Will An End to Ad Fraud Mean Bigger Budgets?

As buyers begin to demand better metrics on both ad fraud and viewability from publishers, the definition of how to measure  ad fraud keeps changing. Like viewability, fraud numbers can vary depending on the third-party monitor. And if you’ve ever seen a rat on a charged grid stop moving because of operational neurosis, you know that marketers won’t unleash the biggest budgets unless they have some standards with which they can feel comfortable.

The only thing that will change all this is greater transparency. Earlier this year, IAB in partnership with ANA and 4As started an industrywide initiative known as the Trustworthy Accountability Group to help promote transparency. The MRC is also trying to establish a certification for fraud detection. But as with viewability, it’s not so simple. In March, the group released list of first principles around fraud detection, source identification, process transparency and accountability.

The first step is to arrive at a common definition of what constitutes fraud.

There exists a set of ad-related actions generated by infrastructure designed not to deliver the right ad at the right time to the right user, but rather to extract the maximum amount of money from the digital advertising ecosystem, regardless of the presence of an audience. There also exists a set of actions generated in the normal course of internet maintenance by non-human actors – search engine spiders, brand safety bots, competitive intelligence gathering tools. These and other actions, whether they be page views, ad clicks, mouse movement, shopping cart actions and other seemingly human activities  must be expelled from the supply chain.

The supplier (ad network, exchange or publisher) must institute technology or business practices to eliminate bots, adware and malware traffic, and other sources of malicious activity.

At ZEDO we have been active in anti-malware efforts and have been selected for the Online Trust Association’s Honor Roll four years in a row. We were on the front end of this movement long before it became fashionable, and we developed our own technologies to weed out adware and malware.

Buyers should be able to identify the URLs  on which their ads appear. If the URL is masked, there must be enough trust and transparency so the buyer still feels comfortable. Suppliers must also able to supply information about what processes we employ to root out fraud. This is now becoming an industry-wide supply side requirement. There must be a rating scale, and an explanation to the buyer about how that scale works, how it is used, and what happens to the lower quality traffic.

The intent of the industry efforts is to develop a set of best practices so companies trying to achieve compliance will know what their guidelines should be. For publishers, exchanges, and networks, this should be a big opportunity, because compliance will unleash bigger marketing budgets. And since we already comply, we’d be happy to see the fraudsters chased out of the supply chain.