When Google was still an internet starlet and not yet a digital A-lister, phoney clicks and AdWords adverts were the Posh and Becks of their generation. Racking up as many column inches as the incumbent media darlings, the click fraud phenomenon filled newspapers and technology magazines on a regular basis.

But as the initial media frenzy died down, it appeared that click fraud had enjoyed its moment in the spotlight and retired gracefully into obscurity.

Not so according to a new wave of advertiser complaints and a $90 million lawsuit filed against Google last summer by disgruntled pay per click account holders. Click fraud occurs when users click on a pay per click advert not out of interest but simply to make the advertiser pay for the click. These clicks can be grouped according to human and computer activity. In its human form, click fraud may be carried out by competitors seeking to use up their rival’s advertising budget. The purpose is two fold; the advertiser pays for a wasted click and the budget is depleted, limiting advert exposure to real consumers. Computerised click fraud works along similar lines but is actioned by small programmes known as web bots which are sent out to crawl the web and replicate human click patterns. Human or robotic, these wasted clicks cost the same as a real click and with only a limited number of spaces available on page one of search engine results, competition for cyber real estate is intense. The top spot, second, third or even a fourth place ranking for relevant keywords is worth its weight in gold to advertisers and their direct competitors because user eyeballs very rarely venture further than the first few offerings. If a competitor can knock its rival off the top spot by artificially using up the daily budget, traffic levels and online sales are directly affected. One of the most frustrating aspects for advertisers and management consultancies is that it’s hard to quantify the size of the problem when each search portal works to its own set guidelines. Detection and implementation of suspect clicks lacks consistency across the board. What is certain is that the latest batch of industry reports shows the reported rate of fraudulent clicks is growing in tandem with the online advertising market. Search marketing trebled in size in the three year period 2003-2006, a trend mirrored by the findings of the most up-to-date Click Forensics report. It found that in the last quarter of 2006, fraudulent clicks on search-related online ads rose 14.1%, up from just over 13% at the beginning of the year.

For their part, Google and Yahoo are both crying ‘wolf’. They’re united in their denials, offering up a series of measures as proof they’re winning the war against click fraud crime.

Their first line of defence is a sophisticated system of filters, designed to weed out suspect clicks before they hit the advertisers account. If cyber criminals breach this virtual blockade, Google also has a team of specialists in place to investigate advertiser claims of click fraud and deposit credits for clicks deemed illegal. They analyse advertiser data, seeking spikes in advert clicks and irregular click through rates over brief periods of time.

An industry-wide effort to create comprehensive lists of known robots being used to click repeatedly on adverts is also been cited by the search giants as proof of their crackdown on cyber fraud.

Thanks to a $90 million court case last summer, click fraud is once again big news stateside. But advertisers in the UK should also beware; click fraud is not contained by geographical boundaries. The size of an account is also immaterial. Depending on competitiveness of the industry and variables such as cost per keywords and targeting of the advert, any pay per click campaign can be vulnerable to fraudulent clicks.

The good news for advertisers is that digital marketing is growing with renewed vigour. Household names are moving bigger and bigger chunks of their advertising budgets online, fuelling advertiser confidence and ensuring effective measures are put in place to protect this highly desirable client portfolio.

Advertisers worried about click fraud can take a number of steps to protect themselves from phoney clicks. In the short term, spreading the advertising budget across a number of pay per click formats and appearances will help to reduce the risk of a concerted attack.

Using tracking software is also worth considering for peace of mind – programmes are available which analyse activity on a per click basis, flagging up potential problems before they become a real threat.

In the longer term, the importance of vigilance can not be over estimated. Keeping regular pay per click log data means the search engines have a starting point for their investigation if foul play is suspected.