I have a few friends who work at google and this seems like common knowledge. In conversation though it wasn’t nefarious, they just thought it was unavoidable and relatively constant so they reasoned that the inefficiency is built into the price. When I asked that they did to combat it, they weren’t aware. Hopefully this lawsuit shows the lengths that google goes to to reduce ad fraud.
But it seems likely to not be too effective. It just seems like the incentives aren’t there. It’s like when magazines estimate their readership, there’s no regulator checking their numbers so it’s just something buyers have to accept.
It’s like when magazines estimate their readership, there’s no regulator checking their numbers so it’s just something buyers have to accept.
Completely untrue. There are several organizations that audit print circulation very closely. And the more closely a print publication is audited, the more it can charge for advertising.
My source came from Time Inc. they showed me the audited numbers and also their estimated views based on doctors offices, friends loaning, etc. that number is audited in that they explain their surveys and whatnot, but it’s pretty specious. And advertisers don’t care so much.
That's super sketchy, to be honest. For this to be relatively well known- but hidden from customers, which it certainly has been- this amounts to theft.
But it seems likely to not be too effective. It just seems like the incentives aren’t there. It’s like when magazines estimate their readership, there’s no regulator checking their numbers so it’s just something buyers have to accept.