Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Google Launches Cost Per Action AdSense 147

rustybrick writes "Google has launched an invite only test of CPA (cost per action) AdSense ads. So instead of getting paid per click or per impression, you now can get paid for an action, such as a sale or lead referral."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Launches Cost Per Action AdSense

Comments Filter:
  • by celardore ( 844933 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:48PM (#15578856)
    The point of sale or is right where the money is, so it makes sense to test the market with it. I'm sure that Google would deem a direct referal to a sale to be worth more too. It will be interesting to see how the revenue for the publisher and the costs for the marketer woulr work out.
  • PM me with your offer.

    (sic) ;-)

  • Advertiser Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)

    by numbsafari ( 139135 ) <(swilson) (at) (> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:48PM (#15578866)
    I worked for a company back when no one cared about making money and we were looking at building something similar. One of the chief concerns we had at the time was how to prevent fraud on the part of the advertisers: ie, if a user clicks through and ultimately makes a purchase, did the advertiser properly track that and then report it back?

    There are a couple of ways publishers can also loose out: for instance, if a user clicks through but doesn't make a purchase only to return to the advertiser's site the next day or week and make the purchase, will the publisher be compensated appropriately?

    This is definitely a great opportunity for publishers and advertisers by increasing quality over quantity. However, there are a lot of potential pitfalls for the publisher.

    Will google be able to properly intermediate? or will they tend to side with their big advertisers when issues/complaints arise?
    • by leonmergen ( 807379 ) <.lmergen. .at.> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:10PM (#15578987) Homepage

      Well, since the CPA ads are in a separate pool... will this pool also work in a similar way as the "other" pool, as in, that the highest-revenue ads are the most likely to be picked?

      If this is a case, an advertisers who frauds will logically be picked less and less, so the damage done will not be that big. Something along this line sounds like a "natural" solution to the problem, /me thinks..

      • by blooba ( 792259 )
        The "other" pool to which you refer is a process known as yield optimization. All the P4P companies do it. They all have algorithms that determine which ads get served where, based on click-through rates and revenue. I imagine that most companies use the good old greedy algorithm.

        Fraud detection is actually much easier with actions than with clicks. Sure, there will be some credit card fraud, but no more so than any other retail transaction.

    • Re:Advertiser Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)

      by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:20PM (#15579050) Homepage Journal
      If a point-of-sale site pushed their transactions through Google's new GBuy [] service, advertisers would have no way to hide actions resulting in revenue. Perhaps the invite-only aspect of the launch is designed to focus on businesses that are planning on using GBuy?
    • Handle this like any other similar problem: randomly survey users on whether they made a purchase. Smaller volume advertisers would be able to get away with it very often, but it would have a panopticon like effect.
      • Re:Advertiser Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Breakfast Pants ( 323698 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:33PM (#15579118) Journal
        Other obvious though(because surveys might be a bit too intrusive, and unreliable): simulate paying customers in a statistically relevant way yourself and see if the sales are getting reported.
        • by panaceaa ( 205396 )
          Then what do you does Google do with all the stuff they just bought? Return it? That doesn't sound like an attractive proposition for online retail stores.
          • They probably do whatever secret shoppers in brick/mortar stores do. I'm sure they get rid of it somehow, returning may even be specified in the contract.
            • Re:Advertiser Fraud (Score:3, Informative)

              by shumacher ( 199043 )
              I used to work retail. I've seen the instruction sheets that go to the legit secret shoppers (there are a lot of scams out there). They vary quite a bit. Generally, the instructions are to go into the store, ask questions looking for key points and phrases, only buying if they actually want something, or they buy a small item, take it home for a couple days, then return it, rating the store on that aspect of the transaction.

              Resturaunts cover (usually advance) the secret shopper's bill.
    • There are a couple of ways publishers can also loose out: for instance, if a user clicks through but doesn't make a purchase only to return to the advertiser's site the next day or week and make the purchase, will the publisher be compensated appropriately?

      Well... You could use cookies that track this or maybe have a unique IP binding, but if the customer deletes his cookies, has a dynamic IP, or just uses another computer at a different location all together you are SOL.

      Suffice to say there isn't a technic
      • I thought about that too. One idea would be to offer a unique discount code based on the ad click. You be paying Google and the customer, but the increased volume may lead to increased profits.
    • by Ark42 ( 522144 ) <slashdot@mo[ ]eu ... t ['rph' in gap]> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:42PM (#15579159) Homepage
      I'm more worried about the 3rd party advertiser committing fraud, since that is basically all Commission Junction seemed to be back when I tried it. I paid lots of good money to sign up for a service where 3rd parties would place ads linking to my website on their webpage via CJ, but almost every single sale that results from that channel was the 3rd party themselves using a stolen CC and placing an order so that I pay CJ, CJ takes a cut of the money, and the advertiser who placed the fraudulent sale gets a cut of the money, then I get stuck with a bunch of chargebacks. CJ really didn't have any incentive to stop that kind of behavior, or weed those people out, since they still get a cut of all the sales themselves either way.
      • Great Point. Would a 30 day "pay wait" give you time to get the charge back and kick it back to CJ (or whoever) before they actually dole out payments to the 3rd party?
      • Your math does not make any sense. If the publisher pays $10, the mediator earns say $2 and gives $1 to the publisher. The publisher just lost $9.
    • Gpay, or whatever Google's competitor to Paypal is called, will sort that out.

    • Re:Advertiser Fraud (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tommers ( 893816 ) *
      GBuy would allow Google to verify any purchases that were made with GBuy, but it seems like one problem they'll run into is how to make sure that users aren't diverted to other payment methods. If site has a 5% conversion rate, it seems like it would be a challenge to keep them from directing most of that 5% to some other payment method.

      I assume Google will probably have to enforce most of this through contracts and some policing, and probably just have to eat the cost of acquisitions that they refer but d
    • It's worse than that. Say you come to this site and see an advertisement that you have no interest in (not hard to imagine). Two weeks later you're talking to a friend and they mention they are interested in buying some product but don't know where to look. You mention that you say an advertisement to that effect two weeks ago. They go to the company you have told them and spend up big. Where's the compensation for this site? Pay per click is a great idea, but the site should get paid for impressions
    • Re:Advertiser Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BenSnyder ( 253224 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @09:06PM (#15579749) Homepage
      You have to think about how the whole Google ad system works. On the publisher side you have AdSense, on the advertiser side you have AdWords. To tie it all together you have Google Analytics. The goal of Google would be to sell leads or sales: the freaking holy grail if you're me and managing client accounts. If I can set a max price on what a sale is worth to me and have it delivered for that amount then the nirvana of advertising is upon us. I'd be willing to drop some Google Analytics code onto my site to track its usage. As a part of that I'd also set up goals to track sales or leads and use Google Analytics' revenue tracking tool. Many of my clients do that already and they're already tracking new vs. returning visitor CPV and revenue by search engine and search type and by dozens of other meaningful but anonymous statistics through Google Analytics. Trust me, fraud isn't going to be a drop in the bucket because if it worked you'd have every advertiser beating down a path to Google to pay up for some of that Step 3: profit!
    • by kesuki ( 321456 )
      All I have to say is that companies who resort to 'fraud' aren't going to be fooling anyone for very long, and in the long run they will only hurt their own reputations.
    • While I do see some potential for misuse with CPA, by both publishers and advertisers, I think it's great that Google's at least trying some new things to combat all the fraud that goes on. Right now, in addition to click fraud that Google has to be (overly?) aggressive in fighting, the current Cost-per-Click model has started to really piss off publishers.

      Right now, sleazy web sites using MFA ("Made for Adsense") sites with little to no real content, but heavily loaded with high-paying adsense keywords,
    • There are a couple of ways publishers can also loose out: for instance, if a user clicks through but doesn't make a purchase only to return to the advertiser's site the next day or week and make the purchase, will the publisher be compensated appropriately?

      This is no different from CPC in this respect. If a user sees an ad for a company, and then vists the site a week (or a page) later, the publisher gets no money then either.

    • I agree. Unless Google has 100% control I wouldnt trust it. The company can simply say report 70% leads and nobody could prove the difference.
  • by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:49PM (#15578872)

    Working at a company that manages pay-per-click ads, pay per action is something we've been waiting for a long time to come over the horizon. I'm so glad Google's rolling it out, even if it is only on a test basis.

    "Clicks" are abstract concepts and very difficult to sell to less tech-savvy business people. They want a better measure of their return on investment for their ad campaigns. A number of companies offer call tracking, which is easier for businesses to grok . . . but a call != a sale . . . or even an actual lead.

    This is a welcome step in the right direction, IMHO.

    • I wonder how ads purchased using CPA will rank versus ads purchased using CPC. Currently advertisers must calculate their conversion ratios and profit margins and judge whether an ad is worth running at the current rates. But with Google providing CPA, advertisers only need to worry about profit margin, since Google's advertising costs are now fixed per sale. Therefore I would imagine that Google is calculating conversion ratios per advertisement behind the scenes, and then only showing ads for the produ
      • Currently advertisers must calculate their conversion ratios and profit margins

        Well, not actually, Google will already track conversions for you, including thinks like amount of sale. I believe they are already using this to figure out which sites are doing fraudulent clicks (very low conversions) and are using this to improve ad performance for the advertiser (selecting ads with a better conversion ratio) To me, I don't see why they don't mix this right in with the rest of the CPC ads. They already ca

        • Hehe, it seems like we both didn't RTFA :). According to the invitation, CPA advertisements are going through an AdSense-like model rather than on Google's own pages. However, they will be distributed using different servers and will not be mixed with traditional AdSense advertisements. There's still an interesting equilibrium for CPA ads, however, because Google will obviously show CPA ads with high conversions before they'll show ads with low conversions. Under what circumstances would Google ever sho
    • Waiting for? This has been around for years. I personally was in a startup doing this in 1999. Performics, Commission Junction, LinkShare... these guys will all be wiped out by Google.
  • This is awesome news for me. This means I can spend more time at home without pants!

    Every time Google comes out with a new way to pay people like me to do advertising, is almost an entire additional month that I can spend at home without any pants on. Who needs a recruiter, when I don't ever have to leave the house?
  • Say goodbye to ad revenue you guys.
    • There have been several ad-providers who have been using cost-per-action for some time now. An example would be available here []. As I understand it, this technology is actually mature and has been put forward several times as a better way to resolve click-fraud than the "just trust us to take care of it" method used thus far by google.
    • Re:Oh crap... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:09PM (#15578983)
      That's exactly what I was thinking.

      With a pay-per-click I don't really care what gets advertised on my site as long as its relevant to the content of the site (which, thanks to Google, it is). I'm getting paid for sending folks there way.

      With a pay-per-action system, I'll have to care about what gets advertised on my site, because if no sale is made, I don't make any money. So I'm not going to want to advertise (say) $3,000 hottubs, because even if it does result in a sale, its probably not going to be purchased immediately after follwing my link. Likewise, I'm not going to want to advertise for sites that make it difficult to make purchases or don't effectively sell their products.

      And when you think about it, why shouldn't I be paid for helping spread brand recognition, regardless of the immediate results? Billboard space isn't leased based on the number of people who make a purchase after viewing the billboard. It is leased based on the number (and demographic) of people expected to see it.

      • Re:Oh crap... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @07:48PM (#15579459) Homepage Journal
        You're worrying too much. Google has just as much interest in receiving revenue from the advertising placement as you do. If someone posts an ad for $3,000 hottubs and the conversion rate is excessively small, Google won't want to display the ad either. Instead they'll display an ad that's more likely to result in conversion, and you'll both get to prance around in happy land.
      • Re:Oh crap... (Score:3, Interesting)

        Moreover, consider two advertisements equal in quality placed on two equally visited pages.
        One leads to a badly implemented site, the other to a better site which generates more sales.
        The website should be payed equally because its service to the advertisers was equal.
        The payment should not be related in any way to the quality of the sales machine behind the click, because that is not within the website's scope of responsibility or powers.
        There are two cases in which this setup would be acceptable. One i
  • Trust issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by crummyname ( 977083 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:52PM (#15578884)
    How do I trust that the advertisers will accurate report sales generated by my leads?
    • Re:Trust issue (Score:4, Interesting)

      by grahamsz ( 150076 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:56PM (#15578915) Homepage Journal
      Well it's a switch from where it is now, where the advertisers have to trust the third party webmaster/web users to send them real clicks.

      This model is much more amenable to the people spending the cash, therefore i'm sure it'll become popular.
    • Re:Trust issue (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smbarbour ( 893880 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:07PM (#15578971)
      The same way that you trust them when the method is CPM (Cost per mil, or per 1k impressions) or CPC (Cost per click).

      They (The ad agency) trust that you (the advertised company) will provide an accurate report, just as you trust that they aren't padding their impressions/clicks with phony data.

      This is generally done via tracking "pixels" on the contact and confirmation pages. I use pixels loosely as they are rarely images (albeit frequently implemented via img tags).
    • You don't have to trust the advertiser. Google will require the advertiser to use it's own tracking code on the relevant pages. Google will then track the conversions. Also,, a new search engine has CPA (Cost Per Action) model. You pay snap only when someone buys a product from your site. Also interesting to note that snap is started by the same guy who initially started, which became, which became Yahoo Marketing. precedes Google Adwords. The guy is Bill Gross
    • It might not be a bad idea for google to require that you use google analytics to track the conversions. From the discussions i've seen that doesn't seem to be a prerequisite. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the two integrated in some way as an option.
    • Re:Trust issue (Score:4, Insightful)

      by shird ( 566377 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:50PM (#15579216) Homepage Journal
      I imagine Google would use your reporting of conversions to determine how effective your ad is, which in turn would affect how often it is displayed. If you report no conversions, youre ad wouldn't show up as often. Report plenty of conversions, and your ad is more likely to be shown. So it would be in your interest to accurately report your conversion rate.
      • Seems somewhat true, but I assume the cost of paying for a referral is generally higher than the cost of perceived lower conversion rank in the display algorithms.

        So users would have an incentive to have a reasonable converstion rate, but they would probably benefit financially from shaving off as many referrals as they can.
  • About freaking time.

    I'm sick tired of all that pay-per-click and the related frauds. I've known some webpage owners who have been accused of click fraud, and Google hasn't listened to any of their complaints.
  • Pansies. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by adamlazz ( 975798 )
    In my opinion, this is just Google being too shy to give their users some profit. I think it is very unrealistic that mass amounts of people will sign up to whatever Google makes them sign up for, rendering this service useless.

    If Google could release a new service that is as widely used as the current pay per click or pay for impression AdSense, then THAT is something that web site authors would buy into.

    But, in the past, what have we learned from Google? In one or two instances, Google has showed us h
  • by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:55PM (#15578910) Homepage
    you now can get paid for an action, such as a sale or lead referral.

    I'm in. How much for the names and addresses of my soon-to-be-former friends?
  • by frosty_tsm ( 933163 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @05:58PM (#15578930)
    Now, both are doing a "Cost Per Action" pricing scheme.
  • by Bromskloss ( 750445 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} ... erdda.yrailixua}> on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:00PM (#15578940)
    I still don't get it! (and sorry for nagging about it, again) Is there a single Slashdotter here who clicks on ads? (assuming you haven't got them filtered (thank you, Firefox extensions)) I'm not sure I have even done it for experimental purposes. I _never_ do it. Not the flashy ones, not the discreet text ones. Why would anyone do it? If you're looking for something, you go get it. If not, you don't want anyone telling you to go get it. Gah, giving up control of yourself like that!
    • I use AdBlock and NoScript, but I've whitelisted a bunch of the webcomics I read and I'll click through if something piques my interest. I imagine the same principle could be extended to other sites one reads regularly, enjoys, and wishes to support.

      ...Say, Slashdot.

    • I've clicked on ads. I even bought something from one once. Banners, mind you, not popups. Now, I have adblock plus+filterset.g updater, so I mostly don't see them anyway. Email spam, on the other hand, I will not buy things from. It's kind of sad, because sometimes I get spam for stuff I actually want. I delete it anyway.

      I don't see banners as being too nasty, unless they're flashing rapidly or something.

    • I do (occassionally) (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grahamsz ( 150076 )
      I don't filter out google text ads because they really don't bother me.

      I have occassionally clicked on them, and have, even more rarely, bought things from them. Sometimes you find relative newcomers to a particular market who provide a better price than their established competitors who have the benifit of pagerank.

      • I don't filter out google text ads because they really don't bother me.

        I've filtered out the occasional google text ad, but only on a per-site basis. Most of them don't bother me at all, but the occasional site (often a php forum) has them in such an obnoxious place (and in such a huge frame) that it makes the page less readable. When that happens, the iframe goes bye-bye.

    • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:12PM (#15579007)
      I still don't get it! (and sorry for nagging about it, again) Is there a single Slashdotter here who clicks on ads?
      Yes, especially on niche hobby forums where the ads are very often for things that both meet my interests and with which I was not previously familiar. Ads, in any medium, can be useful; OTOH, they can also be stupid. I don't block ads (I do block popups) -- if I site has ads that annoy me, I avoid the site.
    • If everyone blocked ads you'd have no internet to block ads from.

      I do click on ads, for some sites I like a lot I make sure to follow ads every now and again. But mostly I click on an add if I find the content interested, so very targeted ads are more likely to reach me. Interestingly I'd say the site I visit ads from most often is Penny Arcade, and not just out of support but because I am interested.
      • If everyone blocked ads you'd have no internet to block ads from.

        The Internet was here before advertising on web pages was used widely.

        Sites like Wikipedia are extremely successful today even though they do not plaster their pages with pop-up adverts for porn and music CDs.
        • The Internet was here before advertising on web pages was used widely.

          Sites like Wikipedia are extremely successful today even though they do not plaster their pages with pop-up adverts for porn and music CDs.

          Yes that'd be lovley if I just wanted to look at Wikipedia all day long.

          However I also like a lot of other sites that are supported by advertising. Take Penny Arcade - no way would that ever have gone where it is without monetary support from online advertising to let them quit the dayjobs and pursue
    • Infrequently (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 )

      Why would anyone do it?

      If I scan the organic results and don't find anything there, rather than moving to the second page, on occasion I'll click on a paid link. However, I only click on links that look reputable. A text ad that makes exorbitant claims or just seems like it's hucksterism won't get a click.

      The advantage of well-done paid text links for the advertiser is that they can drive potential customers - people who are looking for exactly the sort of product/service you provide - to your site.

    • i do click on ads sometimes, usually on google's own search page though.

      when im looking to buy something, and google pops up a relevant ad for what im looking to buy. why would i not look at it?

      the rest of the time though, i don't even see them.

      *Your brain has become better at ignoring ads (255)

    • I have never clicked on an ad to immediately buy something, but I admit that I have occasionally clicked on an ad to get more information.

      Case in point, on Slashdot not too long ago I clicked on an advertisement for because I've been trying to think of a good backup solution for one of my colocated servers. It was at that I was introduced to the wonderful world of FUSE and SSHFS. I then googled a bit and installed FUSE and SSHFS on one of my other servers and now I use an SSH filesystem
    • You're only thinking of content-based advertising, which admittedly has a much lower rate of return.

      Consider though that many people go to Google (etc) when they want to buy something... a product or a service. My company, entirely service-based, has been very successful by advertising on Yahoo and Google.
    • I personally love the google ads, I'll give you a quick example on how I use them.

      I am currently moving from DC to Chicago, and need some moving boxes. The local moving places want $3-$5 per box, which is insane. I just tossed "moving boxes" into google, perused the adds, and got a much better deal then I could locally with 1-day shipping.

      If the companies are willing to buy a google ad I assume the relevancy is extreemly high, and acts as a natural filter for the search results. I've done this with many
  • by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:05PM (#15578961)
    The problem is: most people on /. either know how to use Adblock (and thus don't see this kind of bullshit), or show ads themselves (being on the webmaster's side of the deal and thus being a part of the problem themselves).

    For now, the "mere mortals" cope with the problem, just like they accept Windows and spyware, but with more than 33% of all http requests being relate to adverts, the situation just goes worse and worse.

    Those who win: Google and advertisers.
    Those who lose: users and network providers.

    The current state of net advertising is that someone else is paid for stealing your time and your bandwidth.
    • The current state of net advertising is that someone else is paid for stealing your time and your bandwidth.

      I dislike intrusive ads as much as the next person, but come on...
      Take slashdot for example. I don't block any ads on * I like the site and would hope it continues being a good site. If they make $0.001 for me not blocking the ads on the page, it doesn't bother me. Even hippie communes sell beads to pay the water bill and bandwidth for a site as big as /. isn't free, so why can't they cov

    • As a user you're probably paying a fixed rate for bandwidth anyway, so you're not paying any more money to get the ads as opposed to blocking the ads. Given that fact, one could make a good case that you're "wasting" your bandwidth by blocking ads, as otherwise your paid line is sitting there unused.

      And if you want to use the "stealing" metaphor, let's not forget that by blocking ads you're in effect "stealing" the content they've provided without "paying" for it.

      Of course, I'd expect someone who refers to
  • by abscissa ( 136568 )
    So how much did the sumbitter get for referring people to Google's new program??

    (That is Roland's new nick btw)
  • I have a few hundred Gmail invites. I wonder if it is interchangable...
  • by shaneh0 ( 624603 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @06:26PM (#15579076)
    AdWords has had the capability to track "conversions" by placing pieces of javascript on "Success!" pages for quite a long time. I've used it for years and always thought of it as very useful.

    Apparently it's equally been useful to google.
  • Until all those freeipod sons of bitches start using google ads and only have to pay when someone (dumbass) actually bites, heh. I've seen all kinds though.... (Hell, I got a "foe" on slashdot because of the freeipods thing. I added "Want a free ipod?" in my signature, and linked it to my journal where I basically said steal one an leave everyone else alone. Apparently [] doesn't give anyone a hint...)
  • Okay, so let's say everybody's wild guesses are right, and Google will, like all good web companies, eventually come out with a full-fledged online store system (Google Video, Google Base, and AdWords already prove that they have the transaction mechanism). Then, combine that with Cost-per-Action AdWords, and you have a foolproof way of preventing fraud (you're running the ads and the stores, so you can track conversions), an awesomely-integrated store solution. Add Analytics and it will be the coolest on

  • Yeesh, run like it's the plague. I had run amazon/eb games/linkshare and various other incentive or pay per lead/purchase advertising models for several years and you know how much money I made from it? Almost nothing. The reasons mentioned above concerning you not getting properly compensated for delayed purchases puts this one in the dumpster for me. As a site hoster, I make worlds more money off pay per click.
  • Google will cannibalize their own clients and move some over to CPA. Other CPA networks like CJ & Linkshare will be fine. CJ & LS have established brands with loyal customers. Merchants pay $2-10k plus monthly fees to be part of CJ & LS. All merchants have existing relationships with their publishers at both CJ & LS. Merchants are not going to up and leave due to the work needed to migrate to a new network. Plus LinkShare merchants are contractually obligated to not leave to competing
  • by shumacher ( 199043 ) on Wednesday June 21, 2006 @08:50PM (#15579703)
    I would only want to do CPA for things that are remarkably likely to happen. I wouldn't want, for example, to have my income depend on someone ordering a laptop. In fact, Google already offers referral links for Firefox (w/ Google Toolbar, natch), Google Pack, and Picasa. (They offer it for adwords and adsense, but I find that a less likely action.) These links require not just a click, but a specific result, like downloading the app and installing it, or signing up for a certain advertising program. These are fairly likely actions, I think, and even that doesn't yield strong results. Even on a site where I have a feature that is legitimately non-IE friendly, and I offer the Firefox link right below, I don't get a strong result.
  • If the site is using an ineffective ad or has a bad product at a high price, this system means they get free advertising while they sort out their business model and the site showing the ad is screwed over as they're displaying the bad ads for free.

    What's to stop someone from making the action "donate $100 to me" and offering $75 CPA so the add will show up a lot. They'll get a lot of add views and never have to pay the action fee.

    CPM is the only fair way to do it.
  • Nothing New (Score:2, Informative)

    by blooba ( 792259 )
    This is nothing new. Other smaller companies have been doing the same thing for a while now. It's actually quite a lucrative business, just not as fast-growing as pay-per-click.
  • This sounds interesting to me, as I've been using both Google AdSense and privately-negotiated advertising at my site. Some of the past private advertisers have decided to not renew, citing "not enough traffic".

    However, the type of product (CAD and engineering-related software, usually - a very niche market) that is typically interesting to my audience often costs in the thousands of dollars per license. Tracking of clicks that lead to a sale vs. "pay-per-click" payment sounds good, as it may pay off long
  • So all I need for my free marketing campaign is something catchy so people click my ads and see my site, and action that just will never happen, like selling empty Windows folders for $100.

    Though, I maybe should never say never, could turn out a profitable business.
  • Google knows that they cannot thwart enough of the click frauders and therefore the collapse of AdWords is inevitable. Advertisers are slowly moving away from content AdWords campaigns due to these frauds. Of course when AdWords collapse s then AdSense will also collapse as well. This is a next generation of advertisement model that makes click frauds completely ineffective since advertisers feel that money they are spending are worth it. There is one thing that Google still doesn't have an answer for
  • Plenty of entrenched players out there are already doing this. CJ for one, plenty of others are doing it. Technology-wise, the tough part is correlating the action pixel w/ the click. You can use 3rd party cookies but good luck with that one, you end up having to jump through some hoops which I'm too familiar with.

    Also, real soon Google will learn that they will have to significantly change things regarding publisher and advertiser management and how they currently don't see eachother. The days of getting a
  • It's funny how Google's search engine has discriminated against affiliate-based sites (yes, I know there's a lot of junk out there) and then they turn around and release this.
  • Isn't the point of ads not just to create immediate sales, but also to expand brand recognition and "image", especially these days? That's why a lot of companies run ads about their company in general, rather than a particular product.

    I imagine Google won't be dropping their current AdSense, though, so perhaps this is a good fit for actual physical product sales.

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.