Guest comment: A click too far – the dangers of ad serving and reporting

The vast majority of people who work in the industry recognise that the current ‘last click wins’ payment model is inadequate. The serving and reporting systems used by advertisers typically do not recognise the entire customer journey, only the ‘dropping-off’ point. Several different sites can play important roles in achieving an eventual sale but the current models only account for the last one in the chain that places the last cookie.

Earlier this year AgencyDMC announced a new methodology, its ‘Digital Brain: Search’ platform which it claims takes campaign analysis beyond the ‘last click wins’ model. Similarly, last month eBay’s affiliate network launched an initiative to supplement the last click wins model with one that aligns payments based on the quality of those leads. Any initiatives which look to go beyond the existing model are obviously to be applauded but, while we are all looking to find better ways to measure success or failure, we may be missing something that could be happening on our own doorstep.

As the pressure to deliver greater traffic volumes has built over the last three years, the fallout has been seen in some high profile examples of ad misplacement by networks and brands. Under pressure to deliver greater results, it was clear that some networks had been pushed to buy additional, unchecked, inventory through unregulated exchanges.

Thankfully, the combination of negative press and persistent education and audits by IASH have stemmed the tide of misplacement—for the time being at least—but, before we all start congratulating ourselves, there has been a by-product of all this unwelcome attention. As the industry has become more aware of the dangers of misplacement, a simultaneous risk has arisen of agencies bending or breaking the rules of attribution – the question of whose campaign is credited with customer acquisitions or sales.

In short, there is a danger that malpractice will shift from ad placement to so-called ‘black hat’ ad serving and reporting and there is a growing feeling that, as an industry, we are standing on a cliff edge. It is only a matter of time before someone gets caught out.

There may not yet be any clear alternative to the last-click model of attribution conversion, however, in the meantime, if we want to continue presenting an argument for self-regulation rather than be landed with cumbersome and unwieldy legislation, it is essential that the industry works collectively ensure high standards.

Research from rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and academic institutions, such as UC Berkeley, has shown that there are typically three common kinds of ad-serving malpractice, all concerning the cookies that are downloaded onto user computers.

Automatically refreshing cookies and ‘cookie stuffing’ – this is when a user visits a website, and a third-party cookie from an entirely different site is downloaded to their PC without their knowledge. This cookie then automatically refreshes on ongoing basis, effectively jumping to the front of the attribution queue ahead of all other cookies

Including information for all of a network’s campaigns on single cookie – thereby when a user visits one site and sees an ad for a single brand, they will actually have downloaded cookie data for all the ads that the network is hosting.

Flash Cookies – these type of cookies are maintained by the Adobe Flash plug-in on behalf of flash applications and aren’t stored in the same place as HTTP cookies. This means that users who tell their browsers to delete all of their cookies are unable to do so. Flash cookies can be used to reconstruct deleted HTTP cookies.

Attribution and tracking technologies that rely on user ignorance are unlikely to remain effective for long and, once word is out and the alarm sounded, we can expect to see an extremely negative public backlash. Ads on fighting sites may be one thing but can you imagine the effect of tabloid headlines slamming ‘big brother’ brands and ad networks that deliberately deceive and monitor browsers?

Regardless of which payment model is used, in today’s tougher market conditions, it’s essential that advertisers know which of their campaigns and networks are actually delivering value – dubious practices such as ‘cookie stuffing’ risk undermining the whole sector.

There must be greater regulation between networks as, at the end of the day, the greatest challenge the industry faces is from the affiliate and voucher code world that is increasingly turning up as the final stage of a far more complicated customer purchase journey.  It is essential that there be greater transparency and auditing through bodies such as IASH to ensure that the practices being undertaken are fair. Only then can we address the broader challenges we face in the last click saga from search and affiliate. If we allow the industry’s name to become associated with spyware, malware, misplacement and fraudulent traffic, its mid to long term future will always be in doubt.

By Rob Edwards

Sales Manager

Addvantage Media

www.addvantagemedia.com

********************************

Get Netimperative updates on Twitter