Pixalate has released the Pixalate Quarterly Ad Fraud Benchmarks Report for Q1 2017. The report updates the digital advertising industry on the state of ad fraud in the programmatic marketplace.
31% of programmatic desktop ad impressions were fraudulent
Over one-third (35%) of programmatic impressions in the U.S. were fraudulent
Within mobile apps, smartphones had a 36% ad fraud rate, while tablets were at 12%
Smartphone web video ads traded via programmatic had a 56% fraud rate.
Over half (50%) of programmatic ads on Society & Culture siteswere fraudulent
Over one-in-four (28%) of programmatic ads on Google Chrome were fraudulent
What else is in the report:
Inside the report you'll find:
Ad fraud benchmark data for mobile, desktop, and video ads
Ad fraud rates by browser
Ad fraud rates by country
And much more!
Billions of dollars are lost to digital ad fraud each year. Trust and transparency are the most pressing issues in the programmatic ecosystem today, and ad fraud is at the center of the discussion.
We believe creating a more transparent marketplace is a pivotal first step in the fight against fraud. To properly tackle the problem, the industry must first fully understand the problem. Our analysis takes a deep dive into granular ad fraud statistics across devices, screens, and channels to paint the most accurate picture of the challenges.
The research contained in the report gives buyers and sellers alike an honest, thorough review of the state of the industry. Our data and insights can be used as a valuable resource as the ad world combats together.
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.”