[billirvine]

> I can't see how the ad network could audit conversions with certainty, unless they were also processing the payments.

A ping script, from the ad network, on the transaction completion page is all that's needed. Pretty straight forward.

[rpm4321]

No, I meant in such a way where a successful conversion couldn't be hidden by the advertiser. They could very easily serve up a completion page with the ad network script missing half the time.

[chmodd]

This is known as "shaving" among affiliate marketers and it mostly doesn't matter. E.g. when you are choosing among 10 offers to monetize your traffic, you split test and keep the one that brings you most money, regardless of whether advertisers are honest or not.

[rahoulb]

We try to do this automatically. If a product attracts clicks but doesn't convert then we disable it temporarily, to give other products a chance to be shown in their spot.

So if the retailer is cheating, then their products should not be shown very often - and products that do convert should be shown in their place.

[RobAley]

You still require honesty from the advertiser. Whats to stop the advertiser omitting the script on every nth completion page to reduce their outgoings? Maybe omitting it for high value orders as test orders are likely to be low value, whitelisting the ad networks known ip ranges etc.

[billirvine]

> You still require honesty from the advertiser.

Yes. And full-circle dishonesty is inherent in upstart/third-tier ad networks (not necessarily the network, but their advertising clients typically).

But in the semi-perfect world of advertisers really trying to sell product, and ad networks with code optimized to make that happen, it works well. If product "A" from retailer "X" is converting well, the system should promote that over products that aren't converting -- and the only way to automatically know is the action-complete ping.

But yes, deception is one of the primary reasons content publishers avoid CPA networks.