Sure, fraud has been rampant within digital advertising. But how do marketing experts know what’ s fraud?
To help define that solution, the Coalition Against Ad Scams (CAAF) released Thursday what it states is the first standardized document within the topic, “ Meanings of Mobile Fraud Schemes . ”
Precisely why this document? Created about a year ago by cellular attribution firm Adjust, CAAF at this point has two dozen members, which includes ironSource, Vungle, InMobi and AdColony. The reason for releasing this document, the business says, is to counter the “ misinformation out there when it comes to what cellular ad fraud is. ” The particular intended audience: advertisers, supply-side systems, third-party vendors and other industry individuals.
Some history . While CAAF says this is the 1st such fraud-defining document, other businesses have tried their hand in drawing some of the boundaries. In 2013, for instance, the Interactive Advertising Agency (IAB) issued a guide to best practices designed for reducing exposure to traffic fraud, including descriptions of “ how visitors bots generate false traffic” and exactly how they “ infect legitimate techniques. ”
And a 2014 IAB document highlighted “ Anti-Fraud Principles and Suggested Taxonomy , ” which included meanings about such terms as “ crawler masquerading as a legitimate consumer, ” “ proxy traffic, ” and hijacked tags.
The kinds of mobile scams. The CAAF statement — which notes that cellular ad fraud includes faked thoughts, faked installs and click junk mail — makes a distinction between conformity fraud and technical fraud. Specialized fraud exploits an attribution plus analytics platform to “ poach attribution [or] expose a fake conversion, ” whilst compliance fraud involves misuse of the Insertion Order.
Based on CAAF, technical fraud schemes consist of install/conversion fraud and attribution scams, while compliance fraud schemes consist of:
- False targeting (especially geo-based targeting)
- Mixing in unwanted traffic sources (incentivized, adult, redirect/pop, etc . )
- Intentful over-delivery
- Unauthorized rebrokering of offers
Why this particular matters to marketers. Although ad fraud has become a large concern for marketers, tackling the problem requires understanding the dimensions. An ad’ s viewability, to take one example, could be fraud if it is misrepresented by the supply seller or the exchange, but only when the specs (% of -pixels over what period of time seen) are usually outside of some accepted standard.
Mobile devices have their own group of vulnerabilities that also require platform-specific definitional guidelines, such as how to feature an app install to a provided mobile ad when there could be some other drivers behind that download. Since the population of Internet of Items devices, smart cars and linked TVs join mobile and desktop computer, determining what is fraud, what is poor technical implementation and what is an impractical expectation will require an agreed-upon group of industry definitions.
This story first appeared on MarTech Today. For more on marketing technologies, click here.
If you liked Coalition Against Ad Fraud releases ‘first standardized document’ to pin straight down mobile fraud by Barry Levine Then you'll love Marketing Services Miami