The fight against UK ad fraud: a four-point manifesto
Opinion
UK Stop Ad Funded Crime’s Ian Moss outlines how stakeholders in programmatic advertising can and should address the “moving target” of systemic ad fraud in the system.
UK Stop Ad Funded Crime (UKSAFC) was set up with a single objective: to get the entire programmatic advertising buying and selling chain talking about how we reduce the amount of fraud in the system.
We need to use the combined experience and expertise of a complex market in order to identify points in the system where improvements can be made, and the industry has put its weight behind the issue.
Sky, Omnicom Media Group, Dentsu, Canton, MAP, We Are Liberty, and independent experts such as Jon Walsh meet monthly to build a strategy to raise the profile of the problem and its solutions, promote best practice and drive the campaign on.
As a newly constituted group trying to insert itself into an industry debate, we have been cautious about our claims, temperate in our approach and collegiate in our efforts.
This is a genuine attempt to resolve something before someone — government, regulators — tries to resolve it on the industry’s behalf, with all the problems external governance brings.
This is a moving target, an evolving model — one that requires the actors inside it to be its greatest critics and bear down on the problem of systemic, significant fraud in the system.
Doing it from outside of the established trade associations allows us freedom to focus our efforts wherever we feel they can have the greatest impact, but we also want to work with the existing framework — so we meet regularly with IAB, ISBA, and others to ensure they are consulted and can add value to the overall effort.
Change can come — if the industry wants it
Online has a history of putting its loopholes and flaws down to its insurgent nature, its novel approach. I first engaged in policy in this world as a government official and as a regulator, and the rhetoric of “this is different” waved away the idea that anything could be done.
Since then, from copyright to brand placement, something has been done, and it has made a significant difference.
Our issue in this case is that the incentives to look hard at the problem are weak. The programmatic industry has consistently evangelised in its own name, and to be honest about the great levels of fraud, overbilling, incorrect placement and demographic attribution that is going on would be to admit to complicity. This is the hurdle UKSAFC is attempting to jump.
One of the first things we did was to delve closely to look at the Government’s own use of programmatic and found a surprisingly positive conclusion. The UK Government uses programmatic in a very limited way, with safe lists of sites and a controlled placement of ads through private markets.
It has worked out that its exposure to fraud is too great to use open markets and its responsibility to taxpayers is to ensure that adspend online gets to where it should go.
Brands do not take the same view, on the whole, and our challenge is to work out why, and also to help them ask the correct questions of their media buyers.
A taxonomy of fraud
The starting point of the campaign has been to agree what we are trying to focus on and then to move to our four-point plan of how to progress.
Identify best practice
We will use the forum to share different approaches, discuss their merits and identify positive progress.
Where we can, we will share non-confidential information about the range of different forms of detection and ways to target different types of fraud.
By building up a common knowledge of what works we can help the group, and the industry as a whole, to take steps to improve their knowledge of fraud.
Accountability
We want to challenge the current market dynamic of data silos, over-reliance on dashboards and lack of accountability.
To make it easier and simpler for the industry to monitor fraud, we need to normalise and standardise log-level data reviews, open-source quality assurance and be able to clearly identify where issues arise.
We need to be able to look at the missing percentage on reporting and not apportion fault, but find the truth, and we need intermediaries to take ownership of issues within their control.
Transparency
If we can move to greater insight and information in the public domain, we move towards deeper understanding and analytics.
Brands can start to ask questions such as: are we getting the media inventory we are expecting and paying for? Are the ads running on the sites or apps we think they are running on? Are our brand safety protections working? Is our invalid traffic detection working?
Ensuring an unfettered right for advertisers and agencies to access log file data from all participants in the programmatic buying chain is necessary in order to be able to analyse impression level data and track across bids, serving, placement and verification.
Collective Action
We need to move forward together as an industry in a collaborative way without seeking to demonise or blame any particular programmatic intermediary seeking to operate legitimately in the sector.
Together, we can collectively support government agencies with the support they need to take action.
***
Advertising risks loss of trust and unwanted regulation
We are still on the lower steps of the climb but there is plenty of optimism around the Coalition table.
People have come together because they share a common concern that the industry must deal with this problem as a matter of urgency. Without industry action, trust in the system is at risk and the danger of clunky regulation sits before us.
If you agree with our objectives, please do get in touch and join in. We don’t expect a big commitment — one short meeting a month — but we do want you to be committed.
The network of advocates we are seeking to build across every part of the supply and demand chain will help to make a difference to the problem.
Ian Moss is spokesperson for UKSAFC, partner at The Draft Counsel, and former Radiocentre CEO.