After IAB claims ad fraud of just 4%, marketer speaking at their conference cites overseas study’s 80% figure
Minutes after industry body the Interactive Advertising Bureau published a report claiming that only 4% of traffic delivered to ads in Australia was fraudulent, a panel at a conference curated by the organisation was told that the number could be 80%.
This morning, the IAB, which represents publishers carrying and delivering ads such as Google, Yahoo7, Facebook and Nine, released its first report into ad fraud, and claimed more than 96% of ads served to desktop and mobiles are served to real users.
But in a session curated and moderated by the IAB’s CEO Vijay Solanki at today’s Programmatic Summit in Sydney about viewability, ad blocking and ad fraud, Michelle Katz, a former director of acquisition at Optus said ad fraud was a major issue. And the boss of tech provider Rubicon suggested that “self interest” was getting in the way of addressing the problem.
Hi Vivienne,
When I made the comment re ad fraud at 80% I refered to research commented on by the ‘World Federation of Advertisers’, I was not referring to ad fraud rates in Australia.
Thanks
Michelle
Hi Michelle,
Thanks – we have popped World into the quote in an effort to clarify your comments.
Cheers,
Miranda – Mumbrella
Maybe you should put it somewhere in the article title and edm subject line to really make it clear Miranda…….
Needs to have a distinction about the numbers written into this article and headline please. 4% is impression fraud, the comment about 80% is related to click fraud. Completely different types of fraud from a naming and also technical point of view.
The IAB can hold these fancy conferences and talk about the need for transparency but the fact is they just aren’t keeping up. The IAB in Australia is going backwards and dominated by News Corp influences.
Nielsen are slow, unable to track digital metrics like on platforms apps, social media content and simply not transparent in their methodology tracking. The organisation is beholden to the IAB. It’s basically seen as a big slow government department. Would not be surprised if sites started to pull out.
No wonder us digital folk are laughed at, 4% to 80%.
Give some perspective you fool, when was the 80% discovered? What was purchased?
I can go find 80% of fraud right now if I wanted to, it’s easy to find(and cheap) but bloody easy to avoid thanks to the self interest of vendors and technologies aimed to cut it out.
When marketers stop making things about price and forcing agencies and partners to drive low low low cpms or viewable cpms whatever it may be, the crap fraud will disappear.
Chris Nolan, what publishers talk about viewabilty as a page and not the ad/impression?
I say, go talk to new publishers mate! You and the agency are easily fooled if that’s your biggest concern and you are unable to overcome that.
Don’t bother setting a new viewability standard, as per the other panel member start engaging creative agencies and ensure ads are worth watching first.
Poor publisher will always be the punching bag, and no matter how you design a page to force a view the user always has the final say in giving the ad and content the flick.
Ultimately you can skin a cat a number of ways, not every way will turn out the same.
What we have seen as a result of this example is the inconsistencies in the measurement of fraud. Unfortunately publishing that provides a different perception of what reality is.
Think you’ll find that IAB’s study covers premium top tier publishers in Australia, without considering anything travelling through the pipelines of the ecosystem. It is the priority of the IAB to present publishers and media owners.
4% in premium environments is not a great outcome.
The IAB were talking about traffic, in Australia.
Michelle was talking about clicks, from an international study.
The only conclusion that can be reached when figures as disparate as 4% – 80% are being reported is that NOONE has any f-ing idea about ad fraud
Hi Vivenne
Noticed that you have edited the quote and included WORLD. Would it also be worth mentioning that IAB report is claiming that only 4% of traffic delivered to ads in AUSTRALIA was fraudulent and making the headline of your article clearer. I read the headline and thought that Michelle was referring that 80% of traffic delivered to Australia was fraudulent.
Good article regardless, and agree that Fraud is an important topic that needs to be prioritised and all are responsible for finding a solution
Out of interest, do any of the studies undertaken by the World Federation of Advertisers include a percentage specific to Australia. Would be an interesting follow up looking at Ad Fraud rates of various countries…
Relying on these metrics is a fools game anyway, there’s a reason they called vanity metrics. Sure some of the big brands just want reach and branding but for everyone else if the ads don’t create sales and make a profit what the hell is the point? I’ve never noticed a big problem with Ad fraud probably because I Target my campaigns and measure the results rather than trying to get 5 million people to simply and wastefully see my ad.
There are two very different things being referenced here:
The new IAB Australia data is 3 months worth of all AU ad inventory (ad impressions) from late 2016 tracked by 3 MRC accredited vendors (ComScore, IAS, Moat) – collected and validated by PwC. This is a measure for all invalid traffic (includes fraud but not exclusive to fraud) for this inventory. We will be publishing this data every 6 months in the market to monitor trends.
Michelle references a small academic study that tested clicks on a £400 budget from the UK two years ago that was referenced within a WFA paper – if anyone wants to look at this study it can be found here – http://oxford-biochron.com/dow.....Report.pdf
You’re comparing impression fraud in Australia in 2017 (or the quasi lack thereof) with a tiny and out-dated UK study (with a rather questionable test design) and you create an infuriating click bait headline.
Yep, this is quite misleading and sensationalist reporting. And it does a disservice to the industry. The minor edits after blasting out an eDM really are too little too late.
If you work in the Aus media industry – read the links Gai posted above and make your own professional judgement in each’s application and robustness.
On a separate note, it is a little bewildering that at the conference an IAB board member would asked for publishers to work better together to come up with common metrics on the same day that the same major publishers (via IAB) released common metrics that they have collaborated on over many months.
This article is poor and I suspect that the journalist is covertly undermining a competitive industry event. This is a shame, utterly self-serving and good for no-one in advertising.
The comments from the REA representative referencing creative agencies and their role in fraud is utter nonsense. How do these people end up on stage in public?