Pixalate this week released its Q1 2018 Ads.txt Trends Report. The report features data and insights collected by Pixalate detailing the state of ads.txt adoption over the first quarter of 2018.
The industry-wide ads.txt effort was born in the IAB's Tech Lab and has created overnight transparency for buyers into the programmatic advertising ecosystem of sellers and domains.
Ads.txt adoption increased 269% during Q1 2018
According to Pixalate's data, ads.txt adoption increased 269% in Q1 2018, rising from fewer than 100,000 total sites with ads.txt on January 1, 2018 to over 300,000 sites with ads.txt by March 31, 2018.
Insight into ads.txt adoption among the top 1000 and top 5000 sites in terms of programmatic ad volume
Insight into the Alexa 1000 and 5000sites and their ads.txt adoption rates on a week-by-week basis
Data on whichexchanges show up most often on ads.txt files
Including which exchanges are listed most often as a direct partner, or as a reseller
And much more
According to Pixalate's data, on January 1, 2018, the total number of sites with an ads.txt file was89,638
That number rose to331,155by March 31, 2018, representing a rise of269%
Of the top 5,000 sites in terms of programmatic ad volume, ads.txt adoptionincreased from about 47% in January to about 67% in March
Over 70% of the top 1,000 sites in terms of programmatic ad volume now have ads.txt
Similar to Q4 2017, Googleis the exchange most often listed as a "direct" partner on ads.txt files among the top programmatic publishers, whileAppNexusis the exchange most often listed as a "reseller," according to Pixalate's data
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.”