This week's review of ad fraud and quality in the digital advertising space.
In a new blog post, Pixalate examines the relationship between viewability and ads.txt adoption. There are many KPIs used to determine "quality," and what qualifies as "quality inventory" can change from one company to the next. But viewability is one of the most ubiquitous measurements used in digital marketing today. So how do ads.txt-enabled sites stack up against sites without ads.txt in terms of viewability?
According to AdExchanger, citing sources with knowledge, "...publishers using Google’s default [GDPR] consent technology will only be allowed to pass data to 12 supply chain partners, including Google itself, SSPs, exchanges, ad servers, DSPs, DMPs, plug-ins, tracking and measurement tags and third-party data suppliers." The article added: "Twelve may sound like plenty of vendors, but the policy would severely restrict the partner ecosystem if it were widely adopted by DFP customers. Time Inc., Business Insider and ESPN, for instance, respectively have 153, 68 and 22 homepage partner tags, according to Ghostery data."
Centro this week announced that is has integrated Pixalate's real-time viewability reporting into Basis, its programmatic ad platform. “Viewability has become a standard currency in the digital advertising ecosystem,” said Jalal Nasir, CEO of Pixalate. “By enabling Pixalate’s viewability measurement within Centro’s platform, media professionals will have seamless access to the valuable metrics required to build trust with all parties in the digital ad marketplace.”
The IAB Tech Lab and IAB Europe have released pubvendors.json and mobile in-app specifications for the framework. Per the IAB, Pubvendors.json is intended to:
"The digital marketing and media industries are looking closely at whether blockchain can help solve some serious challenges with transparency, fraud and privacy," wrote eMarketer as part of the release of a new report, "Blockchain's Promise: How Digital Advertising May Use It to Increase Transparency, Reduce Friction and Solve Audience Identity Challenges." The article notes that 2018 will be a key year for "testing and learning."
Sign up for our blog to stay updated with new stats, trends, and analysis on 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.”