Ok, I have two points of view:
1) as a working with many charity organisations, I would be please to receive cash from whatever source, and this kind of thing is something that people can do to support a charity with no cost to themselves.

2) As an advertiser, I would not be happy if I get a load of people who are clicking on my ads for no good reason.

If I think that 2) becomes a large problem I will withdraw my ads, and find some alternative means of advertising.

Now, as a local person I do a lot of community based work (about 8-14 hours a week, on top of a full time job…), so no one can tell me that I don’t put things back to the local community.

On balance, I would say that charity clicks are a bad idea.

here is a thought for the “do no evil “company - what alternative do they offer to help.
The possible click fruad issue aside, what do they offer for these sites who simply want or need help?
I hear a lot of rules and more from google - but for a company who says “they do no evil” thier silence does more evil than good.

Yes, it is fraud. As a very small business person, the umpteen thousands of clicks on my ads every week as reported by Google, who charged a huge amount of money for, but didn’t generate even ONE tiny sale, nearly put my business under. If I want to donate to charity, I want to choose the charity, and I want to be the one to receive the tax benefits from it. Click fraud is terrible for small business, it is selfish and malicious, and even if it is painted with the ‘charity’ brush it is misleading and dishonest. I can’t use Google ads until I am sure that my ads are clicked on by people who are truly interested in my products, and not by people who just want to take my money with no benefit to me through the conduit of Google.

I definitely see the problem with allowing charities to earn money via PPC ads. If you drive away the advertisers with increased costs, nobody benefits. On the other hand, the new PPA program with Google sounds perfect for charities (or any other affiliate program, really). There are already a number of sites that offer charities the ability to set up an account and have people shop to help them earn money. I want charities to do well, but stealing from advertisers isn’t the way to do it.

I’ve started a syndicated style linkexchange/directory that produces Adsense type affiliate income for webmasters and can allow charities to use it because there is no possibility of click fraud.

I think the fact of the existence of click fraud demands the supplier of clicks demands the providers stop this practice by the charities encouraging click fraud in “the name of goodness”.

Yahoo, who has always charged everyone the same for inclusion for their directory, should be more focused on reducing their inclusion fees for charities (or semi-charities) and, thus, giving away their own money rather than giving away their advertisers money and claiming the charitable act as their own.

@Alan: “2) As an advertiser, I would not be happy if I get a load of people who are clicking on my ads for no good reason.

If I think that 2) becomes a large problem I will withdraw my ads, and find some alternative means of advertising.”

Excellent point. I think this underscores the need to monitor conversion rates and ROI. As long as the situation doesn’t get out of hand I think most advertisers won’t even notice. But if this trend continues, it may be an issue we have to face at some point.

@W.Medina: Google does have a “philanthropic arm“. I’m not familiar with what exactly goes on there.

But I’m doubting it’s on an individual charity basis.

@Margaret: Google has some help information available on invalid clicks and even provides a way to report suspected click fraud.

And you’re right - businesses should be choosing the charities they support… not some third party.

@Gilbert: Excellent point! The PPA program is an excellent alternative, especially for advertisers who suspect a lot of fraudulent activity on their accounts.

For those who don’t know, PPA stands for pay-per-action. You set up an action that users must perform (make a purchase, sign up for a program, etc) and Google only charges you when people perform those actions… not when they simply click an ad.

You pay more per action than you probably would for a click… but you’re all but guaranteed a conversion.

@Robert: I guess that’s the issue I’m curious about here. Is there more tolerance of click fraud if it’s done in the name of charity? Do users understand the problem advertisers see with this type of set up?

[…] issue with the methodology and motives of those reporting significant levels of click fraud.” Google Says No to Charitable Clicks… But Apparently Yahoo Says Yes Filed Under (Advertising, Business Practices) by Derick on […]

I don’t think you need to click on any ads - just do a search using goodsearch, and money is donated to your charity of choice.

Well that’s the impression the description of the site gives off. But the fact is that unless they are taking money from their own pockets to pay charities, searching in and of itself doesn’t generate revenue.

Clicking on sponsored search results does and I think GoodSearch assumes people will do that without consciously thinking “I’m going to click on ads” - they do it without realizing what they’re doing.