3 ms·
The frusturating thing about this is how obvious it should be that the publisher account getting paid for the impression is _not_ the premium publisher that it
by anamoulous 10y ago
The frusturating thing about this is how obvious it should be that the publisher account getting paid for the impression is _not_ the premium publisher that it said it was. If your account with, say, AppNexus is registered to "Mikhail Gorsky's Ad Fraud Ring" and it's registering video plays on espn.com/video at a $30 CPM, there are some very very basic heuristics that AppNexus could run to determine there is something off about this arrangement.
- mtanski 10y agoThat's my personal position. The vendors that are letting the supply in (SSPs and exchanges) should do more to verify the supply. This could verifying their supply id with provided domain (would get rid of a lot of crappy arbitrage). Additional verification on new suppliers who are generating more traffic. And longer net payment terms for new suppliers to allow for clawing some of it back. The problem is that many vendors are unwilling to do that. In many cases because they still make money on fraudulent traffic / arbitrage that goes through their platform. Or because they tend to be more accepting of bad data, because adtech is so duct tapped together. People setup their tags/campaigns incorrectly, adservers re-wrap urls, other incorrect rewrapping (fraud/viewablity/attribution), bad javascript, bad publisher sites and hostile browser environments. So they default to be more accepting to not lose on that revenue.