Ad fraud isn’t going anywhere, and costs are expected to climb to $44 billion annually by 2022. Adding a layer of protection against fraud seems like it should be a priority to stave the bleeding. But actually it’s not uncommon to hear “Thanks, but I don’t need an ad fraud solution.”
Previously we discussed why some account managers don’t want an ad fraud solution. And they’re not the only ones. Here are four reasons why performance-based marketers decline using an ad fraud solution.
Some performance-based marketers think ad fraud doesn’t affect them. However, their industry works with impressions, clicks, and engagements, which can all be compromised by ad fraud. And just because you don’t see the signs, doesn’t mean ad fraud isn’t there lurking in the background.
Related Post: 10 Signs You Need an Ad Fraud Solution
The signs that fraud is afoot may not always be immediately (and easily) detected. Just because you’re seeing a spike in clicks doesn’t mean that they’re real users. Lots of impressions means nothing without true performance results. Remember real users equal real conversions.
Some marketers simply don’t want to rock the boat. They have clients who are happy with the clicks and impressions that they’re getting. But just because a client is getting tons of clicks or video impressions doesn’t mean real users are viewing and interacting. If it’s bots or human click fraud behind the uptick, these marketers will experience short-term gain followed by long-term pain.
A happy client can quickly turn to a chargeback once the client realizes they aren’t getting the results they’re paying for. Unfortunately, chargebacks quickly add up and soon you’ll find yourself in the red.
Another reason, and it’s a valid one, the marketer used an ad fraud solution and didn’t see a positive impact on their ROI. Here, it’s likely they used the wrong platform for their needs. Ad fraud protection platforms differ, and each one has their own way of identifying and combating fraud. Some solutions focus on vanity metrics or probability statistics which can easily be manipulated.
For example, if they were using a platform focused on viewability, it’s been proven that bots can beat the viewability metric. This would explain why they failed to see a positive ROI impact.
In this scenario, it’s not that they don’t think they need an ad fraud solution, they just don’t want to use a third-party solution. Many big name brands (e.g. Heineken and Chase) who were frustrated with their current ad verification agencies decided to bring their ad fraud verification in-house.
Related Post: Why Brands Are Bringing Ad Fraud Solutions In-House
However, switching to in-house has its pros and cons. The latter includes requiring resources such as time, employees, and budget. Using an in-house system can potentially tax your workload. Marketers need to tread carefully before committing to such an endeavor.
To win performance-based marketers over, they need to understand how an ad fraud solution can alleviate their pain points. Until their pain points are addressed and they see a boost in ROI, expect them to continue to say ‘Thanks, but no thanks.' Get a broader understanding of selecting the right ad fraud solution here.
Subscribe to Email Updates