GroupM goes around the IAB to forge 9 separate publisher agreements on viewability
Miskelly: we’re not hanging around on viewability.
Australia’s largest media agency holding group GroupM has raised the profile of viewability standards in Australia, signing agreements with nine major publishers.
The agreements – which govern the length and percentage of an ad/video that must be visible before it can be charged for – have all been forged outside of the industry body, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB).
John Miskelly, chief digital officer of GroupM told Mumbrella: “We didn’t feel the IAB standard went far enough so we created our own standards and went to publishers directly, rather than hanging around (for the IAB).”
Will publishers actually be addressing the issue with their inventory being viewable? or will they simply serve enough viewable impressions to reach the 100% paid for amount?
If this is the case then adserving costs are sure to increase.. not really a victory in the overall viewability battle.
The IAB has been very slow… very, very slow to make a move on video viewability.
Even back in 2014 when the US released their standard, IAB AU had not made any moves on a local standard – not even a formal discussion with local publishers.
I am assuming the IAB AU will be on the back foot now to try and justify themselves to remain relevant.
Is this the continuation of the industry showing that it has matured enough to not need industry boards with ridiculously high subscription fees, commanding how we operate. First AIMIA… IAB next?
Hi Steve, the IAB has around 8 different working groups with over 100 members looking to this, and other issues. Perhaps you should ask to join one in an effort to expedite matters rather than just gripe. With about 12 viewability verification companies in play in AU, it’s not a simple issue to find consensus around. Many publishers use, for eg, IAS. IAS and Moat measure viewability differently which means the problem is not resolved just because GroupM picked their partner. Far from it. That’s why the issue is being addressed at an industry level, which takes time.
@Steve Industry bodies like the IAB are important, and best placed to help create standards, which drive growth (witness the TPP). The best outcome is they up their game, not disappear.
Would love to know if this push for viewability extends to Xaxis inventory too? Likewise, what defines a ‘key placement’? Don’t get me wrong, it’s a step in the right direction given the lethargy of the IAB
I reckon this could only apply to direct bought, premium inventory, which rules Xaxis out.
So GroupM is expecting the industry to shift to 100% viewability overnight? That’s the power of agency groups for you.
Addressing industry problems at an industry level takes a great deal of time. GroupM have simply picked their viewability tech and enforced it on their publishers. All publishers are aware of, and kean to move to viewability, but with so many tech vendors popping up trying to get their slice of the pie, choosing a reliable standard is difficult. Never mind the fact that viewability technology has been severely lacking until recent time, this conversation started at least 5 years ago.
There is a difference between viewability and viewed. Notwithstanding viewability is not actually English. The drive to ads being viewed is great. Does the equivalent happen on TV? I assume the box can pick this up and report and therefore allow advertisers to pay on viewed?