Home > The Magazine > Business

Thursday 20 November 2008

Dare to dream and make your ultimate trip a reality

The latest culture as recommended by our staff

Michael Henderson

Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

Why Google has already passed its peak

Matthew Lynn

Thursday, 5th October 2006

Maybe Google can afford to lose a few users. It would be a lot more worried about losing advertising revenue — the source of its huge profits. Google makes its money from the little highlighted ads you see on the side of every search result. It also sends ads to website publishers — advertisers sign up with Google, and their ads then appear on thousands of websites around the world. The advertiser is only charged when someone clicks on their ad, and the revenue is divided between Google and the website publisher.

It’s a great model. The ads are highly targeted and pretty cheap. There is one problem, however. The system is massively open to something called ‘click fraud’. Here’s how it works: you set up a cheap website, say, on gardening; Google delivers lots of ads to your website for, let’s say, garden sheds. You sit there all day pretending to be a visitor to your own website, clicking on the ads and — as the publisher — collecting several cents each time. That may sound a dull way to make a living, but there are back-street firms in India where you can pay people to click all day on Google ads; or you can design a computer program to do it for you.

Nobody knows exactly how great the problem is, because no one owns up to it. Click Forensics, an American consulting firm, reckons 14 per cent of the clicks are fraudulent; others put it as high as 30 per cent. Google, naturally, says the level is much lower. The problem is that it undermines confidence in the model: advertisers don’t want to pay for phoney clicks. The more rampant click fraud becomes, the weaker Google’s business gets.

Worse, website publishers are starting to tire of being paid per click. Newspapers and commercial television channels get paid by how many people see the ads they carry, not by how many make further inquiries. Why shouldn’t internet ads work the same way? In short, the pay-per-click model may be fundamentally flawed — but it’s the only model Google has.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Matthew Lynn | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comment

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

‘These clouds will have a silver lining’

Judi Bevan

Judi Bevan meets Sir John Parker, who chairs National Grid and the Court of the Bank of England — and takes an optimistic view of the deepening recession

Twelve steps to market meltdown

Stephen Vines

Stephen Vines says stock markets may seem wildly volatile at times of crisis, but they always follow a pattern

Any Other Business

Martin Vander Weyer

My hopes for America lie less in Obama- mania, more in Vaud and the Villains

He’s the voice of the crash, but the words are all his own

Dominic Midgley

Financial crisis has transformed Robert Peston from egghead to celebrity, says Dominic Midgley, but the BBC business editor indignantly denies he’s a government mouthpiece

Chasing dragons: the Chinese army takes up art collecting

Elliot Wilson

Elliot Wilson profiles Poly Group, a company controlled by the Chinese military which uses arms-sales profits to buy back artworks that have been illicitly flogged off abroad

Shares that go up as banks go down

Scott Payton

Scott Payton on alternative investment

Can Comrade Hank find a way through this crisis?

James Doran

The US Treasury chief sees his interventionism as a case-by-case response to unprecedented events, says James Doran, but his critics see it as inconsistent, dangerous and ‘un-American’

Greener than thou: the carbon tax contest

Elisabeth Jeffries

Labour’s climate change levy has led to lower emissions, says Elisabeth Jeffries, but can the Conservative alternative yield better results — or command business support?