
Seth Godin Advocates Click Fraud - rob
http://blog.affiliatetip.com/archives/seth-godin-advocates-click-fraud/
======
pg
Don't use a screwdriver to open bottles; use a bottle opener:
<http://tipjoy.com>

~~~
axod
I don't think the analogy fits perfectly though.

This sort of clickfraud is like using someone elses bottle opener to open the
bottle vs buying your own bottle opener.

Clicking on adverts, you're using advertisers money to reward the website,
instead of using your own.

Clearly it's not a good thing to advocate, but you can sort of see why some
people may decide to do it.

A better suggestion IMHO would be for websites to use pay per lead/sale
affiliate links, and just ask that if people were already going to buy
something, that they use the websites links, thus giving the website a
commission. That way no one is defrauded.

~~~
derefr
I had an idea for a browser extension that would rewrite all "sponsorable"
links, whether they already were from a certain affiliate or not, to be from
yours. You'd register at the extension's site and it would then automatically
register you at all the sponsorable sites they supported. Best of all, the
extension wouldn't be fixed to any individual donatee; rather, users would be
able to click buttons on sites that read "sponsor me/us from now on", and
switch the extension's target. There could also be a menu to select from
previously used sponsors, obviously.

~~~
axod
A more general idea for blogs/forums... When anyone points to a product that
is recognized as having an affiliate program, modify the link to capture the
commission and give it to the blog/forum owner.

Could quite easily be done just as a small javascript include and could work
pretty well provided they get enough people posting links to products/websites
with affiliate programs.

~~~
derefr
The last part of my idea, I figured, was essential to its success--if it
wasn't the _consumer's_ choice that caused already-affiliated links to be
repurposed, it might break those "common carrier" rules that allow a lot of
more questionable forums to exist (would an ISP be allowed to embedd an ad-
blocker in their traffic proxies without then doing "decency filtering"
censorship?). Additionally, users might not like the idea of their own links
being hijacked in this way, filtering the scripts out _with_ adblockers ;)

~~~
axod
True, I agree it'd be best to be completely upfront about it with the users,
and possibly give them a way to opt out of it.

------
alex_c
First, I think it's too easy to say "But only click on ads you like! It's not
click fraud then!". The problem is that this argument is used both by people
who are trying to make a valid point, and by people actually advocating click
fraud ("Click on our ads or the site will shut down. But only click on ads you
like, wink wink nudge nudge"), and it's pretty much impossible to tell the
difference, especially from something as short as Seth's original post.

But mainly, I disagree with him on the form of tipping.

My form of tipping is to give a thumbs up on Stumbleupon, or even on Digg or
Reddit. If it's not on Stumbleupon, even better, I submit it!

For ad-supported content, I think eyeballs is a fine currency. I tip with
something that, in a way, belongs to me: a very tiny slice of my online
"reputation" on social bookmarking services, exchanged for a chance for the
author to get more eyeballs, which might click on ads they're genuinely
interested in.

In Seth's scenario, I'm tipping with someone else's (the advertiser's) money.
That doesn't feel right to me.

------
Hexstream
I've always been surprised the CPC model works at all (and looking at Google
it works like hell!), and this kind of reasoning (regardless of its ethical
considerations) is one of the reasons.

~~~
cstejerean
It works well because Google has all kinds of algorithms for detecting
fraudulent clicks and not charging advertisers for them.

~~~
akd
But Google can't detect when someone makes a one-off ad click for content they
like.

------
pchristensen
No he doesn't.

[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/08/beating-
the-...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/08/beating-the-sta.html)

~~~
gojomo
The gist of the original was 'click to say thanks, which all by itself is a
nice deed for the author'.

The gist of the clarification is 'click _and pay attention to the pitch on the
landing page_ to say thanks, which over time will change click-ads to work
more like TV, which would be healthy for the ad environment'. (Um... yuck!)

The original formulation sounded authentic, albeit essentially advocating
click fraud. The second sounds like backtracking, but has within it the core
of an idea in the TipJoy mold:

What if _some_ contextual ads were explicitly of the form, "we'll tip the
author X if you watch our Y second pitch", and their TOS allowed sites to
encourage clickers?

Then you wouldn't be undermining the value of traditional cost-per-click ads,
you'd be adding another variant to the attention-market that works like what
Godin wants. It'd be a little like an interstitial (or TV ad), but appear only
after you enjoy the content. (An 'afterstitial'?)

'TipWithAdvertisersMoneyJoy'?

~~~
MaysonL
Great idea: only requires a few advertisers to dedicate some fraction of their
ad dollars to sites they like.

Does Google AdSense allow you to pick sites you want your ad to appear on?

------
iamdave
GREAT point, the writer clearly read between the lines here. Though I think
saying he advocates click-fraud is a bit much, this is a good point in stating
that advertisers are losing ROI from people clicking ads to say 'thanks' when
they really don't care about the marketed product, much less would even buy
it. Fantastic article, brief it may be.

------
andrewf
Were this to become popular practice, surely:

(1) Overall advertising industry spend would remain constant. CPC would go
down. Distribution of advertising revenue _may_ shift slightly towards sites
with more "savvy" users.

(2) If, miraculously, distribution shifted significantly, advertisers would
view this as damage and work to route around it.

------
FiReaNG3L
Better advice would be 'Take time to look at ads on sites you like'

~~~
jyothi
Its actually the opposite, by natural instinct. Its all about finding what you
want - irrespective of whether it is from the shop owner or offers or ads. If
you don't find what you want. There is NO reason to sympathize whatsoever.

For blogs and content site, let them have a donate button which says on the
face to show gratitude than promoting click fraud this way.

In the ideal case,

\- If you have a decent site (read business not arbitrage or lead gen sites),
you must be making more money from serving the customer yourself than letting
him/her navigate away from your site.

\- Ads are meant to only complete the user experience. Like say I am searching
for a "black leather high heel sandal" and the site doesn't have the content
relevant, their last attempt to serve the customer should be to show relevant
ads as someone out there might serve me.

\- Ads are about monetizing a visit.

All adnetworks are aggressively behind click fraud for the very same reason.

However its a bad bad world! :) So to survive most are forced to shed away
virtues and values.

------
akd
I do this already. If I see something really good I see if there's an ad to
click on.

------
BenS
In addition to what others say, it also violates the terms of most ad
networks. Inciting users to click will get you quickly booted from many ad
networks.

------
flipbrad
this certainly is a zone Google should be aiming for (but not via g. adsense)
- hopefully (for them) pre-empting any widespread cultural adoption of this
techinque for tipping a creator, which would be totally unsustainable

