IPG Mediabrands draws ‘line in the sand’ aiming for 100% viewable and fraud-free digital ads
Corones: we had to draw a ‘line in the sand’ on viewability
One of Australia’s biggest advertising groups is launching a major local push on viewability and adfraud, which it hopes will help the Australian digital industry towards a consensus between publishers, agencies and clients.
IPG Mediabrands today launched “Project Quality” an Australian initiative it says is aimed at achieving 100 per cent viewable and fraud-free online advertising across its digital media bookings.
Victor Corones managing director of Magna Global, which handles the trading on IPG Mediabrands $1.47bn worth of client billings, told Mumbrella: “This is not an overnight thing. It is in the absence of industry consensus on how to tackle issues of viewability and fraud, in that void, it felt like we had to draw a line in the sand.
Getting to 100% would mean cutting Google and Facebook altogether. It would be brave, but you wonder what else will make the two giants actually care about the fraud issue.
No surprise that agencies are leading the charge on viewability while the publisher funded IAB does everything to hold it back.
100% viewable is an honourable goal but one that economically will ensure there is very little net benefit for the advertiser.
“trading fairly on viewable impressions isn’t recommended in the Australian marketplace currently.” – IAB are you serious??
What do you think any client in Australia thinks of this statement??
The media agencies are right on the money here.. you cant say to a client you have to pay for advertising when you cant prove if anyone actually saw it!
The iab don’t represent the interests of the advertiser remember. They serve the publisher. Hence their avoidance of the issue.
@The Truth re: “you have to pay for advertising when you cant prove if anyone actually saw it!”
this is the case for all media. there’s a big difference between someone actually seeing the ad, and someone (person) having the opportunity to see it. all reach and frequency measures across all media are based on OTS, not ACTUAL seeing – for one, because it’s almost impossible to measure actual viewing. you also need to consider what ‘viewing’ means – viewing the whole ad? the whole time it’s on air? paying attention to it? how much attention?
it’s not a black and white issue, though I would agree the IAB has a vested interest in keeping things grey and could be working on this a bit faster.
Interesting read, I’m always intrigued to understand what angle companies approach such issues. I’ll agree and say that the IAB needs to move quicker on this, the other consideration is that a stance, such as “100% view ability” or other strategies needs to be re-enforced with capability and education. The biggest challenge in the market is having the people with the right knowledge to support these types of initiatives. Moving to this type of strategy and model will inevitably see CPM’s, CPC’s and other buying method prices increase. How can the industry have confidence in announcements like this when we know: measurement is limited on some screens, there is a lack of ad tech knowledge in AU, the industry is in a state of disruption, ad tech companies are pushing “their” solution. Yes the IAB need to take an active lead, however agencies need to increase their ad tech knowledge.
If 100% viewablity is what the industry needs then lets just go back to pop ups…. 100% viewable, yet close to 100% ineffective.
The greater the viewability the better, however, too much focus is placed on the viewabilty factor and not on the engagement of the creative or placement.
If your clients want to reduce fraud, strive for increased viewability and increase performance, just buy based on engagement as the other factors become null based on this metric.
Al, I think you will find that the OMA’s MOVE is based on Likelihood-To-See (LTS) and not Opportunity-To-See (OTS), based on analysis of hundreds of hours of real-life eye-tracking data to all the various OOH formats.