Google Agrees to Pay $90mln on Click Fraud Lawsuit 132
Hitokiri writes "Google has agreed to pay up to $90 million to settle a class action lawsuit 'Lane's Gifts v. Google'. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by Lane's Gifts earlier this year in an Arkansas state court and is designed to settle all outstanding claims against Google for fraud committed using its pay-per-click ad system back to 2002Google has made a statement on their blog."
It's credits - not dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who recognizes the difference between "getting paid $1" and "getting credit for $1 - at that company"?
Re:It's credits - not dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Now Lane's Gifts just need to set up an advertising agency, and its clients will advertise via its account (and credits) on Google.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Insightful)
There are people out there who have a hard time working the remote control for their TV. When these people go on the Internet they use "Internet Explorer" with no updates and they don't even know there are alternatives to it. Imagine your mother on the Internet to get an idea who's looking at the pop-ups desperately trying to figure out how to close that (or any other) window.
Total number of ads stays the same... what happens (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's credits - not dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that must reduce the amount a little, surely...
Re:It's credits - not dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's ALL credits - not dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
Cash is an abstraction of value. It's value comes from the fact that it's mutually recognised as having a value. That's where it's value comes from, a common-agreement. You find *anything* that people are just as willing to exchange for services/resources as money. Gold's "worthless" unless you can find someone who's willing to exchange it for something you want (eg, sex). A pig's useless if you're living with vegie hippies (not that they have money anyway).
Money means not having to look long and hard for someone who's willing to trade with you. This means you have time for other things. Money is an abstract representation of time ("time is money" is true). There is no way, by the furthest stretch of imagination, that you can say time is worthless. It's the most valuable thing you've got.
How about Overture aka Yahoo... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Insightful)
Google ads work because they're shown to you while you're actually looking for them.
You're right, but I wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll try not to be Mr. Obvious here, but consider this: when companies buy time on TV, they have no idea how effective those ads are. What I mean is, they can see the ratings for the TV show and you can guess how many people saw those ads based on the ratings, but that is no guarantee anybody actually watched the commercial, and even if they did, you have no idea if people associate your product with that commercial, and even if you did, you have no idea how that translates into a sale.
But yet despite all those handicaps, companies still purchase TV, radio, and print ads.
For online advertising, google ads or anything like that... at least you can measure some sort of direct impact... the month before, I had X hits, this month I had Y clicks The month before I had $X in sales, this month I had $Y in sales. In both case, I can measure those numbers well enough to draw a conclusion pretty quickly about the effectiveness of the ad.
The comparison is not different than direct mail, email, or other ads... does my revenue increase more than the cost of the advertising. If it does, then it's good for me. If it doesn't, it's not good for me, stop advertising.
If you don't know the impact in 3 months, then shame on you for not paying attention. And that's really my point. Google has been around long enough for companies to draw a conclusion as to the effectiveness of those ads. Either they're effective, or companies are not willing to admit that Google isn't effective.