The battle against ad fraud is ongoing, and despite the gains made in 2018 — our industry exposed several big ad fraud schemes across desktop, mobile in-app, and Connected TV/OTT devices this year — overall ad fraud rates continue to rise.
Pixalate CEO Jalal Nasir brings you six ad fraud predictions for 2019. Watch the video and see the full predictions below:
We’ve seen one example of how fraudsters can take advantage of the budding CTV/OTT space (Business Insider)
CTV/OTT ad fraud schemes will only grow in scale and complexity (Pixalate)
Tru Optik estimates a 62% uptick in OTT ad spend (MediaPost)
However, there’s also double-digit ad fraud rates (19% in OTT, per Pixalate)
Measurement and standardization have not caught up with this space — even as ad spending skyrockets
Fraudsters will continue to follow the money
MegaCast was one of the biggest examples of an apparent mobile app ad fraud scheme (BuzzFeed)
Other app-based attacks have also been unearthed (BuzzFeed)
App stores need to take more control over the apps that are allowed onto their platforms
Continuous monitoring of the apps will also be paramount
App ads.txt will help, but the in-app space remains ripe for the picking
The DOJ’s recent crackdown on an alleged ad fraud operation shows that, in some cases, there are consequences for ad fraud (AdExchanger)
This case set a precedent for holding fraudsters accountable
We believe law enforcement will stay involved, but fraudsters will remain relatively uninhibited
Monetary rewards for ad fraud remain far too great, and law enforcement involvement is not yet the norm
Rooting out ad fraud requires transparency and industry-wide collaboration
With so many big ad fraud schemes being exposed in 2018, the scale of the problem has been revealed
The tides are turning on breach disclosure, and companies will no longer remain quiet
Historically, affected companies have been quiet whenever an ad fraud breach occurs, which ultimately allows the fraudsters to remain undetected for even longer
From a technical perspective (for publishers), it’s similar to ads.txt for desktop and mobile web.
We predict top-tier app publishers will quickly adopt ads.txt, but the ‘long tail’ will take longer than it did on desktop
The greatest risk to adoption lies with the app stores, as they will be required to play a part
Brands have built or mastered in-house tech platforms, and as they execute their own advertising, they will mature to add their own ad fraud protection
The evolution of in-housing is now turning focus toward improving media quality and protecting investments
Brands want to take more control of the money they are losing to ad fraud
Cost efficiencies are the #1 benefit to U.S. companies going “in-house” (eMarketer)
Despite the positive impact of some industry-wide initiatives — like ads.txt — double-digit ad fraud rates persist and ad fraud continues to grow (Pixalate)
Overall invalid traffic (IVT) rates in the U.S. are 16.6% (Pixalate)
Global mobile in-app ad fraud rates are 17.1% (Pixalate)
Global OTT ad fraud rates are 19%, while U.S. OTT ad fraud rates were 18% (Pixalate)
Want more data-driven insights? Sign up for our blog!
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
These Stories on Mobile
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Disclaimer: The content of this page reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that - opinion, not facts or guarantees.
Per the MRC, “'Fraud' is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in U.S. Court or other legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes. Also per the MRC, “‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts. Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”