Click Forensics are reporting a fall in click fraud rate for Q1 2009:

“The overall industry average click fraud rate was 13.8 percent for Q1 2009. That’s down from 17.1 percent reported for Q4 2008 and from the 16.3 percent rate reported for Q1 2008.”

This in itself is good news, at least potentially. Why only potentially? Because the figures only report detected click fraud. Anything that hasn’t yet been identified as fraudulent obviously can’t be reported.

Anyway, I digress.

Click Forensics are in the business of click fraud, which puts them in the unusual situation of not only working to identify and eliminate click fraud, but also profiting from it.

So when they present their data, they need to be careful. After all, the guy who installs intruder alarm systems isn’t going to get rich by telling everyone that there’s no crime in their area. But credit to them, Click Forensics have reported the data accurately and fairly, so what I’m going to say next in no way reflects on them.

Let’s revisit those figures:

Q1 2008 – 16.3% click fraud.

Q1 2009 – 13.8% click fraud.

If we compare the two, we could say that Q1 2009 saw a 2.5% drop in click fraud: 16.3 – 13.8.

Alternatively, we could say that Q1 2009 saw a drop of 18%: 16.3 / 13.8.

Both of them are accurate, and both of them are true. Yet one of the figures is more than seven times larger than the other.

Click Forensics have been meticulously precise, and simply reported the figures as they are.

If a company that made money from identifying click fraud was less accurate, do you think they’d report a drop of 2.5% or 18%?

We all know that figures and statistics can be moulded around whatever ideas we choose to promote. But while dramatic figures make good headlines, they might not always be in a company’s best interests. Especially if the customer doesn’t get what they think they paid for.

Honesty and clarity are usually more effective than spin.

Share and Enjoy