Charlie Fiordalis, managing director-digital at Media Storm, makes a pretty blunt case for dropping the bill for fraud prevention on the publisher’s front door. I can sort of his point but his suggestion to publishers to look at it as a form of insurance leaves me a little bit uneasy. I’m not sure it’s as cut and dry a case as he puts forward.
Why shouldn’t it be more even-handed across the industry with buyers putting pressure on pricing by not paying as much for blind, non-transparent inventory and paying more, i.e. rewarding, the behaviour they want. There must be a market force from the buy side that can be brought to bear on this issue. Further, I’d think that the lions share of the burden needs to sit with the networks (DSPs and SSPs) to vet the inventory they are managing. They’re the ones that are building billion dollar businesses here and there should be some costs involved in ensuring that what they are brokering is what it appears to be. Finally, the publishers, who it would be hard to say have been the big winners in the online ad revolution, for their part should bear some responsibility for keeping a ‘clean’ site and, in particular with regards to viewability, offer up the most desirable inventory to buyers.
…The buy side has operated with the assumption that we are getting what we have purchased. Ad fraud is a threat to that assumption, and I think the responsibility for direct payment should come from the publishers. There, I said it. Someone had to. I realize this may not be what the publishers want to hear, but they can look at it as a form of insurance on their side. —Charlie Fiordalis