April 30th, 2007

Google fights against Click Fraud? Yes, BUT No

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 9:59 am

Categories: Click Fraud, Google, Yahoo

Tags: Google Inc., Advertisement, Yahoo! Inc., Click Fraud, Fraud, Advertiser, Donna Bogatin

The Google machine is fueled by SPIN, I said earlier in the year: "Google’s secret weapon is a four letter word."

BUT, Can Google SPIN conquer everything, even the scourge of click fraud?

Google Trust & Safety exec, Shuman Ghosemajumder, continues to try his darndest!

I met one-on-one with Ghosemajumder and separately with his Yahoo counterpart, Reggie Davis, Vice President of Marketplace Quality, earlier this month in New York City.

By pure scheduling happenstance, my Yahoo meeting transpired before my Google meeting. Consequently, when I met with Ghosemajumder, I had already published a report on my discussion with Davis.

Nevertheless, my Yahoo story appeared online but an hour or two before my scheduled meeting with Google. I was a bit surprised then, that the first course of Google business in my meeting with Ghosemajumer was a Google desire to one-up Yahoo’s position on click fraud, as specifically headlined in my report.

My Yahoo story headlined Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits!

Ghosemajumder assured me right out of the Google click fraud gate, Google wants click fraud audits too, BUT…

BUT being the operative word. Why BUT, why the need to qualify an affirmative?

“Only if they mean something,” Ghosemajumder said.

How So? Does that imply that Yahoo and all other concerned parties only want click fraud audits if they DON’T mean anything?

I put forth a considerable effort in soliciting Ghosemajumder to itemize under what terms Google WOULD accept click fraud audits, that WOULD “mean something.” (Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers)

Of course, meaningful specifics about what would be meaningful are conveniently waved off, as details could risk helping the “fraudsters,” Google warns.

Ghosemajumder is playing the Click Fraud BUT game once again, in a blog rebuttal to a third-party click fraud advisory service championed initiative, “Cornerstone Principles for Pay-Per-Click Quality Improvement” introduced by Tom Cuthbert, CEO, ClickForensics.

An example of the latest Google Yes BUT No anti-click fraud stance:

Proposed Principal:  Advertisers should never pay for double clicks or repeat clicks from the same session.

(YES) I agree that advertisers should not be charged for double clicks. (BUT)

While the activity of comparison shopping is a common reason that multiple clicks to the same ad can occur within a short period of time, if the clicks occur so close together that they could only be caused by double-clicking or malicious repeated clicking, the extra clicks clearly provide no value to the advertiser.

But “same session” is not defined here, and it would be bad for advertisers to define it in a way that would exclude comparison shopping. For example, if publishers and search engines decided not charge for multiple clicks on an ad within the same day, they would redesign their ad systems to not show that advertiser’s ad the second time a user searched on the same keyword, since showing ads which produce no revenue is not desirable. But this would deny that advertiser the opportunity to have a user who was comparison shopping revisit their site, and that would rob them of sales opportunities.

Google SPIN cheerfully turns double-triple-quadruple clicking by the same person on the same AdWord as “comparison shopping.” Perhaps it is, but that doesn’t mean that the Google cash register should repeatedly ring up the same PPC sale.

So-called “comparison shopping” is not the complaint, re-charging for same visitor clicks on the same ad is the click fraud problem!

BUT, how can a Google advertiser resist the Googley plea of PLEASE don’t let those pesky third party click fraud analysts rob YOU of sales?

By steadfastly reiterating: Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!

And repeatedly asking: Click Fraud Audits: What is IAB’s dog in the fight?

April 24th, 2007

Click Fraud Audits: What is IAB's dog in the fight?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 12:10 pm

Categories: Click Fraud, Google, Yahoo

Tags:

Mild mannered, advertising industry sage Randall Rothenberg didn’t wait long to pick a fight in his new role as President, Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), and he picked a big one.

The IAB is “the trade association for interactive marketing in the United States.” It represents over 300 interactive companies and its members are responsible for selling over 86% of online advertising in the U.S.

On behalf of its members, the IAB evaluates and recommends standards and practices, conducts effectiveness research and educates marketers, media, and advertising companies about interactive marketing.

Among the 300 members: The top two online advertising sales-fueled interactive properties, Google and Yahoo search and display powerhouses.

Google top sales exec, Tim Armstrong, and Yahoo top sales exec, Wenda Harris Millard, sit on the Executive Committee of the IAB, along with IAB President Rothenberg.

What impacts online search and display advertising sales? Measurement of Web traffic and click fraud.

The IAB mission, in fact, is easily encapsulated, by the IAB itself: It is dedicated to helping online media companies “increase their revenues.”

The IAB mission explains the “Audit Challenge” made by Rothenberg to online audience measurement houses comScore and Nielsen/NetRatings last week calling for submission to: “third-party audits of their measurement processes.”

Why such a call? The IAB declares because the Interactive industry is “committed to delivering accountability, integrity in audience measurement is a fundamental necessity.”

What is the IAB membership really concerned about? “A multiplicity of reported discrepancies in audience measurements…discrepancies exist between the audience measurements of comScore and NNR and those of the server logs of the IAB's own members.”

In other IAB words, online ad sales members do not want to be short changed in ad sales revenues due to possible traffic under counting by measurement houses.

But what about online advertisers, search marketers in particular. They do not want to be over charged, by possible valid click over counting by search engines.

In Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed! I report and analyze my one-on-one discussions in New York City earlier this month with Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Product Manager Trust & Safety, and Reggie Davis, Yahoo Vice President of Marketplace Quality, underscoring how both Google and Yahoo are seeking to turn the industry conversation about click fraud to one about click "quality."

I also spoke with the IAB’s Rothenberg last week about the Click Fraud “problem” at the Advertising Research Foundation conference. Rothenberg does not share my view that the scourge of click fraud could, potentially, disrupt the future of the multi-billion dollar search advertising market. 

It is not surprising, given that the big IAB dogs in the click fraud fight are Executive Committee members Google and Yahoo, naturally aligned with the no real click fraud problem position. 

Nevertheless, will Rothenberg lead a Click Fraud third-party "Audit Challenge" to his own members for the sake of the long term greater good of the interactive advertising industry?

In Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers and Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits! I present how the big online dogs point to the IAB in all discussions of prospective click fraud audits.

April 13th, 2007

Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 8:23 am

Categories: Advertising, Business Models, Click Fraud, Google, Legal, Search, Search Advertising, Yahoo

Tags:

In the world of click fraud, what a difference eight months and a cross-country trip makes! 

The SES New York City “Auditing Paid Listings & Click Fraud” panel yesterday was a collegial, mutually beneficial industry reaffirmation of how far EVERYONE has come in battling the scourge of click fraud which could, potentially, disrupt the future of the multi-billion dollar search advertising market. 

The SES San Jose panel last August, in stark contrast, was a tumultuous affair, sparked by Google representative Shuman Ghosemajumder seemingly sabotaging fellow panelists with a surprise strategic unveiling of a Google engineers’ penned “Troubling findings on how some third parties detect click fraud" report, purporting to expose the “work of several click fraud consultants,” such as fellow panelists.

No such fireworks yesterday, however. In fact, while the panel brought together the click fraud point men from arch rivals Yahoo and Google, as well as third party PPC “spoiler” ClickForesnics, which seeks to pierce the “cloud of mystery over the entire pay per click process” on behalf of PPC advertisers, a we are all in this together atmosphere prevailed, on the surface.

SEE: Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers and
Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits!

But are Google, Yahoo, ClickForensics and other third party search engine oversight firms REALLY all mutually aligned in customers’ best interests, increasing transparency and accountability sufficiently so that advertisers ARE getting what they are paying for? 

With search engines touting a superior ROI value proposition of PPC spends to advertisers and providing free analytics and conversion tracking tools to clients to “prove” an inherent cost-effectiveness of online advertising over other options, is click fraud really a “non-issue” now?

I asked Tom Cuthbert, CEO, ClickForensics, during the Q & A, if search engines will succeed in disintermediating “accurate independent analysis” firms such as his own.

Cuthbert replied “No,” indicating that advertisers will not accept simply taking the publishers’ “word” that click fraud does not significantly impact them financially. Advertisers are commited to knowing that they “get what they pay for,” he underscored.

Google and Yahoo are nevertheless breathing a mutual sigh of relief that click fraud litigation is deemed to be "safely" behind them.

The leading search engines have apparently escaped potentially catastrophic economic, public relations and businesss model fall-out from the click fraud law suits they recently settled and both are now confidently reaching out to advertisers evangelizing the overall click “quality” they deliver to advertisers.

By changing the conversation from click fraud to click quality, both Google and Yahoo aim to mute advertiser click fraud concerns by extolling the higher general ROI they say is to be had from the “more accountable” online medium over traditional venues, such as television and radio.

Will advertisers really buy it though, literally?

Many search engine advertisers in the SES audience yesterday expressed frustration to both Yahoo and Google, indicating they do not feel they always know they are getting what they are paying for.

Will good, or even superior, search engine ROI really be a sufficient search engine click fraud “defense”?

Or, will search advertisers insist on knowing they ARE getting the clicks they pay for, on a click by click basis?

STAY TUNED, TO THS DIGITAL MARKETS BLOG!

ALSO: Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers and Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits!

April 13th, 2007

Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 6:00 am

Categories: AdWords, Advertising, Click Fraud, Google, Google Ads, ROI, Search, Search Advertising

Tags:

UPDATE: Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!  

Where does click fraud come from? How does Google protect against it?

No one knows better than Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Product Manager Trust & Safety. 

What are the latest Google initiatives on the click fraud front?

I met with Ghosemajumder in New York City yesterday to find out. 

According to Ghosemajumder, there are two main “incentives” behind malicious click fraud activity at Google and five key ways such activity manifests:

Main Click Fraud Incentives 

Advertiser attacks at Google.com
Affiliate inflation via AdSense

Representative Click Fraud Methods

Manual clicking
Click farms
Pay-to-click sites
Click bots
Botnets

What is “click fraud” to Google? “Clicks on AdWords campaigns made with malicious or fraudulent intent,” Ghosemajumder said. 

“Invalid clicks,” in Google nomenclature, are clicks Google decides not to charge for.

Ghosemajumder told me the Google philosophy is to “cast the net of invalid clicks wide enough” so that Google has a high degree of confidence that the actual malicious clicks are caught.

Ghosemajumder described how Google detects invalid clicks via a three prong system employing both proactive and reactive methods:

1) Proactive automated algorithm analysis of all clicks to filter out invalid clicks in real-time.

2) Proactive offline manual analysis of the AdSense network.

3) Reactive investigations in response to advertiser click inquiries.

According to Ghosemajumder, the “vast majority “of click fraud and/or invalid click detection occurs during automated filtering. Reactive Google investigations are “relatively rare,” he said.

Since 2002, the percent of clicks designated by Google as “invalid” has been less than 10%,” Ghosemajumder indicated.

In addition to its proactive and reactive invalid click and click fraud detection processes, Ghosemajumder said there are many “features” unique to Google providing advertisers with greater efficiency, control and reporting:

SmartPricing, introduced in 2005
AdWords Auto-Tagging, introduced in 2005
Site Targeting/Site Exclusion, introduced in 2005
Invalid Clicks Reporting, introduced in 2006

To be launched in Q2, 2007:

IP Exclusion
Enhanced Reporting

Google is also increasing out reach to the public and to its advertisers on the click fraud front, Ghosemajumder told me. 

A Google online Invalid Clicks Resource Center will be launched in Q2, 2007 aimed at providing open access to educational resources.

On May 2, Google will host an “Invalid Clicks Advertiser Forum” all day event to present Google best practices and encourage advertiser interaction and feedback. Google has sent out invitations to about 200 advertisers.

Where does Google stand on the click fraud audit front?

Ghosemajumder confirmed to me that as one of the founding members of the IAB’s industry-wide Click Measurement Working Group, Google is working hard to drive a consensus on audits that will “mean something.”

As a matter of fact, Ghosemajumder told me he will be working with the group today!

ALSO: Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits! and  Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!

April 12th, 2007

Click Fraud: Yahoo wants audits!

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 9:37 am

Categories: Click Fraud, Yahoo

Tags:

UPDATE:  Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!

Last month I asked Click Fraud: Yahoo pledges quality, what about audits?

Reggie Davis, newly appointed Yahoo Vice President of Marketplace Quality, told me Tuesday that Yahoo supports the Internet Advertising Bureau’s push for “auditing against standards,” the click measurement standards currently being formulated under the auspices of the IAB’s industry-wide Click Measurement Working Group. 

Davis told me he is hopeful that the work of the IAB’s Working Group may be completed by the end of this year. 

Davis may be new on the job (I had the honor of receiving the first of his newly minted business cards when we met in New York City earlier this week), but he has already set in motion an executive agenda to “combat click fraud, enhance traffic quality and provide additional visibility and controls to advertisers.” 

Davis shared with me how Yahoo currently seeks to protect its advertisers from the potential impact of click fraud and what it intends to do going forward to further bolster the quality of advertising it delivers.

Yahoo today, according to Davis: 

Yahoo identifies, but does not bill for, on average, about 12-15% of the clicks on its network,

The Yahoo Click Through Protection (CTP) System comprises about 2000 filters with rules to determine click validity by assessing a multitude of attributes for each click on its network, including: 

Black lists/white lists
Behavioral pattern matching
De-duplications
Historical analysis
Bad IPs
Robotic browser IDs

Davis told me that he has recently seen “significant decrease in the number of click fraud/traffic quality investigation requests.” 

Davis is bringing together a dedicated staff of about 26 professionals to manage across all of Yahoo’s cross-functional quality teams.

The Marketplace Quality team will be rolling out an advertiser-focused Marketplace Quality Center with an automated advertiser inquiry submission process and educational resources for advertisers, such as “Tips to detect suspicious click activity.”

Yahoo is targeting a ten day turnaround time for responding to advertiser click inquiries and will be offering an 800 number for additional service.

Davis told me “protecting advertisers from unqualified clicks” is a top Yahoo priority, noting that it is a Yahoo “compelling” interest to run a “trusted marketplace.”

Davis is also evangelizing increased advertiser adoption of conversion tracking tools; Installation of the Yahoo tools will be available through the Marketplace Quality Center.

Additional Yahoo initiatives championed by Davis for 2007:

1) Quality-based pricing, designed to ensure that traffic is priced in a manner that is consistent with the quality it delivers to advertisers,

2) Domain-level blocking, allowing advertisers to identify individual domains from which they do not wish to receive traffic.

ALSO: Google to host Click Fraud day for advertisers and Why Click Fraud is NOT case closed!

April 6th, 2007

Google's NOT SO virtuous circle

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 11:25 am

Categories: Advertising, Click Fraud, Copyright, Google, Government, Legal, Search, Search Advertising

Tags:

Eric Goldman “snarkily” declares “pro se lawyers aren't bringing honor to themselves or our profession,” pro se lawyers who are also AdWords buyers AND SUING GOOGLE over click fraud that is!

BUT, what about esquire Goldman? Goldman may or may not be a purchaser of Google AdWords, but he most definitely is a Google AdSense “partner.”

As a matter of fact, HIS Technology & Marketing Law blog which congratulates Google for a “nice win” in a post entitled “Google AdWords contract upheld (again): Feldman v. Google” is accompanied by a Google AdWords ad served by the Google AdSense network, for which Goldman gets an undisclosed portion of Google revenues booked from the Google AdWords advertiser, which just so not coincidentally happens to BE Google!

Talk about conflict of interests!

In coming to the mighty defense of all mighty Google, Goldman earns Googley dollars, or cents, for hawking “Google Ads For Your Site”: displaying a Google self-dealing AdWords ad promoting Google AdSense: “Enhance your users’ experience and earn money with Google AdSense.”

Of course, Google will not tell you HOW MUCH money you will earn, despite Goldman’s not guaranteed assertion that AdWords contract terms “aren't substantively unconscionable.”

How much COULD Google be bidding against itself in its own AdWords "blind" auction to display its own ads in its own AdSense network?

Moreover, couldn’t such self-dealing be considered “substantively unconscionable” itself?

Goldman seems to be celebrating, perhaps along with advertising partner Google, that the multi-billion dollar seller of AdWords is now entitled with impunity to “cut the economic heart out of (any future) click fraud claim.”

RIGHT, just like the Google $1.65 billion acquisition of YouTube is in the $1 billion copyright infringement free and clear!

SEE: YouTube: Why Google is running scared

ALSO: Google blurs line between advertising and content, again and Google clients ‘frustrated’ by unprofitable AdWords buys and Google (will be) a monopoly and Does Google SEO success ’suck’?

March 28th, 2007

Click Fraud: Yahoo pledges quality, what about audits?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 1:18 am

Categories: Click Fraud, Google, Profits, ROI, Search Advertising, Yahoo

Tags:

As Associate General Counsel, Yahoo, Reggie Davis negotiated a settlement last year in the class action lawsuit matter of Checkmate Strategic Group, Inc. vs. Yahoo Inc., which alleged breach of contract and unfair business practices, including improper collection of revenue for clicks that were click fraud. 

Now, as newly appointed Vice President of Marketplace Quality (a Yahoo position required by the very settlement), Davis announces final judicial approval of the settlement:

"Judge Snyder's final approval of the settlement validates the strength of Yahoo's clickthrough protection systems and our commitment to delivering a quality experience to both our advertisers and our consumers. Our commitment does not stop here. Quality is a top priority for Yahoo and we have a clear roadmap for how we’re going to create the highest quality search advertising network in the industry," as cited by Search Engine Watch.

Are congratulations really in order, as Davis intimates? Should Yahoo advertisers breath a collective sigh of click fraud relief because Yahoo says it has a “clear roadmap” to “quality”?

The financial substance of the negotiated settlement, as put forth by Yahoo to its shareholders:

One-Time Extended Claims Period: Yahoo will offer advertisers a one-time extended claims period during which advertisers can submit click fraud claims for clicks dating back through January 2004. If our investigation determines that a credit is due that was not given previously, we will issue a 100% credit, which can be used however the advertiser wishes to use it. This claims process will be overseen by a retired Federal judge.

What financial satisfaction is Yahoo really guaranteeing to advertisers who believe they were improperly billed by Yahoo? Nothing apparent.Yahoo commits to reviewing advertiser claims, but will decide whether advertisers' claims are worthy of receiving credits or not.

If “quality is a top priority for Yahoo,” Davis can reassure advertisers in one fell swoop by committing to third party “auditing and certification.”

Last August, during a SES panel, I asked John Slade, Yahoo Search Marketing, if Yahoo would commit to upholding the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) “auditing and certification recommendations” under development in conjunction with the IAB Click Measurement Guideline initiative.

I also asked panel member Shuman Ghosemajumder, Google Trust & Safety, the same question.

Both Slade and Ghosemajumder, committed, on behalf of their companies, to accept third party independent click fraud audits.

Since that exchange, both Google and Yahoo have made several public statements on their click fraud initiatives, but neither company has addressed the issue of third party independent click fraud audits.

Once more, “Google, Yahoo click fraud audits: When will advertisers demand them?”

ALSO: "Why Yahoo really needs click fraud ‘Czar’"

March 23rd, 2007

Why Yahoo really needs click fraud 'Czar'

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 6:11 am

Categories: Click Fraud, Internet Data, Legal, Metrics, Profits, ROI, Search, Search Advertising, Yahoo

Tags:

In my Yahoo click fraud initiatives: Exclusive update in January, I projected that Yahoo would make a formal, public announcement of a “Traffic Quality Advocate” by April 30, 2007.

Yesterday, Yahoo made the announcement:

The appointment of Reggie Davis to vice president of marketplace quality. In this new role, Davis will serve as the company's first senior executive dedicated to continually enhancing the quality of Yahoo!'s display and search listings marketplaces.

As vice president of marketplace quality, Davis is responsible for developing and executing a strategy aimed at driving more rapid innovation, greater transparency and faster delivery of product and service enhancements to build an even higher quality advertising network for Yahoo!'s customers. Davis will hire a dedicated staff to manage across all of Yahoo!'s cross-functional quality teams and ensure that customer input is integrated into all efforts to address click fraud, traffic quality, network placement and other marketplace quality issues. Davis and his team will also be responsible for increasing Yahoo!'s dialogue with advertisers and publishers on quality related matters.

Davis, a veteran Yahoo, on his new responsibilities:

In seven years at Yahoo!, I've never seen a more important opportunity to partner with our customers to increase the value of our industry.

Is that the real reason Davis now sports a new Yahoo title? Not exactly. Davis’ prior Yahoo role:

Associate general counsel managing litigation, including Yahoo's click fraud litigation.

Davis undoubtedly helped negotiate the very creation of his new post, with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

As part of the settlement in Checkmate Strategic Group, Inc. vs. Yahoo! Inc., alleging breach of contract and unfair business practices:

Yahoo shall designate a Yahoo employee as a traffic quality advocate who will be part of a traffic quality group to fulfill the function of fielding advertisers’ concerns regarding traffic quality, including its click fraud prevention efforts, within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date of the settlement.

Next up, as per the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles:

Yahoo shall launch an online traffic quality center, which will be available to its advertisers within 90 calendar days of the Effective Date of the settlement. The traffic quality center will include a resource center which will contain FAQs, best practices documents, traffic quality articles, enforcement guidelines, and an advice column.

STAY TUNED!

March 6th, 2007

Why Google will never pay for content

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 3:53 pm

Categories: Advertising, Brands, Business Models, Click Fraud, Content, Copyright, Google, Google Software Applications, Marketing, Profits, ROI, Search, Search Advertising, Video, Wall Street, Web 2.0, YouTube

Tags:

I hold an MBA from New York University Stern School of Business. No MBA necessary, however, to grasp the American way, the American capitalist way that is: You get what you pay for! 

Why then does Wall Street darling, $140 billion market cap, 29% profit margin Google wantonly “make money solely on the backs of other people’s content,” without paying for it, as Thomas Rubin, Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secrets, Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, Microsoft, decried today at the Association of American Publishers Annual Meeting. 

I have asked just such a thing, many a time, at this Digital Markets Blog and in my recent Fast Company Magazine Google debate.

Below is an excerpt from my response to the Fast Company magazine question: Is Google due for a fall?

People are eager to dismiss talk of Google's encroachment on the intellectual and personal assets of the world as "scaremongering," and that is what Google is banking on, literally.

GOOG is fueled by an unsustainable business model: The selling of ads against content that it does not own, that it has not compensated IP owners for and that it has no explicit legal right to exploit commercially. The "millions" of businesses and individuals "voluntarily" forking over their proprietary content and personal data to Google "every day," sell themselves and their assets short, while Google's market cap balloons.

Google's free ride is being challenged by content owners around the world. Google corporate AdWords customers are challenging Google's dominion over their own properties, protesting that Google has become a "toll keeper" on brand names.

If "search marketers aren't fools," then Google's growth is destined to slow, along with its share price.

Is Microsoft brandishing out at Google in the name of copyright owners rights purely for its own Microsoft-centric corporate objectives? Of course. Does that make Microsoft’s cogent arguments any less powerful? Of course not.

As a matter of fact, I heard Google CEO Eric Schmidt today embrace loud, proud and clear, the very content owner be damned modus operandi that Rubin accuses it of fostering: The “taking” of the works of others, without any regard for copyright, or compensation.

I spent several hours over the past two days listening to Schmidt expound upon the Google no need to pay for content, free-ride business model, as I report and analyze in “YouTube: What Google CEO Eric Schmidt really thinks” and “Google CEO extols $800 billion advertising opportunity.”

The Google CEO ultimatum to video content owners victimized by copyright infringing uploads at YouTube:

Users are going to make copies of your copyright content, so you may as well get used to it and embrace it. Video content companies ought to make it even easier for “fans” to use unauthorized copyright content uploads, instead of trying to deprive them of the content they are “fanatics” about.

What will the video content owners really get out of their “fans” exploiting unauthorized uploads of their copyright content? That is still Googley “unclear.”

Amazingly, the Google CEO was extolling its all the world’s information is Google’s free for the taking, fair-use, DMCA inspired business model at perhaps the exact moment that the Microsoft Counsel for Copyright was rallying against it!:

Google’s business model is straightforward – attract as many users as possible to its site by providing what it considers to be “free” content, then monetize that content by selling ads. I think Pat Schroeder put it best when she said Google has “a hell of a business model – they’re going to take everything you create, for free, and sell advertising around it.”

I have put forth at this Digital Markets Blog “Google click fraud audits: When will advertisers demand them?”

I now also put forth "Google compensation: When will content owners demand it?"

ALSO: Google warns of Microsoft, Yahoo competition and Google Search: Is PageRank reliable?

March 3rd, 2007

Should Google be trusted?

Posted by Donna Bogatin @ 5:37 am

Categories: Click Fraud, Google, Google Apps, Google Software Applications, Internet Data, Legal, Media, ROI, Search, Search Advertising, Self-Promotion

Tags:

When Google speaks the world listens, and believes, the media in particular.

Is that a good thing? Generally not, especially when billions of dollars of others’ property is at stake.

In the past two days alone, Google speak has succeeded in much more than dampening media criticism. It’s deft media handling has resulted in media coverage that is not only favorable to Google, it often reiterates the Google public facing position, verbatim, with added personal and glowing stamps of media approval.

Beware, as I have oft said Google’s secret weapon is a four letter word (SPIN), and it is a dangerous one.

I continue to cut through the Google spin machine hype at this Digital Markets Blog.

Yesterday, I put forth Google Apps: Gmail SLA jury still out, countering the Google press position that all is well and good in the Google Cloud.

Two days ago, I underscored Why Google click fraud is NOT 0.02%, refuting the Google press position that Click Fraud is not really impacting Google advertisers.

Want more REAL Google debate?:

GOOGLE DUE FOR A FALL? DONNA BOGATIN DEBATES DANNY SULLIVAN

 Loading ...