
Rob Norman’s recent Ad Age op-ed argued that the real cost of ad fraud to marketers was signficant but not anywhere near as bad as the headlines suggest. Publishers suffer “zero direct loss,” he wrote.
Let’s get on the same page.
We must differentiate good publishers — i.e. the sites you’ve heard of, like ESPN.com, WSJ.com, WashingtonPost.com, etc. — from other sites that carry ads — e.g. 000000000.com, wkexsfmw.com, etc. Those sites can never, ever be found or visited by humans. So where do they get their traffic? Right. Bots, or euphemistically “NHT,” for non-human traffic. One hundred percent of the traffic to these sites comes from bots. But yet, it’s not so obvious in the campaign reports on which marketers rely. Why? 1) Campaign reports often don’t show line item details of where the ads ran.” 2) Bad guys with domains like wkexsfmw.com cover their tracks by pretending to be good site like ESPN.com. And 3) the traffic they buy can pass all fraud filters, because the bad guys have A/B tested their bots and are sure they will get marked as not NHT (i.e. clean).
Continue reading at AdAge.com