Pandemic Fraud Gone Wild
The post Pandemic Fraud Gone Wild appeared first on BUSINESS DEMO WEBSITES.
The post Pandemic Fraud Gone Wild appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.
The post Pandemic Fraud Gone Wild appeared first on BUSINESS DEMO WEBSITES.
The post Pandemic Fraud Gone Wild appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.
The Justices hear two major cases on prosecutorial overreach.
The post The Supreme Court Gets a Fraud Test appeared first on #1 SEO FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
The post The Supreme Court Gets a Fraud Test appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.
In the quest for more conversions, there’s an element most PPC advertisers overlook; invalid traffic—aka IVT, fake traffic, click fraud, or ad fraud.
You might have noticed the IVT column in your Google Analytics dashboard, although it isn’t displayed by default. And if you’ve ever searched for invalid traffic online, you have probably read Google or Facebook’s policies on the matter.
IVT is common. In fact, invalid ad traffic accounts for over ten percent of digital ad traffic.
Marketers often assume tech giants are in control of IVT. But are they? And how much actual invalid traffic really makes it through to your paid ads?
Although pay-per-click advertising is one of the most important elements of digital marketing, its reputation has taken a beating in recent years.
Marketers have watched CPC rise, an increase in competition, less-than-accurate tracking, and even noticed they’re paying for fake or fraudulent traffic that doesn’t drive results.
Plus, consumer groups have been campaigning for more privacy and control over our personal data.
So, where does this leave the average marketer?
First, some stats.
Between 40 and 60 percent of all internet traffic is from non-human sources. This includes bots, web crawlers, and other automated scripts. Despite the wide range, we can assume, on average, that around half of all web traffic is non-human.
It’s also estimated that ‘bad bot’ traffic outnumbers good bots, with bad bots conducting up to 25 percent of total internet activity. Bad bots can include spam bots, scalpers, or data harvesters, to the bots used for hacking, stealing logins, or committing ad fraud.
Added to this, marketers are also seeing their tracking and targeting capabilities changing as Google and Facebook adapt to the changing data laws around the world.
The growth of fake traffic combined with reduced targeting and analytics sounds like a recipe for a marketer’s headache.
But Facebook and Google are putting a stop to all this—right?
In 2021, the cost of click fraud and ad fraud was estimated to be around $42 billion.
The tech giants have long claimed their invalid traffic filters remove the worst of the bots and bad clicks.
And those IVT rates in Google Analytics might be encouraging.
Most marketers using Google Analytics see an IVT rate in the low single figures, somewhere between 2 to 8 percent.
But data from ClickCease shows an average of 14 percent of clicks on paid ads come from non-genuine sources, aka click fraud. Some industries even see click fraud levels way beyond this, with invalid clicks making up 60 percent of traffic.
Why the discrepancy? Surely the big ad platforms would want to put a stop to fake traffic?
The truth is, it’s complicated.
On the one hand, yes: Google, Facebook, and Microsoft do want to put a stop to fake traffic and protect their advertisers. After all, advertising revenue is by far the biggest earner for all of these companies.
However, the methods they use to filter invalid traffic are considered less strict than third-party click fraud solutions.
A common way for click fraud and ad fraud operators to get around the filters is by masking their location. Most ad platforms block traffic sources by IP address. Using a VPN, bots and click farms can cycle through multiple IP addresses to click repeatedly without getting blocked.
In fact, the click thresholds for the ad platforms are thought to be much more generous than using a third-party fraud blocker.
For the more cynical amongst us, there is also the issue of money.
Fake clicks are still a source of income to the ad platforms. And for many advertisers, the metric they’re looking for (beyond just conversions) is a good click through rate.
More clicks or impressions equals a bigger reach and a job well done, right?
For the ad giants, so long as advertisers see something is being done, then the fight against click fraud is winning in some way.
Well, I did say that’s the cynical view.
Blocking invalid traffic using a third-party solution is the most effective way to block bots, automated clicks, and even malicious traffic such as brand haters and competitors.
That’s why click fraud prevention is a secret weapon for search marketers.
For starters, the clicks lost to fake traffic are more than just lost budget.
Companies operating on a limited ad budget might find their daily or monthly ad spend exhausted prematurely. With their ads out of service, the missed opportunities will go to their competitors.
For those operating with a bigger ad budget, the issue of misattributed success comes into play.
How can you tell if those impressions or clicks resulted in conversions? Well, it’s increasingly difficult.
A tool such as ClickCease doesn’t just block bad traffic in real time and flag suspicious activity. It also offers another level of analytics marketers can use to examine their audience – something becoming more crucial as the tracking changes come into play.
Seeing which search terms attract the most invalid traffic, or how many VPN or out-of-geo clicks your ads, attract allows advertisers to adjust their targeting.
This applies to search and display ads on Google or Bing Ads, and social media ads such as Facebook or Instagram.
Marketers looking to get ahead of the trends, especially as the tracking changes come into play, should take the opportunity to see how click fraud blocking makes a difference to their campaign results.
Many business owners apply for a business loan and end up being denied, never knowing why. Surprisingly, one of the most common reasons for denial has more to do with the actual application than the creditworthiness of the company. A lot of applicants never make it to the financial review process simply because their application triggers fraud concerns with the lender.
Discrepancies of any kind set off red flags for lenders. When something doesn’t add up, they don’t look too far for answers. In contrast, they simply deny.
Application denials for this are common because inconsistencies reek of fraudulent activity. Just the appearance of fraud, any inkling, is enough for most lenders to deny.
Your business name and other information must be consistent. If you list it one way on your application and it is different anywhere else, denial is imminent. That means, even an ampersand in one place and the word “and” in another can mean denial.
When you apply for a loan, the information you put on it must be verifiable. Lenders might search with the Secretary of State to verify ownership. As you can imagine, if the business information on the application does not match the Ssecretary of Sstate records, they may very well deny it automatically.
If they decide to investigate further, they may ask for tax returns, even if they already have financials. The catch is, even if they originally ask only to verify information, due diligence dictates that they look at all of it. This may not work in your favor.
The more you make, the more you pay. As a result, businesses do not want to show they make money. Yet, if your tax return shows a large loss, it results in a denial. If your information is verifiable in the first place, it may not be necessary to give lenders tax returns.
Do yourself a favor and don’t try to lie about income. There are plenty of ways to verify, and credit providers will do that. You can be sure they can and will verify everything. Not just income either. The truth is, this goes for any information. That includes ownership percentage, date of opening, and of course financial information.
Some are surprised to find out that personal information comes into play when you apply for a business loan. It has to be verifiable as well. Resist the thought that you may be able to fudge on personal information when you apply for a business loan. They will know.
A legitimate CPN is available by working with an attorney to file a claim with the Social Security Administration. That is, if you have a compelling claim. Bad credit is not a compelling claim.
Some claim a CPN will offer fresh credit history. As a result, companies use sketchy ways to get numbers to sell. Unfortunately, these 9-digit numbers may be dormant social security numbers or numbers that belong to children. By purchasing one, you could unknowingly end up in an identity theft scam.
Also, using any number other than a Social Security number where an SSN is called for is a violation of two federal laws.
Your best bet is to resist the temptation to use a CPN.
It’s not hard to avoid denial if you just apply for a business loan the right way. First, make sure all of your information is consistent everywhere. Then, ensure that when you provide information on a loan application, it is verifiable. Last, be honest. Don’t use numbers other than your Social Security Number or EIN. In the end, this is your best chance at getting your application through the initial process and to the financial review. The best part? This is just one of the business loan secrets we can share with you.
The post Apply for a Business Loan Without Getting Denied for Fraud Concerns appeared first on Credit Suite.
You’ve worked hard to perfect your ad campaign, create action-inducing landing pages, and win sales. Your ads have just gone live, but there’s one big problem: People are out there clicking your ads over and over with absolutely no intention of buying anything. It sounds dramatic, but click fraud is something advertisers should be aware … Continue reading How to Prevent Click Fraud on Your PPC Ads
Regulatory Authorities Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement 40 Wall St., 35thFloor, New York, NY 10005. The blog post Regulators Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement showed up initially on High Paying Affiliate Programs. Visit this site For Original Source Of The Article State as well as government protections regulatory authorities have actually been acutely concentrated upon … Continue reading Regulatory Authorities Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement
40 W…
Regulatory Authorities Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement 40 Wall St., 35thFloor, New York, NY 10005. The blog post Regulators Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement showed up initially on High Paying Affiliate Programs. Visit this site For Original Source Of The Article State as well as government protections regulatory authorities have actually been acutely concentrated upon …
The post Regulatory Authorities Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement
40 W… first appeared on Online Web Store Site.
The post Regulatory Authorities Step Up Crypto Fraud Enforcement
40 W… appeared first on ROI Credit Builders.
Financial services organisations (FSOs) are expected to meet strict financial crime regulations regardless of their size, and those with smaller budgets and fewer resources are finding this increasingly difficult as regulations, guidelines and threats continue to evolve. Regulators are also expecting FSOs to use the risk-based approach to target their anti-money laundering compliance resources. Risk.net hosted a webinar in association with NICE Actimize on the benefits of a risk-based approach to combat money laundering and other forms of financial fraud
The post Managing AML and fraud – A risky business needs a risk-based approach appeared first on Buy It At A Bargain – Deals And Reviews.