The Best Way to Fight CTV Fraud: Ditch View Through Measurement
Fraud has long plagued the digital advertising landscape, siphoning off vast sums of money. As we delve deeper into the realm of connected tv (CTV), we see that it's not impervious to the cunning tactics of fraudsters. With advertisers increasingly gravitating towards streaming platforms, opportunistic fraudsters have followed. For instance, eMarketer suggests that nearly $24 billion will funnel into CTV advertising globally this year, creating fertile ground for fraudulent activities.
Deceptive tactics, such as the use of bots or fake CTV devices, deceive advertisers into shelling out for phantom video ad impressions. It's troubling to note that bot fraud in CTV rose by 69 percent in 2022 from the previous year, and there has been a tripling of identified CTV fraud schemes since 2020.
These bot schemes varied in their methods of deception. This included using botnets to manipulate CTV inventory, hijacking genuine CTV device sessions through server-side ad insertion, and fabricating CTV inventory through counterfeit SSAI servers spanning multiple apps, IPs, and devices.
How to Stop CTV Fraud in its Tracks
The irony is that all of it is so easily avoided through either buying CTV inventory publisher direct or outcome-based TV measurement. The former solution is obvious, as no publisher in its right mind would ever sell fake impressions. The latter solution, outcome measurement, deserves some further explanation.
What Is Outcome TV Measurement?
Outcome measurement is a form of TV measurement where the success of a campaign is not defined by the audience reached (Nielsen style), but by the response, actions and/or results it delivers. It is built on a closed-loop attribution analysis, where the household (HH) exposed to the TV impression is tied to the same HH purchasing.
A purchase is a real action, not some vague awareness survey or signal of intent via search. By zeroing in on the net value an ad brings — the actual rise in sales directly linked to a campaign — advertisers have a much clearer view of whether their ads worked. Bots can't translate ad views to real-world outcomes. A scheme based around bogus inventory would show a surge in views without tangible outcomes like increased customer engagement or sales. This stark mismatch would have raised red flags, potentially unveiling the scheme sooner.
When determining campaign performance, many advertisers still want to measure success on audience delivery. The idea is that if a viewer matches the desired audience the advertiser was pursuing, then the campaign is a success. This has never truly been effective, not on linear, not now in streaming. Now audience measurement should come under even greater scrutiny if fraud rings can inflate the results.
Even if marketers want to use metrics like view-through, shifting to an incremental outcomes-based paradigm, where tangible results take precedence over mere views, can be a game-changer. By zeroing in on the net value an ad brings — the actual rise in sales directly linked to a campaign — advertisers have a much clearer view of whether their ads worked. Bots can't translate ad views to real-world outcomes. Advertising is only valuable if it's working, so the natural consequence of any form of fraud is that advertisers eliminate it from the plan because of poor performance. Measurement therefore becomes its own natural fraud deterrent.
The challenge extends beyond merely revisiting our metrics. It's about fortifying them against distortions and ensuring they reflect the truth. Championing outcome-based metrics not only combats fraud but also ushers in an era of transparency, accountability, and true value in advertising.
Yet all these schemes were avoidable with outcome-based measurements.
Philip Inghelbrecht is CEO and founder of Tatari.
The views and opinions expressed in Industry Insights are solely those of the contributor and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the ANA or imply endorsement from the ANA.