Location Sciences launches in Australia to combat inaccuracy of 40% of location data vendors
Data intelligence company Location Sciences has launched in Australia, offering to verify campaign location data for agencies and their clients. According to a study it conducted, 40% of location data vendors are inaccurate, and 36% of GPS signals fraudulent, in some way.
The company, whose local operations will be headed up by Rupert Pay, looks at whether ads land where they are intended to and whether fraudulent data impacts campaign results.
Most of that is already in MOVE.
Sure a service to verify posting makes sense, but the actual location, illumination, visibility, obstruction etc. are accounted for in MOVE’s LTS data.
Hi Hmmm,
Unless I’m mistaken, MOVE is for the measurement of OOH visibility and exposure, isn’t it? This is not the same at all. We analyse IP addresses and/or GPS signals, used in either real-time location-based marketing, or historical audience buys, where location is used by vendors as proxy to help define who they think someone is. Please feel free to email me directly for further info.
Thanks,
Rupert
(super) curious as to what the (data) source of ‘truth’ is for Location Sciences?
Hi there back!
Whilst I completely understand why you’d ask this question, it’s not really the right way to look at “who’s telling the truth?”, because there is no single source of truth. I also won’t go into the reasons for poor signal quality or inaccuracy too much here. You can read about that in much more detail, by downloading our report: https://www.locationsciences.ai/blog/location-insights-uncovered/
The majority of targeting is based on IP address or GPS, with the latter being much more accurate (think an Uber knowing exactly where you’re standing). Vendors and businesses like ours all have the potential to access this data – it’s what they choose to do with it that counts. Data scientists and engineers also move around like any industry, so much of the ‘knowledge’ is widely known.
Our business is based on analysing every impression, and identifying the suspect ones. We use statistical modelling techniques to detect fraud and inaccuracies in location data signals. For example, if over the course of a campaign, a heat-map generates a perfect rectangle over a given geographical area, randomised (fraudulent) lat/longs are almost certainly being deployed by apps that the campaign is using. Likewise, if we see hundreds, even thousands of impressions with the same lat/long, it’s highly unlikely that was someone being served thousands of ads without moving a muscle!
Unfortunately, less scrupulous vendors may not be so quick to weed out suspect impressions, as it reduces scale and therefore income. There may also be human campaign management error, or a deliberate ‘loosening’ of targeting to ensure impression delivery. There are other reasons too which the report elaborates on.
For us, this IS our business. For vendors, it should be just good practice. Unfortunately and across the board, it is with varying degrees. I’m more than happy to take up this conversation outside of this thread, by emailing me at rupert.pay@locationsciences.com
Cheers,
Rupert
could your product be used to check google adwords
No, sorry.
it’s about time, for years I have not got value for my ad spend and despite my complaints I have never got anywhere.
Hi Good,
I’m sorry to hear this, as there are actually a number of great vendors out there. If you care to email me at rupert.pay@locationsciences.com, I’d be happy to demo the platform to you (and/or your agency if you have one?).
Rupert
Hi Rupert
Please can you explain how the new Monte-Carlo distribution model will work.
How’s it going so far with the expansion into Australia is there much interest from vendors for Verify and are any in the trial phase.