Does adtech have a heart? – Calling for ethical change
2018 marks the year when adtech vendors – small and large – stand up and take accountability for their role in the digital ecosystem, writes Paul Wright
You can’t help but escape the word “transparency” these days when talking about buying and selling digital media and data. Facebook are now embroiled in a new data scandal with Cambridge Analytica, facing calls for increased regulation and pushing the transparency discussion into the public domain.
Indeed, the issue has begun to divide opinion – with “transparency fatigue” from some commentators, while others continue to champion its importance and lambast those who shy away from the issue.
This running debate coincides with significant legislative changes, including the arrival of GDPR and the new ePrivacy Regulation. So, if you are unsure of the momentum for change, you could be in for a rude awakening.
This, in my view, represents growing pains for an industry that has accelerated beyond many people’s wildest expectations, and continues to evolve through its many contentious issues.
The problem here is not technology per se, but rather the business ethics, or lack thereof, that have surrounded industry growth and success. The move to transparency is fundamental to the changes that are needed to benefit brands, agencies and vendors alike.
Beyond transparency
Perhaps it’s not surprising that now (a year on from Marc Pritchard’s IAB Leadership Meeting speech), I am becoming increasingly irked hearing the term transparency bandied around as a generic promise from technology vendors. The adtech industry has a habit of jumping on phrases before people have worked out what they mean, and then beats them into a pulp until they become so ubiquitous that they lose all meaning; blockchain, anyone?
Everyone wants to get in on the transparency debate now. I was at an event recently where a senior Silicon Valley executive used “transparency” in every answer they gave. The irony there, of course, was that their platform is simply not transparent.
This overuse and generalisation of the word has diluted its meaning and importance. But rather than throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water, we must come to a consensus on what it really means and how we can use it moving forward.
There are several questions that need to be answered by adtech vendors, in order to do this:
– Are there limits?
– Is it based on cost of media, margins, rebates, or something else?
– What optimisation and placement tactics were used? How has the data been used and stored?
– Where does accountability come into it?
– What about brand safety and ad fraud?
I can sense the frustration of marketers trying to untangle this web of information, to really understand what returns they are getting on their digital advertising spend.
The way that adtech businesses have been built over the years has evolved, but unfortunately has grown and developed by operating opaquely with clients and their marketing budgets. Focus on ‘great results’ is obscuring the wider issue, and reluctance to ask the tough questions has reinforced poor practice.
Are we all doing enough?
Some in the industry are already hard at work to improve standards. There are great initiatives which are trying to regulate the space – namely JICWEBS and TAG – to accredit partners for brand safety and anti-fraud measures. Various ad charters have been created and the IAB has created a “Gold Standard” in an attempt to address aspects of the conversation as well as ads.txt to promote and share validated inventory. ISBA’s new contract structure has helped, too.
However, these initiatives focus on important but narrow issues. The industry needs a wider debate, with everyone being accountable for their part. In the last 10 years we have gained some wonderful new platforms, tools and technology, many supported by advertising. However, if everyone continues to play by their own rules for their own gain, then many outside of advertising will start seriously questioning its value.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that not being straight with your clients has consequences. The tobacco industry, pharmaceuticals, finance, and even advertising have all had moments where they have been caught out for not being transparent about business practices.
Manifesto for Ethical Adtech
In light of these issues, we at iotec recently conducted a third-party survey of brand marketers which revealed that 90% of brand marketers believed tech companies to have an ethical responsibility to clients and the end consumer.
It was also revealed that almost the exact same number (89%) called out for a standard code of ethics to be implemented across adtech vendors to force transparency. This is a clear call for action signaling that marketers are ready to vote with their feet as 81% said they would switch to a more ethical, honest adtech supplier, given the facts.
The time to take action is now.
We need a fairer, more accountable, and more transparent digital marketing environment for all, where the key driver of success is optimising towards the client’s goals, not margins. An environment where transparency isn’t just included as a hygiene factor in boilerplates, but is a defined and clearly measurable offering by vendors, and results in publishers getting the right value for their inventory, with unobtrusive ad formats.
This is why we decided to set up ethical-adtech.org, and why we’ve published a Manifesto for Ethical Adtech – a set of three principles we’re calling on the digital advertising industry to adopt.
The three principles of the manifesto are:
1. Transparency & Fair Trading
2. Efficiency & Effectiveness
3. Brand Protection, Security & Privacy
Our vision is a simple one, but requires commitment: we want the industry and supply side to endorse these principles. Only then can the industry move forward openly and honestly, and begin to restore trust among agencies, brands and vendors.
Paul Wright is CEO iotec