> They're pretty plainly saying that 388,000 sites were trash. > How else to interpret no "activity beyond an impression?" I'd argue the reverse. Sites that

> They're pretty plainly saying that 388,000 sites were trash. > How else to interpret no "activity beyond an impression?" I'd argue the reverse. Sites that generate a consistently high click rate are optimizing for people to leave. Sometimes the click target is obscured, so you'll end up with a high bounce rate. At the end of the day: If you don't prove the relationship between clicks and acquisitions you're going to just fund ad fraud. Meanwhile, if the ad is in-view, and your marketing team isn't an idiot and managed to get 30 or so impressions on someone in a month (and enough someones in your market) then you'll be able to detect (by surveying) an increased brand awareness and preference. This could be valuable because I suspect a lot of people who are considering another credit card will call in on the deal they remember, after talking about it with their spouse, than will click on an ad. Of course, Chase doesn't ask people why they are signing up, so the only attribution data they have is clicks and post-click signups. > I could print their ads on toilet paper and have the same result. Yes you could, but that says more about the tools they're using to measure the result than the usefulness of toilet paper. In this case, someone looked at their sources breakdown in mediaocean, it said the pay-per-click stuff was a winner. Well no kidding. And when I say probably, I should say: I've worked with the ZO guys on the Chase account in my past life. This is probably what happened.