back to article Google makes admen pay for fake YouTube views, claims research

Google has been accused of charging advertisers for YouTube clicks against adverts even when some of those ads have not actually been viewed by a human, according to a study. The paper – Understanding the detection of fake view fraud in Video Content Portals (PDF) – by a group of European researchers evaluated the performance …

  1. Turtle

    Misread. Or Not.

    At first, I had thought that the headline read "Google makes admen pay for fake YouTube views, claims research. But ad-flinger has spent more than most to stop such dicks". Which is a pity, really, because my misreading was better than the original, in every possible way.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Vote with your wallet

    I suggest that they vote with their wallet.

    I have done with EA, although its not a big dent, it adds up.

  3. Quortney Fortensplibe

    Oh Dear. How Sad. Never Mind.

    <i>"...15-30 per cent of ad impressions are fraudulent, leading to losses in the order of billions of dollars for advertisers..."</i>

    Oh the humanity! My heart quite literally bleeds at the thought of all those darling ad-slingers losing money.

    <sniffle!>

    1. dogged

      Re: Oh Dear. How Sad. Never Mind.

      Cui bono?

      Who gets that money?

      That would be Google. So ad-slingers lose money to the world's biggest ad-slinger.

      Your sarcastic tears may be misplaced.

  4. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Surely the video makers are supposed to get a cent per thousand dollars of ad revenue (because the big G is soooo generous) so maybe, just maybe, the video makers get a cent (literally).

  5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Contrarian view

    If I click on a page with ads on it I'd be quite happy for the ad to be shown to a robot viewer instead of myself. The page author gets paid, I get to see the page and the advertiser, who'd have paid anyway, doesn't risk losing my business by pissing me off. Cui bono? Everybody. Except malvertisers of course.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Contrarian view

      Interesting. A downvote. It must be a malvertiser or just possibly someone out of the Ken Wheaton mould.

      All the recent evidence is that the web advertising business model is doomed unless it gets cleaned up PDQ.

      It seems to be of the view that it's in some kind of war with the makers of adblockers. Wrong. It's in a war with the adblockers' users. A moment's intelligent thought should bring realisation that those users are the people it's trying to influence on the behalf of its clients*. Fighting those who you are seeking to influence is never going to come out well for those on whose behalf you claim to be working. Instead of seeing itself as having a right to thrust itself into everyone's eyeballs and eardrums with that right being denied by the evil adblockers it needs to reconsider. It needs to think what it has to do to be allowed into the potential targets' presence. The most urgent is to reorganise so as to prevent malvertising. It also needs to address other complaints - intrusiveness and consumption of the bandwidth for which those targets have paid.

      If the advertising networks themselves can't get over their sense of entitlement to see this the web sites selling the advertising space will have to help them. Perhaps this could start with some of the more tech oriented sites which must surely be best placed to see the problem. Any suggestions?

      *There's an alternative view, which I'm not prepared to argue against: that all the industry is interested in is taking money from those clients and that it doesn't give a damn whether the net result is of any value to them.

  6. Rol

    Smile please!

    We're only activating the inbuilt camera to confirm it is a human sat at the keyboard, to assuage our advertisers.

    We would like to point out, as it was us that clicked your visage, we gain full copyright on said image.

    See PETA verses sanity.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I read quite a bit of speculation (even they use the term) on the part of the researchers. Research is conducted to eliminate speculation, not inform it. Sadly, informed speculation seems to be the Holy Grail of academe and for much the same in behavior. Beliefs over Reason.

  8. DrKPI

    Fake views - we have to fix this

    Thanks for sharing.

    There are a few more factors that one should consider. For instance, YouBute was better than the competition like Vimeo or DailyMotion. Nevertheless, the costs are huge and the business ethics are questionable as outlined here:

    VIEW: http://blog.drkpi.com/google-charges-for-youtube-ads-when-seen-by-robots/ (more research and factsheet)

    Merci

    Urs

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022