They didn't even measure it

Legacy vendors consistently report IVT ("invalid traffic") and fraud are low and viewability is high. But did they even measure the ads with javascript tags? If you paid them for services and found out they didn't even measure it, but still reported viewable, audible, and fraud free, wouldn't you be pissed? You would be pissed. Read on.

They didn't measure it -- Google gave them the data

Remember last year's YouTube scandal? The key point it revealed that DoubleVerify and IAS did not actually measure anything on YouTube or on GVP ("Google Video Partners") with their own javascript tags. Instead, they were given data by Google through Ads Data Hub (ADH) and merely "performed calculations" and "provided reporting." Obviously, everyone realizes that this is not "independent third party verification" even though it is cited by Google as such. Don't believe me? See the yellow highlight in DoubleVerify's own press release. https://doubleverify.com/newsroom/doubleverify-earns-mrc-accreditation-for-independent-third-party-viewability-reporting-on-youtube

They didn't measure it -- but marked it "fraud free" anyway

Perhaps you're OK with the above -- that Google supplied these legacy verification vendors with the data and they produced the reports on viewability, fraud, and audibility.

But what about in your own campaigns. Did these vendors even measure the ads with a javascript tag before reporting fraud, viewability, brand safety, and audibility to you? Let's take a look, shall we?

This is data from the reports of a legacy vendor. Note the first row. The delivery site is marked as "N/A" which means they didn't know where the ad went. But looking across the row, it was still marked as 0.6% "fraud rate." Further, the column marked "monitored ads" reports 759.9 million ad impressions, while the "measured impressions" column shows 6.8 million, measured with a javascript tag. This is less then 1% measured. But yet, they reported 99.4% "fraud/SIVT free." Note the fraud incidents -- 4,477,267 -- out of the 6,774,173 measured. Shouldn't that be 2/3 fraud? Why did they divide 4,477,267 by 759.9 million to get 0.6%? They appear to be using the wrong denominator, right?

Look through the rest of the table and note the %measured, particularly the rows marked 0% or 1% measured. Surely, these legacy vendors are not lying to their own customers when reporting 99- 100% "fraud free."

Why is postbid javascript detection necessary?

Ad buyers ask me why these legacy vendors measure such a small percentage of the ads with a postbid javascript tag. Over the years, I have heard these vendors blame their own customers for not paying for postbid javascript detection, even though the tech is available. Advertisers think their prebid filtering and blocking is working, so why pay more for postbid javascript detection?

Why is postbid JavaScript detection necessary? Javascript collects the necessary parameters from the browser so that assessments can be made whether the user is a real human user, or simply an automated browser (bot). If they didn't measure it, they should report that as "not measured" NOT "fraud free." Without javascript, they can't detect anything so they can't mark the bot as IVT. Note that bots are clever and have been seeking out and blocking the detection tags from these legacy vendors. Sadly for these vendors, human ad blockers also block their domains, so human visitors are also "invisible" to their tech.

Furthermore, everything in the bid request is declared. That means bad guys can say whatever they want -- e.g. they can add in a fake geolocation (faked lat, long); they can say the ad is viewable when it is not, and they can say it's a domain or even pageurl that it is not. For example, breitbart knows their domain is on lots of ad buyers' block lists. So they lie and put some other domain in the bid request -- e.g. marthastewart .com. Unless you run a postbid javascript tag to detect where the ad actually went, you won't know they lied to you. Also, every single fraudulent website and mobile app has to lie in the bid request because they wouldn't get bids otherwise.

The above slide shows proof from years ago that these legacy vendors are taking the domain passed in the bid request and assuming that's where the ad went, without actually detecting it with a javascript tag.

So what?

Let me wrap this short article by recapping simply -- legacy vendors didn't measure up to 99% of the impressions with a javascript tag, but still reported those ads as "fraud free" to you. They have blamed their own customers for not opting to pay for the postbid javascript detection. If these legacy vendors didn't measure it, they should report it as "not measured" as opposed to "fraud free." Are you still OK paying these legacy vendors for NOT doing their job?

Time to upgrade your verification to analytics - https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/time-upgrade-your-ad-verification-dr-augustine-fou-pdxwe