By: Lindsay Rowntree, ExchangeWire. May 16, 2017.
ExchangeWire this week published a Q&A with Jalal Nasir, CEO of Pixalate, and Gavin Stirrat, managing director of Voluum.
The piece zeroed in on the state of mobile ad fraud today. ExchangeWire explored how is mobile affected by ad fraud, certain types of mobile ad fraud, the gravity of the problem, and how Voluum and Pixalate are working together to reduce fraud at the pre-bid stage.
ExchangeWire asked: “It’s been well publicised that ad fraud will have cost brands USD$7.2bn (£5.6bn) in 2016 – how much of this can be attributed to mobile?”
Jalal Nasir, Pixalate’s CEO, answered:
“Current Pixalate measurements correlated to overall industry trends indicate that roughly 60% of all digital advertising impressions are transacted on mobile devices. Similarly, we estimate that between 50% and 60% of all money lost due to ad fraud occurs on mobile devices. We recently conducted a study which concluded that roughly 65% of all fraudulent impressions occur on mobile devices, either in-app or on mobile web.”
Detailing specific types of mobile ad fraud, Nasir said: “There are many other ways in which mobile ad fraud can manifest across mobile web and mobile apps, including in mediation deals where the developers can reverse engineer the API calls being made to SSPs through the SDK and start making those calls from the web browser or a server in a data centre. Ad stacking (placing several banners on top of each other) also exists in mobile, as do click and attribution fraud.”
Click here to read the full article on ExchangeWire, which also includes questions revolving around the seriousness of the mobile ad fraud problem, whether or not brands are fully aware of the impact ad fraud has on their bottom line, what Voluum and Pixalate are doing to combat the issue, and what we can expect in the mobile ad fraud space in 2017.
Additionally, be sure to check out our latest Mobile Seller Trust Index (MSTI) to see which programmatic sellers have the best overall quality in the mobile space.
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
These Stories on Case Studies
*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.”