Soo Jin Oh, Gamut’s Vice President of Client Strategy & Solutions, wrote a guest post on Marketing Land titled, "Avoid programmatic fraud with these strategic tips." The article featured data from Pixalate, and we're sharing some of the highlights here.
"Marketers face a dilemma when it comes to programmatic technology: embrace the benefits of scale, efficiency and targeting, and expose yourself to the fraud lurking in the background," wrote Soo Jin Oh, Gamut's VP of Client Strategy & Solutions, on Marketing Land.
"Luckily, fraud can be consciously avoided and isn’t something you simply have to surrender to in a programmatic campaign. It all relies on campaign execution. After all, the campaigns that experience a large percentage of fraud are typically suffering from poor execution strategy.
"Although it may seem as though your anti-fraud choices are limited, marketers, in fact, have many. Savvy marketers use the tools at their disposal to limit their programmatic campaigns’ exposure to fraud. Specifically, they make the following smart strategy decisions that fuel both design and execution in anti-fraud initiatives."
Read the entire article in Marketing Land.
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 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.”