Maybe people never be an end to the discuss brand safety in the media sector – and that’ s a very important thing. I have spent the past ten years focusing on these issues, from helping to found the particular IAB’ s Quality Assurance Suggestions which was the basis for The Trustworthy Responsibility Group (TAG) to running a Customer & Brand Digital Safety Peak to writing on this topic often. I have earned the right to choose to a day when I can write or even speak about something other than brand protection .
If we are likely to talk about brand safety, we have to establish it. TAG’ s definition of brand name safety can be found in their white papers, “ Defining Brand Safety . ” From my point of view on this papers, the definition can be brought back to an one word: Environments. Is my marketing in a safe environment for the brand?
When the definition is so simple why is this particular so hard?
The concept may be simple, but here is exactly where we add complexity. Every brand name will have a definition of the word atmosphere. It may not be completely different, but every brand will have nuances in what it indicates to them. What’ s good for a single brand is not always good for one more. Groups that establish and create criteria do these correctly by creating consensus. But in that compromise a few things are missed – occasionally overlooked and sometimes intentionally. Particular problems are just too complicated enabling standards and so they must be handled with an individual basis between a customer as well as a media partner. For example , deciding which usually set of 3rd party numbers will be useful for billing. Both sides have committed to the licensing and implementation of the tech (ad verification for example) to support their case and have a vested interest in being correct. But what happens when they’ lso are wrong and it means a lack of revenue?
There exists a lot of money at stake
In 2017, Global Digital Advertisement Spend hit $207B and some reviews like the one recently released simply by IAS say that approximately 15 % of display and 10 percent associated with video ad impressions that are unfiltered are fraud. If you connect those people dots (they aren’ t straight correlated by the way), you get a fairly large number of that spending is deceptive. Let’ s say it’ t $10B. Well, there sure is definitely an incentive to be a bad guy! Money like this is going to attract some pretty clever people.
The other huge challenge is that both the rules as well as the technology used to ensure brand protection are ever-changing. However , this appears to be slowing down. Over the past few years, the number of businesses providing verification has shrunk.
Companies like Oracle, Salesforce and Adobe have consolidated smaller sized brands like Grapeshot, Moat plus IAS. This along with the streamlining associated with ads serving between the giants such as Google (DoubleClick), AT& T (AppNexus) and Comcast (Freewheel) will result in less complexity over time – plus hopefully, more competition to drive costs down.
So what will this all mean? The good news is this looks like I’ ll have a much more to write about on this topic for that foreseeable future. But I’ m happy to be part of an industry that is centered on the ultimate goal of self-policing, that will ultimately create a safer environment just for consumers and brands alike.
Opinions portrayed in this article are those of the guest writer and not necessarily Marketing Land. Personnel authors are listed here .
If you liked Just how long will the brand safety discussion continue? by Rob Rasko Then you'll love Marketing Services Miami