming slang was fairly lateral thinking but this rivals the British 'Three R's' - reading, writing and arithmetic!

[BobetteKyle]

I don't think people use them in real life very much.

For whatever reason, some businesses use M for thousand and MM for million in business documents. Then again, some use K for thousand. (I have worked for both kinds.)

I have no clue why it is like that or the history behind this...I only know because I've had to use those notations in past careers on P&Ls, proposals, budgets, etc.

[DanThies]

A few quick hits on this...

1) Advertisers will know which sites they are targeting with CPM ads. This is likely to involve a lot more targeting of high-volume sites than low-volume sites.

2) Publishers apparently will not know which ads are based on CPM and which are based on PPC bids, so they won't know whether to click for click fraud or reload for impression fraud.

3) Ad networks have always had to deal with "what's an impression." Google doesn't have to blaze a new trail here.

4) Yes, we're working on a process similar to our keyword research offering, to research appropriate sites for CPM advertising.

[storyspinner]

2) Publishers apparently will not know which ads are based on CPM and which are based on PPC bids, so they won't know whether to click for click fraud or reload for impression fraud.

Interesting, so any clue if this really is a way to help alleviate click fraud on Google's part?

When I heard this announcement from Google, I immediately thought this was an alternative for the folks in idustries getting nailed with the click fraud (gambling, pharmeceuticals, etc).

If its is how you've explained... that's a plus for them is it not?