Welcome to the first edition of Pixalate’s new weekly series detailing the latest ads.txt adoption trends and figures.
Pixalate has made available for download the full list of publishers with ads.txt implemented, but we also wanted to provide a weekly summary highlighting some of the key takeaways as the programmatic industry rapidly adopts the IAB-led anti-ad fraud initiative.
The programmatic advertising world reached several milestones this week in terms of industry-wide ads.txt trends:
Here are the latest ads.txt adoption figures, as of February 26, 2018.
As of February 26, 2018, over 154,401 publishers have implemented ads.txt. This marks the first time the total number of publishers exceeded 150,000.
According to Pixalate’s research, the total number of publishers with ads.txt was 89,638 as of January 1, 2018.
Nearly 65,000 additional publishers have implemented ads.txt since then — representing a rise of 72% within two months (57 days).
Of the top 1,000 sites based on programmatic advertising volume (the “Pixalate Top 1,000”), 602 sites have implemented ads.txt — or 60.20%. This number is up from 571 on January 1 (57.1%).
Of the top 5,000 sites based on programmatic advertising volume (the “Pixalate Top 5,000”), 2,549 sites have implemented ads.txt — or 50.98%. This number is up from 2,355 on January 1 (47.1%).
This marks the first week that over 50% of the Pixalate Top 5,000 publishers have implemented ads.txt.
As of this writing, 272 Alexa Top 1,000 publishers have implemented ads.txt — or 27.2%. This number is up from 220 on January 1 (22.0%).
As of this writing, 1,119 Alexa Top 5,000 publishers have implemented ads.txt — or 22.38%. This number is up from 1,013 on January 1 (20.26%).
You can download the full list of publishers with ads.txt here:
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 Thought Leadership
*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.”