Ad verification comes under fire: Advertising executives question its protective role

So it was no surprise that recent ad tech turmoil brought these companies into the spotlight.

Marketers were left perplexed when Forbes was caught running an ad dollar arbitrage site, wondering why their verification technology had missed it. The same frustration raised eyebrows when Colossus didn't match cookie IDs. They couldn't help but ask: Where were DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science during all of this?

The answers they got – rightly or wrongly – weren't good enough for them, so they began to wonder how they could take matters into their own hands.

As one advertising executive, who spoke to Digiday on condition of anonymity, said: “Marketers are wondering if they should even use verification in the first place rather than buying fully curated products.” [ad inventory] or registered [i.e. authenticated reach] only.”

Another executive put it this way: “The responses we received from ad verification companies as to why they were unable to detect that Forbes was running a site designed for advertising were not so encouraging. They are not able to work at a granular level.

Looks familiar? It should. A few years ago, marketers said the same thing about social media. They lamented that ad verification companies had not innovated quickly enough to protect their ads from sketchy content on YouTube. They therefore turned to companies like Zefr, which offered solutions more suited to these platforms.

And just like then, ad verification companies are now trying to make their case for programmatic advertising.

“We will focus on meeting advertisers where they buy, especially on the complex channels that drive the most spend like CTV and other areas of digital advertising,” said Dan Slivjanovski, chief marketing officer at DoubleVerify.

In fact, he argued that in many cases his company already does this: sites designed for advertising? Technology is beyond them. In the Forbes example, for example, the technology identified that the publisher was selling a separate site involved in arbitrage, but did not flag it as harmful since it was not officially classified as fraud under the industry standards. As for identity theft? This isn't something DoubleVerify would ever detect – not because it can't, but because it doesn't collect data on IDs and cookies for privacy reasons.

“It is dismaying that issues such as identity theft, multi-factor authentication and other similar issues have gone undetected. [by ad verification tech] and a lot of that comes from a misunderstanding of what we do and always have done,” Slivjanovski said. “Whenever this has happened in the past, we have immediately launched an educational offensive because our role is not to make this happen. [what we do] public.”

Whether marketers accept it will ultimately depend on what they fundamentally believe verification technology should accomplish.

If they see it as a shield meant to protect them from everything bad – past, present and future – then they will not accept these explanations.

But if they view ad verification companies as seat belts – adjustable to accommodate different brand preferences while ensuring safety and compliance – then the position might be more acceptable.

Regardless, advertising executives are beginning to feel the need to act. They know it’s time to at least explore other alternatives.

Sometimes this itch leads marketers to abandon ad verification companies altogether. Other times they pick and choose, keeping them for some tasks and removing them for others.

“We have advised our clients to use the various analytics platforms (think Adalytics and Fou Analytics) rather than the so-called ad verification companies,” said Jay Friedman, CEO of the independent media services company and marketing Goodway Group.

Of course, not everyone will follow this advice. Relaxing brand safety standards is risky business. The potential downsides? Deaf messages, negative consumer reactions, negative associations and public shaming. But for marketers weighing their options, the alternatives Friedman discusses could pay off. They highlight areas where ad dollars are being wasted, helping marketers avoid those places and focus on the right places instead.

This means there is less need to block ads from sketchy sites in the first place. That's the idea anyway.

As Friedman says: “We've seen significantly improved controls on where we previously shopped through the use of analytics platforms compared to where we were before. »

Time will tell if more marketers follow this trend. Either way, expecting them to abandon ad verification companies en masse in the near future is wishful thinking.

On the one hand, there would be unintended consequences.

Like it or not, these companies are entrenched in digital ad buying. Moving away from it raises fears about risks to brand reputation, wasted advertising spend and lack of transparency. And that’s before facing operational chaos.

Switching ad providers could mess up campaign measurement and optimization, and even break contracts with media owners and platforms that require third-party verification.

The fact that some advertisers are even considering this possibility despite all the hassle speaks volumes about their frustration. They try to manage these concerns by making compromises and finding different tools to solve various problems, rather than taking too drastic measures.

And if that means using something as clunky or haphazard – in their eyes anyway – as traditional verification technology, so be it. As long as they're not solely dependent on it, they can make it work.

Havas certainly did.

“We have a tiered verification approach and don't rely on one partner to solve everything,” said Sarah Karges, vice president of performance investments at Havas Media Network. “What we're trying to solve here in programmatic is industry problems. It’s rare that something comes down to just one platform. Having an interoperable approach is our answer to this and has been for several years now.

At this point, perhaps all the current chatter and concern around ad verification signals a recalibration, not a revolution. Of course, some marketers will abandon these technologies for all the reasons mentioned, but many others will not – at least not completely.

If that happens, marketers can at least manage their expectations of what traditional ad verification tools can actually do. An interesting thread in these renewed discussions is that, sometimes, these frustrations are misplaced.

However, identity theft, MFA and other issues will continue to cast doubt on companies like DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science. These concerns are heightened by their dual roles serving both sides of the market, raising questions of conflicts of interest. Although the current focus is on the shortcomings of ad verification technology, it is naive to think that this will always be the case.