Monthly Archives: May 2013

May 30 2013
Leave a comment
Ad Serving, Ad Technology, Economics, Media Agencies, Online Media, Publishers

Which Type Of Fraud Have You Been Suckered Into?

By Eric Picard (Originally published by AdExchanger.com on May 30th, 2013)

For the last few years, Mike Shields over at Adweek has done a great job of calling out bad actors in our space.  He’s shined a great big spotlight on the shadowy underbelly of our industry – especially where ad networks and RTB intersect with ad spend.

Many kinds of fraud take place in digital advertising, but two major kinds are significantly affecting the online display space today. (To be clear, these same types of fraud also affect video, mobile and social. I’m just focusing on display because it attracts more spending and it’s considered more mainstream.) I’ll call these “page fraud” and “bot fraud.”

Page Fraud

This type of fraud is perpetrated by publishers who load many different ads onto one page.  Some of the ads are visible, others hidden.  Sometimes they’re even hidden in “layers,” so that many ads are buried on top of each other and only one is visible. Sometimes the ads are hidden within iframes that are set to 1×1 pixel size (so they’re not visible at all). Sometimes they’re simply rendered off the page in hidden frames or layers.

It’s possible that a publisher using an ad unit provided by an ad network could be unaware that the network is doing something unscrupulous – at least at first.  But they are like pizza shops that sell more pizzas than it’s possible to make with the flour they’ve purchased. They may be unaware of the exact nature of the bad behavior but must eventually realize that something funny is going on. In the same way, bad behavior is very clear to publishers who can compare the number of page views they’re getting with the number of ad impressions they’re selling.  So I don’t cut them any slack.

This page fraud, by the way, is not the same thing as “viewability,” which involves below-the-fold ads that never render visibly on the user’s page.  That fraudulent activity is perpetrated by the company that owns the web page on which the ads are supposed to be displayed.  They knowingly do so by either programming their web pages with these fraudulent techniques or using networks that sell fake ad impressions on their web pages.

There are many fraud-detection techniques you can employ to make sure that your campaign isn’t the victim of page fraud. And there are many companies – such as TrustMetrics, Double Verify and Integral Ad Science – that offer technologies and services to detect, stop and avoid this type of fraud. Foiling it requires page crawling as well as advanced statistical analysis.

Bot Fraud

This second type of fraud, which can be perpetrated by a publisher or a network, is a much nastier kind of fraud than page fraud. It requires real-time protection that should ultimately be built into every ad server in the market.

Bot fraud happens when a fraudster builds a software robot (or bot) – or uses an off-the-shelf bot – that mimics the behavior of a real user. Simple bots pretend to be a person but behave in a repetitive way that can be quickly identified as nonhuman; perhaps the bot doesn’t rotate its IP address often and creates either impressions or clicks faster than humanly possible. But the more sophisticated bots are very difficult to differentiate from humans.

Many of these bots are able to mimic human behavior because they’re backed by “botnets” that sit on thousands of computers across the world and take over legitimate users’ machines.  These “zombie” computers then bring up the fraudsters’ bot software behind the scenes on the user’s machine, creating fake ad impressions on a real human’s computer.  (For more information on botnets, read “A Botnet Primer for Advertisers.”) Another approach that some fraudsters take is to “farm out” the bot work to real humans, who typically sit in public cyber cafes in foreign countries and just visit web pages, refreshing and clicking on ads over and over again. These low-tech “botnets” are generally easy to detect because the traffic, while human and “real,” comes from a single IP address and usually from physical locations where the heavy traffic seems improbable – often China, Vietnam, other Asian countries or Eastern Europe.

Many companies have invested a lot of money to stay ahead of bot fraud. Google’s DoubleClick ad servers already do a good job of avoiding these types of bot fraud, as do Atlas and others.

Anecdotally, though, newer ad servers such as the various DSPs seem to be having trouble with this; I’ve heard examples through the grapevine on pretty much all of them, which has been a bit of a black eye for the RTB space. This kind of fraud has been around for a very long time and only gets more sophisticated; new bots are rolled out as quickly as new detection techniques are developed.

The industry should demand that their ad servers take on this problem of bot fraud detection, as it really can only be handled at scale by significant investment – and it should be built right into the core campaign infrastructure across the board. Much like the issues of “visible impressions” and verification that have gotten a lot of play in the industry press, bot fraud is core to the ad-serving infrastructure and requires a solution that uses ad-serving-based technology. The investment is marginal on top of the existing ad-serving investments that already have been made, and all of these features should be offered for free as part of the existing ad-server fees.

Complain to – or request bot-fraud-detection features from – your ad server, DSP, SSP and exchange to make sure they’re prioritizing feature development properly. If you don’t complain, they won’t prioritize this; instead, you’ll get less-critical new features first.

Why Is This Happening?

I’ve actually been asked this a lot, and the question seems to indicate a misunderstanding – as if it were some sort of weird “hacking” being done to punish the ad industry. The answer is much simpler:  money.  Publishers and ad networks make money by selling ads. If they don’t have much traffic, they don’t make much money. With all the demand flowing across networks and exchanges today, much of the traffic is delivered across far more and smaller sites than in the past. This opens up significant opportunities for unscrupulous fraudsters.

Page fraud is clearly aimed at benefiting the publisher but also benefitting the networks. Bot fraud is a little less clear – and I do believe that some publishers who aren’t aware of fraud are getting paid for bot-created ad impressions.  In these cases, the network that owns the impressions has configured the bots to drive up its revenues. But like I said above, publishers have to be almost incompetent not to notice the difference in the number of impressions delivered by a bot-fraud-committing ad network and the numbers provided by third parties like Alexa, Comscore, Nielsen, Compete, Hitwise, Quantcast, Google Analytics, Omniture and others.

Media buyers should be very skeptical when they see reports from ad networks or DSPs showing millions of impressions coming from sites that clearly aren’t likely to have millions of impressions to sell.  And if you’re buying campaigns with any amount of targeting – especially something that should significantly limit available inventory such as Geo or Income– or with frequency caps, you need to be extra skeptical when reviewing your reports, or use a service that does that analysis for you.

Advertisement
May 06 2013
Leave a comment
Ad Ecosystem, Online Media

Changing The Industry: Don’t Just Complain, Do Something

By Eric Picard (Originally published on AdExchanger – May 6th, 2013)

Take it from me: It’s easy to complain. I’ve been writing monthly articles in this space since 1999, which I think qualifies me as a “semi-professional” complainer. In these articles, I discuss issues facing our industry in a public forum and – sometimes – offer suggestions on how we can fix them. But what gets masked, perhaps, is how problems are really solved behind the scenes in our industry.

I’ve been involved in many industry projects over the years. Some of these projects have come through industry organizations like theInteractive Advertising Bureau, some through my employers, and some through unofficial channels such as informal dinners with industry folks that unexpectedly yield ideas for solutions.

Ultimately, things change when someone is passionate about a topic, decides to do more than just talk about it, and rallies a group of people to make that change happen. More than anything, in my experience, what matters is intent. Pushing forward with the intent to make change happen is what drives change. It sounds simple, but it really is the case.

Recently, I had an experience that illustrates my point. But first, let me set the stage…

In ad technology, most of the company leaders know each other pretty well. Despite Terry Kawaja’s best efforts at showing how complex the “LUMAscape” is, the reality is that we’re a pretty compact industry with a fairly small number of key people.

When it comes to ad technology, there are probably only 100-200 people who’ve been primarily responsible for turning the crank these past 15-20 years – and most of us know each other. Even when we find ourselves competing, we find plenty of respect for each other, as well as – perhaps surprisingly – a lot of consensus on the big issues. When I get in a room with Tom Shields from Yieldex, or Tony Katsur from Maxifier, or John Ramey from isocket, the conversation is always going to be fun because we’re all knowledgeable and passionate about the issues. Even if we don’t talk regularly, we can dive right into these conversations because we can use shorthand. We don’t have to explain any context or background; we all have a baseline of understanding.

So when I started reading my friends’ and colleagues’ articles complaining about something as simple as what we call a new category of digital media, I realized a problem was brewing.

The Great Programmatic Premium Debate

The term “programmatic premium” has taken a life of its own and become confusing to many in the industry. Some folks on the real-time bidding side of the market started using the term to show that ad exchanges were finally getting access to “premium” inventory. But there’s also a whole new category of media tools being used to buy and sell inventory through direct publisher integration. These companies were also using the term “programmatic premium,” but with a whole different set of meanings.

After reading the fifth or sixth article on this topic, I got fed up. I sent an email to all the people who were working in this new space and suggested that we get together and help the industry by deciding what the name should be, developing a position and pushing it to the market. I remembered what happened to the “demand-side platforms” and the “supply-side platforms,” feeling that if we could come to some consensus on ”programmatic premium,” perhaps we could help fix the problem quickly.

I knew that most of the folks involved were likely to attend the AdExchanger Programmatic I/O conference in San Francisco, so I suggested that the group meet at the conference and discuss this. A few weeks ago, this informal industry roundtable – including representatives from eight companies – met during the conference and also gathered input before and after the meeting from others who couldn’t attend in person.

After lengthy debate, we came to a unanimous decision: The best name to describe inventory purchased in an automated way through a buying or selling tool that is directly integrated with a publisher’s ad server is “programmatic direct.”  This name reflects the difference between programmatic real-time bidding (RTB) and the growing category of directly integrated buying and selling tools that enable the replacement of the antiquated request for proposal (RFP) and insertion order (I/O) approach that have been in place since industry began.

Last week, John Ramey from isocket published a summary of the discussion on AdExchanger, to which all the participants added comments. The effort ended in success, and now we can move forward as an industry.

How to Drive Change: Do Something

But this is just one example of many. My point is that the potential to move the industry forward lies in all our hands. We are creating the future of advertising and media – and most people don’t realize the power they hold in that process. Every fire needs a spark to ignite it. It’s from you that real change can come.

There are dozens of examples like the one above, showing how with a little effort, consensus building and leadership, the industry can change.

Another such example is the Universal Ad Package that the IAB pushed through in record time back in 2002. The legend is that this effort started when some folks from Microsoft, Disney and Yahoo got together for drinks at a conference and realized that they could shortcut the whole process of pushing better ad formats through the IAB if they did the legwork ahead of time. They invited several other publishers to the conversation, and before long they had a consensus and a very complete body of work that made the standardization job much easier by the time it arrived at the IAB.

Whether you’re trying to change the name of a category, fix a fundamental problem with the number of standard ad formats, or change the way that some major piece of technology works, don’t shy away from having those conversations. If you don’t like the way a product works, don’t complain to your colleagues. Instead, send an email or pick up the phone and call the person in charge of product management for that product.  You’d be shocked by how few people do this, and how much the product managers want to hear this kind of feedback.

If you are passionate about changing the industry, then do it. Join an IAB committee. Write emails, write articles, have dinner at conferences with like-minded colleagues – and even competitors.  That’s how change happens. That’s how you get things done.