Click fraud is a multi billion business now.  There is the view that it doesn’t matter so long as you are getting post click actions.  The view is that the clicks must be resulting in some measurable result that makes the campaign worthwhile.

Click fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click fraud occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script, or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating an improper charge per click. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud whether they like it or not.

I think click fraud does matter.  It matters not just because anything based on a percentage of fraud is bad.  It matters not, even because if we choose to accept it and plough on anyway, it will just get more pervasive. 

It matters because its bad for consumers.  The argument for continuing is based on sufficient clicks providing sufficient purchase actions.  But the environment that consumers are clicking through on will be more and more polluted by marketing volume noise, created by the falling cost.  That falling cost will occur because the pay per click model has no basis on the ultimate purchase action.  So more and more clicks are required, to find willing buyers.  This lowers the barrier to entry and advertisers will be pervasive, including bad ones, porno etc. It will snowball.

I am really fascinated to understand the evolution of online marketing, and would be interested in any views on this topic.

Relevance to Bankwatch:
1-1 marketing is a long way off.  Users will avoid sites that annoy them, and they do that today.  Trusted sites, will do well to be careful in the nature of marketing they adopt, to ensure the retain customers trust.

Technorati Tags: click+fraud, marketing, pay+per+click