Pixalate this week released the Q1 2018 Global Seller Trust Index (GSTI), which ranks the overall quality of programmatic sellers based on desktop and mobile web inventory. Our GSTI includes a U.S.-only set of rankings and an International set of rankings (all countries except for the U.S.).
Here are the top five sellers based on overall inventory quality from the U.S. and International in March 2018:
The winners are doing well both in the U.S. and globally
The majority of companies that rank in the top 15 in the U.S. GSTI also rank in the top 15 in the International GSTI, which suggests that if you work with a high-ranking seller in the U.S., there’s a good chance they would be a reliable partner overseas as well.
Over the past five months (November 2017 - March 2018), at least 13 of the top 15 companies on the U.S. GSTI have also ranked in the top 15 on the International GSTI.
The top companies utilize MRC-accredited invalid traffic (IVT) detection and prevention tools and continually update their practices to stay ahead of the latest threats. Their dedication to thwarting ad fraud is paying off both in the U.S. and abroad.
The U.S. has greater variance between high- and low-ranking sellers (compared to the rest of the world)
While the top of the rankings feature similar companies in the U.S. and abroad, our index data reveals that there is far greater variance between high- and low-ranking sellers in the U.S., compared to the rest of the world.
The high-ranking platforms in the U.S. are significantly better from a quality perspective compared to the low-ranking platforms. Overseas, the difference isn’t as stark, as platforms appear to be more competitive with one another when it comes to inventory quality.
This does not mean that non-U.S. countries have better overall quality than the U.S. (or vice-versa). However, it does suggest that on the international level, there is less risk overall in terms of seller selection because any given seller isn’t quite as different from any other seller (compared to the U.S.).
It is possible that stricter privacy and information security regulations (e.g., EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ePrivacy Directive, and Australian Privacy Principles) in the EMEA and APAC regions — compared to the U.S. — have led to less variance between programmatic sellers.
Our indexes reveal that the most trustworthy programmatic sellers remain at the top of the rankings because they utilize MRC-accredited services to detect and prevent invalid traffic (IVT) and ad fraud. This dedication to quality leads to high ranks both in the U.S. and abroad. Pixalate’s Ad Fraud Analytics and Pre-Bid Blocking solutions can help any programmatic buyer or seller improve their overall quality.
You can download the full list of top programmatic sellers here.
About Pixalate’s Seller Trust Indexes
Pixalate’s monthly Global Seller Trust Index (GSTI), Mobile Seller Trust Index (MSTI), and Video Seller Trust Index (VSTI) are the worldwide standards in programmatic advertising quality ratings. Released monthly, the indexes evaluate and rank the quality and integrity of advertising networks and sellers across channels, platforms, and devices.
Global quality ratings are based on an analysis of overall effectiveness assessing multiple factors, such as viewability, fraud, engagement, domain masking, network quality and more, in compliance with recognized industry standards.
Disclaimer: The content of this page reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that - opinion, not facts or guarantees.
Per the MRC,
“'Fraud' is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in U.S. Court or other
legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes. Also per the MRC,
“‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic
that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts.
Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”