The mobile in-app advertising landscape is rife with ad fraud. Pixalate’s Q2 2018 ad fraud benchmarks reveal that about 23% of mobile in-app advertising is invalid.
The ever-changing world of ad fraud – and the complexity of staying on top of the challenge — is reflected in our Seller Trust Indexes.
Pixalate this week released the Q2 2018 Mobile Seller Trust Index, and the latest leaderboard looks a lot different than it did one year ago — or even one quarter ago.
Nearly 65% of the top 30 mobile in-app programmatic ad sellers are different compared to one year ago.
Each month, Pixalate reports on mobile in-app seller quality measurement. The chief consistency over the past 18 months has been suppliers' rankings volatility.
Mobile in-app ad fraud is difficult to control, and event amongst those that are well-equipped in the fight against fraud have challenges remaining on top.
Our latest MSTI highlights the fact that the mobile in-app advertising landscape is a Wild West. It is important for brands and advertisers to stay on top of their fraud rates, because the landscape is constantly changing. Fraudsters are sophisticated in mobile. Many of the top suppliers have some fraud protection in place, but, the volatility illustrates that bad actors are constantly thinking of new ways to circumvent those measures. With mobile suppliers constantly changing, you need a monitoring service that helps you assess potential new inventory sources.
Below are the top 10 mobile in-app sellers from Q2 2018. You can download the full list here:
Pixalate’s monthly Global Seller Trust Index (GSTI), Mobile Seller Trust Index (MSTI), and Video Seller Trust Index (VSTI) are the worldwide standards in programmatic advertising quality ratings. Released monthly, the indexes evaluate and rank the quality and integrity of advertising networks and sellers across channels, platforms, and devices.
Global quality ratings are based on an analysis of overall effectiveness assessing multiple factors, such as viewability, fraud, engagement, domain masking, network quality and more, in compliance with recognized industry standards.
To learn more about the methodology and to download the expanded list of top sellers, visit http://www.pixalate.com/sellertrustindex.
Pixalate is a cross-channel fraud intelligence company that works with brands and platforms to prevent invalid traffic and improve ad inventory quality.
Pixalate’s monthly Global Seller Trust Index (GSTI), Mobile Seller Trust Index (MSTI), and Video Seller Trust Index (VSTI) are the worldwide standards in programmatic advertising quality ratings. Released monthly, the indexes evaluate and rank the quality and integrity of advertising networks and sellers across channels, platforms, and devices.
Global quality ratings are based on an analysis of overall effectiveness assessing multiple factors, such as viewability, fraud, engagement, domain masking, network quality and more, in compliance with recognized industry standards.
To learn more about the methodology and to download the expanded list of top sellers, visit http://www.pixalate.com/sellertrustindex.
Pixalate is a cross-channel fraud intelligence company that works with brands and platforms to prevent invalid traffic and improve ad inventory quality.
*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.”