This week's review of ad fraud and quality in the digital advertising space.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "[Google] continues to let hundreds of outside software developers scan the inboxes of millions of Gmail users who signed up for email-based services offering shopping price comparisons, automated travel-itinerary planners or other tools." The WSJ added: "Google does little to police those developers, who train their computers—and, in some cases, employees—to read their users’ emails, a Wall Street Journal examination has found."
As reported by AdExchanger, The Media Rating Council recently "released an updated version of its Digital Video Ad Impression Measurement Guidelines, which advises on server-side ad insertion (SSAI) and OTT platforms for the first time." The article added: "The new guidelines specify that JavaScript or other APIs can be used to measure video ad impressions on OTT platforms and that the same standards for digital video ad measurements should be applied."
"Much as contextual targeting is experiencing a rebirth due to the arrival of the General Data Protection Regulation, ad-buyer demand for programmatic guaranteed deals is also increasing for some publishers," wrote Digiday. "[T]he pressure some advertisers still feel around GDPR-compliant ad buying is spurring an increased interest in programmatic guaranteed deals," the article added.
Malwarebytes this week published a blog detailing a large cryptocurrency mining operation. "In the past weeks, our crawlers have catalogued several hundred sites using a variety of CMS all injected with the same obfuscated code that uses Coinhive’s shortlink to perform silent drive-by mining," wrote Malwarebytes on their blog.
As reported by Dark Reading, citing research from Kaspersky Labs, known malware (Trojan-Ransom.Win32.Rakhni) has "a new variant [that] does a search of files on the victim's system and decides whether to launch ransomware — or simply use the computer to mine cryptocurrency."
Sign up for our blog to stay updated with new stats, trends, and analysis of digital ad fraud.
*By entering your email address and clicking Subscribe, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
These Stories on Weekly Recaps
*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.”