Home The Sell Sider We Need A Collective Push To End Site Spoofing

We Need A Collective Push To End Site Spoofing

SHARE:

The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community.

Today’s column is written by Jana Meron, vice president of programmatic and data strategy at Business Insider. Jana will present “Insider View From The Publisher” at AdExchanger’s upcoming PROGRAMMATIC I/O New York conference Oct. 25-26.

Ad fraud is a much-discussed headache for the digital advertising industry, but it wasn’t until Business Insider discovered arbitrageurs misrepresenting our own video inventory that we realized what a tricky problem it’s become.

We discovered it was happening when a displeased advertiser revealed the reason for their discontent: It was buying ads on the open exchange for significantly less than the private marketplace we had in place with them.

But here’s the thing. It was news to us that the advertiser had ever purchased any of our video inventory on the open exchange. Turns out they were buying ads from an unauthorized seller. More importantly, the ads never actually appeared on Business Insider.

We found that while the advertiser spent several thousand dollars on our ads – or so they thought – they actually purchased only a tiny amount of our inventory, less than $100 worth.

Determining how this was happening was tough. We spent dozens of hours working closely with various exchanges to track down shady sellers and get a clearer picture of how our ads were being misrepresented, including a painstaking effort poring through our inventory channels.

A few of our demand-side platform partners helped us track down the shady sellers. But once we got in touch with the sellers it was even more challenging to shut it down. One arbitrageur even threw up its hands: “We’re just the pipes, not the sheriff.”

Until then, while we knew fraud was happening in the industry, we also believed that because of tight controls we had in place that it wasn’t happening to us. What we learned is that there was something about the whole ecosystem that we first needed to uncover before being able to truly combat the fraud.

Who was buying our inventory and re-selling it? What entity was buying impressions and then multiplying them – by a factor of 10 – and reselling our inventory? And who was “spoofing” our valuable inventory?

We redoubled our efforts to ensure our inventory wasn’t being misrepresented in the marketplace. Where previously we allowed many buyers access to it – assuming they were behaving in good faith – now we operated under the assumption that buyers are guilty until proven innocent (sorry!).

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

It took the better part of this year to understand how this all happens and what we as a company need to do to prevent it. Yet our efforts feel insufficient, given the scope of the problem. We believe the industry as a whole must work collectively to tackle the ad fraud problem. Publishers can’t do it alone.

Exchanges must work to ensure buyers don’t resell inventory. Supply-side platforms (SSPs) do need to play sheriff. And if they feel that’s too much to ask of them, they should at least enforce their contracts with buyers. While it’s difficult to identify fraud, not trying to point out shady intermediaries is a dereliction of an SSP’s duty to its buy-side and sell-side partners. As the first line of defense against this kind of fraud, exchanges need to commit to enforcing higher standards.

Buyers must get real. If ads appear too good (cheap) to be true, they most likely are. Buying on the open exchange is a brand risk because there’s no control over where ads will appear. Plus, advertisers need to worry about alienating publishers by acting carelessly. They should seek third parties to play a role in tracking fraud percentages and suggesting sites for blacklisting. Buyers should also sort through sites with abnormally high click-through rates as these, too, are likely too good to be true. Lastly, they should work closely with exchanges willing to help test for fraud.

Finally, publishers must get on board. Discouraging the unauthorized reselling of inventory is imperative. It’s why Business Insider has been a staunch advocate of IAB Tech Lab’s Ads.txt initiative, a groundbreaking effort specifically aimed at reducing domain spoofing and unauthorized selling of publisher inventory. Unfortunately, most publishers have yet to sign on to the initiative, which is needed for the industry overall to follow; trading desks, for example are unlikely to participate unless publishers are first on board.

It’s clear that ad fraud is a real problem and goes beyond just bot fraud and domain spoofing. And it’s one that is exceedingly tough to weed out. Based on our experience, I’m optimistic the industry can at least drastically reduce its occurrence. But this won’t happen until all players in the ecosystem start playing their part.

Follow Business Insider (@businessinsider) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Unraveling The Mystery Of PubMatic’s $5 Million Loss From A “First-Price Auction Switch”

PubMatic’s $5 million loss from DV360’s bidding algorithm fix earlier this year suggests second-price auctions aren’t completely a thing of the past.

A comic version of former News Corp executive Stephanie Layser in the courtroom for the DOJ's ad tech-focused trial against Google in Virginia.

The DOJ vs. Google, Day Two: Tales From The Underbelly Of Ad Tech

Day Two of the Google antitrust trial in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday was just as intensely focused on the intricacies of ad tech as on Day One.

A comic depicting Judge Leonie Brinkema's view of the her courtroom where the DOJ vs. Google ad tech antitrust trial is about to begin. (Comic: Court Is In Session)

Your Day One Recap: DOJ vs. Google Goes Deep Into The Ad Tech Weeds

It’s not often one gets to hear sworn witnesses in federal court explain the intricacies of header bidding under oath. But that’s what happened during the first day of the Google ad tech-focused antitrust case in Virginia on Monday.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Comic: What Else? (Google, Jedi Blue, Project Bernanke)

Project Cheat Sheet: A Rundown On All Of Google’s Secret Internal Projects, As Revealed By The DOJ

What do Hercule Poirot, Ben Bernanke, Star Wars and C.S. Lewis have in common? If you’re an ad tech nerd, you’ll know the answer immediately.

shopping cart

The Wonderful Brand Discusses Testing OOH And Online Snack Competition

Wonderful hadn’t done an out-of-home (OOH) marketing push in more than 15 years. That is, until a week ago, when it began a campaign across six major markets to promote its new no-shell pistachio packs.

Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony of any government witnesses who aren’t economists or antitrust experts during the upcoming ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Execs Off the Stand In Its Upcoming Antitrust Trial

Google doesn’t want AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley – you know, the godfather of programmatic – to testify during its ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.