Long have we used the phrase ‘when the US sneezes, the UK catches the cold.’ In the Ad-tech industry this is most commonly used for partner/agency decisions led out of the US, by which Europe usually has to comply (normally for the better I might add). But it’s also a phrase used for innovation. Historically, it’s the Americans and Silicone Valley leading the way, and ad verification is no different, with at least 3 of the top (accredited) solutions coming from the US. The big 5 Agency holding companies, the top suppliers, the big investment: all point to a big American sneeze, and the UK is happy with the runny nose.
But it’s actually a German called Klemens Von Metternich that in the early 1800’s came up with the origins of this quote which was “when France has a cold, all Europe sneezes.” At the time of the French Revolution, it was in fact France that had the decision-making control and dominance over all its neighbours, the way the US seems to have today. But at what cost, and for Ad tech companies, should the nationality dictate the rules and more importantly does it guarantee top-quality?
The MRC certifies the best-of-breed technologies in their respective industries. For ad verification, Adloox, Doubleverify, IAS and Comscore are accredited in some if not all forms of viewability, brand safety and ad fraud (GIVT and SIVT invalid traffic) across desktop, mobile and video. They are the ‘full-suite’ vendors. The last 3 companies are American, but the first is European. All operate globally. So who do you go with? Which cold is the best one to catch, for your business?
As much as I’m sure all four will claim they can guarantee close to 100 percent brand safety, errors are being made. There are vendors out there (by their own admission) just focusing on viewability, so they’re not filtering out non-human viewable impressions nor hidden, unsavoury traffic from their viewability score. Then there are fraud-only tools, unable to provide any Pre-bid viewability or brand safety blocking…claiming that ‘fraud is decreasing’. Is it? A recent study from WPP (The&Partnership) says otherwise. Show me the money! Or in the case of fraudsters, follow the money. The largest digital budgets are in the US, so proportionally, wasted ad spend is higher. Obvious? But most of the anti-fraud vendors were born there. So….?
Like4like comparisons between two or more 3rd party vendors shows discrepancies of anywhere between 8 percent and 40 percent. Every percent is lost money for the Advertiser, who invested millions in that particular wave of brand campaigns, and trusted their agency and their chosen suppliers who both trusted their verification tools. If they’re using the same tool, that doesn’t mean it’s right! If the fraud or unsafe impressions are not caught, then they’re both wrong!
Using Adloox, clients both in the US and Europe are achieving +80 percent viewability, and close to 0 percent invalid or non-safe traffic. This is achieved through a deeper user-centric, auditing approach to verification, rather than the top-line only method used by so many vendors.
It’s the Marketers and their buyers who benefit, such as Performance Agency Jellyfish Media, who have recently opened US offices on both the West and East coasts. Jellyfish started working with Adloox over four years ago, after an extremely detailed review to find the most sophisticated tech with capabilities across all 3 pillars of verification: ad fraud, viewability and brand safety.
They utilise Adloox’s full suite solution, and seamless integrations into DBM/other suppliers, to ensure the highest level of traffic quality across their clients, offering a pre-emptive protective layer into their buying of targeted inventory. As Jellyfish’s clients increasingly looked to shift budget from offline/search into display/Programmatic, they wanted a more consistent assurance and confidence that these budget shifts will be valuable and cost-efficient. Adloox has helped them to achieve this.
Zero tolerance to the bad guys. Born in Europe. Perhaps Metternich had a point…..