Whither the Click?

How Oniine Advertising Works

GIAN M. FULGONI
comScore, Inc.
gfulgoni@comscore.com
MARIE PAULINE MORN
comScore, Inc.
mmorn@comscore.com
Online advertising spending In the United States exceeds $20 billion annually.
However, click rates on display advertisements average oniy 0.1 percent. Are iow
ciick rates evidence that display advertisements have no impact on consumer
behavior? Or, does dispiay advertising work in a manner simiiar to traditional
"branding" advertising, with multiple exposures being required to effect a change
in consumer behavior? This article shows that the click is not an accurate indicator
of the effectiveness of online display advertisements. Even when click rates are
minimal, display advertisements can generate meaningfui increases in site visitation,
trademark search, and both oniine and offline sales.

BACKGROUND Are low click rates evidence that an advertise-

In today's economically challenging times, adver-
tisers and their agencies appear to be moving
their online display advertising dollars from cus-
tomer relationship management campaigns that
require payment based on the number of people
exposed to the campaign to "pay-for-performance"
programs {"CPC" or "CPA") that require payment
when the consumer performs some desired action
such as clicking on an advertisement.
At the same time, however, research is showing
that a click may not be a relevant measure of the
impact of display advertising. Click rates on static
display advertisements fell dramatically in recent
years, to average levels of only 0.2 percent in
2006. The comScore studies referenced in this ar-
ticle show that average click rates on display
advertisements in 2008 fell even further, to less
than 0.1 percent. Other research conducted in Eu-
rope has shown similar very low click rates (eMar-
keter, 2009). Further research has shown that 6
percent of the online population accounts for 50
percent of all clicks and that heavy clickers are not
representative of the total online population, skew-
ing heavily toward the 25-44 age group and to
households with an income less than $40,000
(Starcom Media Vest Group Press Release, 2008).
ment has not had any impact on consumer behav-
ior? Or, does online display advertising work in a
similar manner to traditional offline advertising,
with multiple exposures over time being needed
to effect a change in consumer behavior?
The results presented in this article will show
the manner in which online display advertise-
ments work in affecting consumer behavior, re-
vealing that there are, indeed, latency effects,
branding effects, and sales lifts—even when click
rates are minimal.
DESCRIPTION OF DATA SOURCES AND STUDIES
CONDUCTED
This article references results from more than 170
online advertising effectiveness studies conducted
by comScore. comScore has built a unique market-
research database consisting of two million global
internet users (one million of whom are residents
in the United States) who have explicitly agreed
to the tracking of their orüine behavior. For each
panelist, software was installed on his/her com-
puter to unobtrusively capture the details of their
internet activities, including every site visited, con-
tent viewed, content entered, time spent, product
or service bought, and price paid. Every display

1 3 4 JDUHnHL DF HDUEHTISIHG RiSEReCIJ June 2 o o g DOI: 10.2501/S0021849909090175

 HO\N ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS

ing a certain site or viewing specific

EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATIONS content.
Even with no clicks or minimal clicks, online display advertisements can generate
substantial lift in site visitation, trademark search queries, and lift in both online and
RESEARCH DESIGN
offline sales.
To maximize accurate identification of a
specific campaign that was being tracked
as part of a study, advertising agencies
and/or publishers that were involved in
online advertising were provided with a
and search advertisement that was re- The database was encrypted for com- tag, which was appended to the display
ceived by the panelists was also captured, plete privacy protection, and no person- advertisement. This allowed for the sys-
including whether the advertisement was ally identifiable information was released. tematic and accurate identification of the
clicked on or not. The data were matched (using name consumers who were exposed to a spe-
The panel was statistically weighted and and address) with third-party offline cific advertisement. Depending on the spe-
projected using a variety of demographic databases producing a "single-source" cific requirements of the project, the tag
•ind behavioral variables to represent the datamart that contained both online and also may have included parameters for
internet user population, and the data offline behavior. Panelists had the option segmentation purposes, such as an iden-
have been validated through comparisons of completing customized surveys deliv- tification of the site that published the
to third-party data. (One such compari- ered to them either via email or by a advertisements and the type of creative
son is to the U.S. Department of Com- "contextual pop" on their computer screen message used.
merce quarterly estimates of e-commerce during their time in the panel triggered Test groups: Based on passively ob-
sales, see Figure 1.) by their online behavior—such as visit- served exposure to an advertisement, a
test group of panelists exposed to the
campaign was generated. Test cells could
vary depending on the specific objectives
of the campaign and could be mixed and
Q2 2008 comScore: $34.8 Billion matched accordingly.
Q2 2008 DOC: $34.6 Billion
Control group: A control group of pan-
$45.0
elists not exposed to the campaign also
$40.0 was generated. This group had no expo-
$35.0- sure to the advertisements, but exhibited
$30.0 the following characteristics when com-
r •
pared to the test group(s):
I $25.0
^ $20.0 rni
mil I • similar historical usage of the internet
overall;
iiiiiiiii I • similar historical visitation to the sites
where the advertisements were in
rotation;
• similar historical total search behavior
lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ 3Q lQ
Ül '01 '02 '02 '03 '03 '04 '04 '05 '05 '06 '06 '07 '07 '08 online;
• similar distribution on the following
I U.S. Department of Commerce • comScore
household demographics: age, income,
comScore Estimate = (Total Nontravel - Event Tickets + Estimated Auction Fees)
census region or residence, and connec-
tion speed;
Figure 1 Validation of comScore Sales Data: Comparison of • similar historical offline buying behav-
comScore Data to U.S. Department of Commerce ior (if relevant to the study at hand).

June 2009 J Q H L OF eDOERTISlOG BESEHIICH 1 3 5

HOW ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS

With the exception of the exposure to the 6.6%

online display advertising test campaign, 1
5.8%

•
the test and control groups were virtually
4.8%
identical, including their exposure to other 4.5%
forms of media. 3.9%
3.5%
Passively collected behavioral data cap-
tured the view-through value of the over-
all campaign by measuring consumers'
internet activity across key behavioral met-
2.1%

í% Lift: 65.0%
1
[%Uft: 53.8%]
1
{% Lift: 49.1%] ^% Lift: 45.7%]
rics, This behavior was measured irrespec- ^ '
1 ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ ^ ^ 1 1
tive of whether an advertisement was Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after \A/eeks 1-4 after
clicked on or not. Exposure First Exposure First Exposure First Exposure
The database contains data and analysis • Control Test
on more than 200 studies, of which certain
subsets are available for various types of
analysis. Results included in the database
Figure 2 Advertiser Site Reach
were tested at a 90 percent confidence level
using a one-tail t-test. Reportable mea-
sures must also have minimum sample size
Weeks 1-4 after First Exposure
requirements, which vary depending on the
type of behavior being analyzed.
4.5% % Lift: 46%
Average, N = 139
6.6% A Lift: 2.1%
DETAILED RESULTS
The impact of display advertisements on 0.9% I % Lift: 114%
Automotive. N = 38
visitation to an advertiser's site 1.9% A Lift: 1.0%
Among 139 studies in which consumers'
online behavior was monitored following 1.3% % Lift: 86%
Finance, N = lQ
exposure to a display advertisement, the 2.3% A Lift: 1.1%
average lift in the number of visitors to
the advertiser site (i.e., percent change 0.6% % Lift: 77%
CPG and Restaurant, N = 10
in reach between the test and control 1.1% A Lift: 0.5%
groups after adjusting for any differences
that existed prior to the start of the cam- 9.1% % Lift: 52%
Retail and Apparel, N = 21
paign) was 65 percent during the first 13.8% A Lift: 4.7%
week following the first exposure to an
advertisement. 7.0% % Lift: 42%
Media and Entertainment, N = 24
10.0% A Lift: 2.9%
Not only was there a sigrüficant impact
within the first week following exposure
5.8% % Lift: 25%
to an advertisement—low click rates Electronics and Software, N = 14
7.2% A Lift: 1.5%
notwithstanding—but past the first week,
there was significant lift that would have
4.8% % Lift: 21%
been overlooked by relying on clicks Travel, N = 9
5.8% A Lift: 1.0%
or by using cookies to track consumer
behavior.
I Control Test
The effects of online display advertis-
ing continued past the first week in which
the advertising exposure occurred, with Figure 3 Advertiser Site Reach by Industry

1 3 6 JQUmiHL Oí HDUEßllSlOB June 2009


the higgest difference in site visitation be-
tween the control and test group occur-
ring closest to the initial exposure (see
Figure 2).
These lifts varied greatly across indus-
tries, with Automotive advertisements gen-
erating the greatest percent lift in visiting
to the advertiser site among the catego-
ries studied. It also is the industry with
the smallest base values, however, with
advertisements that typically refer users
to highly specific auto-model websites. In
general, industries where baseline visit-
ing to the advertiser site is low generated
the highest percent lift. But, even where
site visitation is high, there were substan-
tial (20-50 percent) increases in site visi-
tation caused by Ihe display campaigns; it
is clear, therefore, that lift is not simply
being caused by low site-visitation levels.
The Retail and Apparel (+4.7 points).
Media and Entertainment {+3.0 points),
and Electronics and Software (+1.4 points)
industries generated the greatest absolute
increase in reach lift.
Over the four weeks after an initial
exposure to a display advertisement, the
lift in site visiting generated by exposure
to advertisements from a Retail and Ap-
parel advertiser dropped the least {see
Figure 3). In contrast, the resulting lift in
reach in visiting to CPG and Restaurant
sites dropped sharply past the first week
.ind continued to drop through the four-
week period (see Figure 4).
Considerations for this analysis and top-
ics for further study. There are additional
factors that may affect the rates of lift
over time that are not addressed in this
article. The most obvious include the length
and frequency levels of each campaign.
The average (mean) length of the cam-
paigns included in this study was 42 days.
The shortest campaigns ran over a single
day, and the longest campaign ran for
108 days.
180.0%
160.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Week of First Weeks 1-2 after
Exposure First Exposure
-^ Average, iV = 139
•«- Automotive, N = 38
-•*- CPG and Restaurant, N = 10
— Electronics and Software, N =
Figure 4 Percent Lift in Advertiser Site Reach
Another consideration is the purpose
and type of the creative message. "Call-
to-action" or direct-response advertise-
ments that are typical of sale-related retail
campaigns can be expected to generate a
different and more immediate level of re-
sponse than "branding" advertisements
designed to elevate awareness and build
a brand over time.
Since Brand Metrix analyses are time
aligned to the first exposure of a panelist
to a display advertisement, this article is
unable to draw conclusions about the "de-
cay rate" of a campaign and the resulting
ROI after the campaign has ended.
The impact of display advertisements on
visitation to competitive sites
Visiting competitive sites also increases as
a result of exposure to display advertis-
ing. In general, the increase in visiting a
June 2009 M M l OFfiOOEflTISIIlGRESÍñflCH 1 3 7
HOW ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS
Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after
First Exposure First Exposure
Finance. W = 16
Media and Entertainment, N = 24
Retail and Apparei, N = 21
Travel, N = 9
site's competitive set is lower than the lift
generated in visitation to an advertiser's
own site (see Figure 5), but the differences
in those levels vary greatly by industry.
Display advertising in the Retail and
Apparel, Finance, and Automotive indus-
tries causes competitors' site visitation rates
to increase the most (see Figure 6). This
implies more comparison-shopping activ-
ity in these categories and, perhaps, a
more challenging task for advertising to
quickly and easily build brand loyalty.
The proportional change in the uplift
decreases slightly as time passes follow-
ing the online exposure (see Figure 7).
The exposure affects site visitation for the
advertising brand; Ihe competitor site vis-
itation also is affected by that exposure.
There is some variation in the effect on
the focal brand and the competitor sites,
depending upon the product category.
HOW ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS

play advertisements and search (see below)

and because a trademark or a brand search
16.6%
14.9% can be a significant indicator of purchase
13.5% intent (Google and comScore, 2006).
12.Í 12.1%
Exposure to a display advertisement

L
9.7% 10.3%
generated a greater average lift in search
7.7%
reach (percent of users conducting a search
query) using generic terms rather than
trademark/brand searches (see Figure 9).
This may seem counterintuitive, but it
Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after does not necessarily follow that display
Exposure First Exposure First Exposure First Exposure advertising is ineffective or inefficient in
generating searches that may eventually
I Control Test
lead to a purchase. Research has shown
that the majority of prepurchase search
Figure 5 Competitive Site Reach activity (both in terms of searches and
clicks) actually involved generic terms,
not the merchants' brands (DoubleClick
Research, 2005). The percent lift in the
percent of users who searched using a
competitive brand term typically tracked
well below that of brand and generic
searches (see Figure 10).
Over the studies where these types of
searches were tracked after exposure to a
display advertisement, we see that the
largest lifts in reach were among users
who made a search using a generic term
related to the category of the display
advertiser.
10.0%
The impact of display advertisements
0.0% on sales
Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after
Exposure First Exposure First Exposure First Exposure For eCommerce sites, it has long been a
challenge to quantify the impact of online
Average, N = 117 Finance, N = lA advertising on sales. Because click rates
Automotive. N = 40 Media and Entertainment. N = 12
are so low, it is commonly known that a
CPG and Restaurant, N = 7 Retail and Apparel, N = 16
Electronics and Software, N = 16 Travel, N = 6 purchase rarely takes place during the
same session as an exposure to an adver-
tisement, and even more rarely as a result
Figure 6 Percent Lift in Competitive Site Reach of a click. It is therefore critical to observe
the latent effects of advertising exposure
on purchasing, which often extend to days
The impact of display advertisements on subsequently conduct a search using an or even weeks beyond the exposure. This
brand, generic, and competitive searches advertiser's Trademark/Brand term (see has historically been difficult to measure
Figure 8). This dynamic is important, how- because the deletion of cookies by inter-
A relatively small percentage of users ex-
ever, because of the synergy between dis- net users (30 percent per month) means
posed to an online display advertisement

1 3 8 JOUHUHL orflDUERTISHlGfttSEHRCII June 2 0 0 9

 HOW ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS

Average Retail and Apparel

70.0% 70.0%
60.0% 60.0%
50.0% 50.0%
40.0% A 39% 40.0%
30.0% 29% 30.0%
20.0% 25% 22% 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0% A 4% 4% 6%
Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1 1-3 1-4

Automotive Finance Travei

200.0% 140.0%
120.0%
150.0% 100.0%
i.132%
-102% 80.0%
100.0% 60.0% 6C%
79%
50.0% 40.0% 41.%
20.0%
0.0% 0.0%
Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1 1-2 1-3 1-4

Food and CPG Media and Entertainment Eiectronics and Software

200.0%
150.0%
140% : ^
100.0%
3%*
50.0%
0.0%
Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week
1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1 1-2 1-3 1-4
Advertiser Comp Set Points Difference

Figure 7 Advertiser versus Competitive Set Percent Lift in Site Reach

that cookies cannot be used to accurately

0.9% track the behavior of computers over time
(comScore Press Release, 2007).
0.7%
0.6% For bricks-and-mortar retailers, the chal-
0.5% lenge extends even further, to the necessity

n
0.5%
of quantifying the effects of online adver-

r ^
0.2%
0.3%

% ü f t : 52.3%]

T
(% Lift: 46.0%'

^ r—
1
[% Lift: 40.3%]
^ 11
[% Lift; 38.1%]
^ 1
tising on offline sales. The magnitude of
the lift in offline sales generated by online
advertising is significant and would cer-
tainly not be captured by a pay-per-click
cookie-based measurement approach. The
Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after
Exposure First Exposure First Exposure
current lack of visibility into offline pur-
First Exposure
chasing consistently leads to dramatic un-
• Oontrol Test derestimation of display advertising ROL
In examining the impact of display
Figure 8 Percent Making a Trademark or Brand Search advertisements on buyer penetration

June 2 0 0 9 JQUROIJL OF HDUERTiSiHG RESEHHCIJ 1 3 9

HOW ONLINE ADVERTISING WORKS

1.5%
(% Lift: 10.1%)
1.3%
.,«
1.0%

••
0.9%

J
(% Lift: 42.1%)
0.8%

0.6% 0.6%
H ^ -
1.0% ^ - ^ ^
^
Online
r-
Offline
0.3%
[% Lift: 68.7%J [% Lift: 58.0%) ( %Üft:52.7%J [% Lift: 47.4%J • Control Test
r — ^ 1 ^ r— ^ ^ ^ — — 11 ^ ,

Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after
Exposure First Exposure First Exposure First Exposure
Figure H Buyer Penetration

• Control Test

Figure 9 Percent Making a Generic Search (% Lift: 16.6%)

$11.550

•
$9 ,905
(% Lift: 27.1%)

JL
3.2%
2.9%
2.7% $994$1,263

1
2.4%

I
. ^ r-
2.1% Online
1.9% Offline

1 I I
• Control Test
1.2% ^'^°'^°

, ^ . ,^M , Figure 12 Dollars per

%Lin: 13.6% %Lift: 10.2% r ^ . ( % Lift: 9^9%)
[%Lift: 10.5%J Thousand Exposed
1—^ ••r— —1 •^ • 1 r— ^ 11 ^ r
Week of First Weeks 1-2 after Weeks 1-3 after Weeks 1-4 after
Exposure First Exposure First Exposure First Exposure

• Control Test ' % Lift: 3.5% )

( % Lift: 1.4% )
$130$134
Figure 10 Percent Making a Competitive Search $105 $106

(see Figures 11 and 12), we see that the
percentage lift is much higher online
than offline, with an average onUne
buyer penetration lift of 42.1 percent,
compared to a lift of 10.1 percent in
offline buyer penetration. However,
because the bases are larger for offline
purchasing, the net impact in new or
additional buyers is larger offline than
online.
Per-buyer purchasing both on- and off-
line show minimal gains (see Figure 13).
The synergistic Impact of display and
search advertisements on saies Online Offline
In this series of studies, we examined • Control Test
the impact of search and display sepa-
rately as well as in combination. The im-
Figure 13 Dollars per Buyer
pact of search advertisements alone on
consumers' buying behavior was found
to be clearly greater than that of display
advertisements alone. This is true both because consumers responding to search
in terms of the advertisements' impact advertisements are much more likely to
on online buying as well as the impact be "in the market" for buying the adver-
on offline sales. This is not surprising tised product.

1 4 0 JOÜRflfiL OFflOyERTISIflG(lESEflflCH June 2 0 0 9

 HOW ONLINE ADVERTiSiNG WORKS

It must be remembered, however, that

% Making a Purchase on the Advertiser Site
the reach of display advertisements is typ- (Retail Only)
ically much higher than that of search 5.1%
advertisements. For example, in the stud-
2.4%
ies conducted, approximately 81 percent 1.9%
1.0% ^-^^ 1.1%
of the consumers who saw an advertise-
ment received only a display advertise- Display Only Search Only Search and Display
ment, while a much lower 8 percent
( % Lift: +42% ) (% Lift: +121%) [% Lift: +173%]
received only a search advertisement.
When the lift factors are weighted by the
Online $$ per 000 Exposed
reach of a campaign, display advertise- (Retail Only)
ments typically emerge as being able to $6,107
generate a higher total lift in sales.
Conventional wisdom says that media $2,724 $2,723
$994 $1,263 $1,548
work best when multiple programs are
used together, and we do indeed see clear Display Only Search Only Search and Display
synergies between search and display (see
( % Lift: +27% ) [ % Lift: +76% ] [% Lift; +124%]
Figure 14). Both in terms of the impact on
buyer penetration and dollar sales (per • Control Test
thousand consumers exposed), it is clear
that the combination of search and dis- Figure 14 Search and Display Synergies Online
play together is greater than the sum of
the impact of display and search adver-
tisements separately.
The effects of the combination of search
and display on in-store sales are equally
dramatic (see Figure 15). The incremen-
tal lift in buyer penetration generated by % Making a Purchase Offline
the combination of search and display (Retail Only)
14.0%
advertisements is 4.8 points in-store,
8.3% 9.2%
compared to 3.2 points online. In terms 6.3% 6.9% 6.2%
of dollars spent on a per-exposed user
basis, the combination's impact on off-
Display Only Search Only Search and Display
line sales clearly has the potential to make
% Lift:+10% 1 i % Lift:+35% 1 % Lift: +52%
a larger impact on a retailer's bottom
line.
Online $$ per 000 Exposed
(Retail Oniy)
EMPfRICAL GENERALIZATIONS AND $23,597
CONCLUSIONS $14,371
$9,905 $11,550 $10,783
The empirical generalizations established $7,889
in this research are as follows:
Display Only Search Only Search and Display
EGl: Even with no clicks or a mini- % Lift: +17% % Lift: +82% Lift: +119%
mal click rate of 0.1 percent,
online display advertisements I Control Test
can generate substantial lift in
site visitation, trademark search Figure 15 Search and Display Synergies Offline

June 2009 L DF eDUERTISlOG RESeHRCH 1 4 1

HOW ONLINE ADVERTiSING WORKS
Among 139 studies in which consumers' oniine
behavior was monitored foiiowing exposure to a dispiay
advertisement, the average iift in the number of
visitors to the advertiser site was 46 percent.
queries, and increases in both
online and offline sales.
EG2: For retailers, search advertising
generally causes a greater lift in
sales among those exposed to
search advertisements than an
online display advertising cam-
paign does among those ex-
posed to the display campaign,
but the higher reach of display
advertising campaigns typically
means that they are able to gen-
erate larger overall sales in-
creases than search campaigns.
EG3: Overlaying a retailer's display
advertising campaign on a
search campaign produces syn-
ergy, with the effect of the
combination being greater than
the sum of the two separate
campaigns.
Our results show that a low level of
clicks does not mean that online display
advertising is having no effect. By exam-
ining 139 online display advertising cam-
paigns conducted across a variety of
vertical industries {including Retail and
Apparel, Travel, CPG and Restaurant, Fi-
nance, Automotive, Consumer Electronics
and Software, and Media and Entertain-
1 4 2 JDUROHL OF HDUEHÎI510G HESEaRCIJ June 2 0 0 g
ment), we show that display advertising,
despite a lack of clicks, can have a signif-
icant positive impact on;
• visitation to the advertiser's website (lift
of at least 46 percent over a four-week
period);
• the likelihood of consumers conduct-
ing a search query using the advertis-
er's branded terms (a lift of at least 38
percent over a four-week period);
• consumers' likelihood of buying the ad-
vertised brand online (an average 27
percent lift in online sales);
• consumers' likelihood of buying at the
advertiser's retail store (an average lift
of 17 percent).
In the Retail category, it is also clear
that while the lift in sales from a display
advertisement is lower than the lift from
a search advertisement, the reach of a
display campaign is typically far higher
than that of a search campaign. When
the sales lift is weighted by reach, dis-
play campaigns generally outperform
search campaigns. The combination of a
display and search campaign, however,
delivers substantial synergy, with the sales
lift from the combined strategy being
greater than the sum of the individual
components,
GiAN M. FuLGONi is the executive chairman and co-
founder of comScore Inc. (NASDAQiSCOR). a global
leader in measuring the digital world,
MARIE PAUUNE MORN currently holds the position of
director of product management at comScore, Inc.
She joined comScore in 2001 and has held various
positions in product management and marketing
solutions.
REFERENCES
COMSCORE PRESS RELEASE. "Cookie-Based
Counting Overstates Size of Web Site Audi-
ences," April 16, 2007: [URL: http://www.
comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1389I.
DOUBLECLICK RESEARCH. "Search Before the
Purchase: Understanding Buyer Search Activ-
ity as it Builds to Online Purchase," February
2005: [URL: http://www.doubleclick.com/
insight/pdfs/searchpurchase_0502.pdf], ac-
cessed November 1, 2008.
EMARKETER. "The Latest Ad Click Count,"
March U, 2009: [URL: http://www.emarketer.
com/Article.aspx?id = 1006969].
GOOGLE AND COMSCORE. "comScore Press
Release Study Confirms the Importance of
Search in Influencing Offline Buying," March
21, 2006: [URL: http://www.comscore.com/
press/release.asp?press=796].
STARCOM MEDIAVEST GROUP PRESS RELEASE.
"New Study Shows that Hea\y Clickers Dis-
tort Reality of Display Advertising Click-
Through Metrics," February 12, 2008: [URL:
http://www.smvgroup.com/news_popup_flash.
asp?pr=1643].