Optimizing ad spend is easier than ever

Press release: Advertising leader Verve’s latest acquisition, valued $185 million (approx. €170 million), also bolsters digital audio solutions, engaging ad formats, and AI optimization.

In the digital realm, data is money. Users can pay for digital goods and services with their personal data — be it simple things like name and email address, or more intimate information like health data. And looking at the numbers, it’s clear that today’s users are highly motivated to trade their data for free content. About 97% of mobile apps are free, and the majority of those free apps rely on in-app advertising to pay the bills. We surveyed 4,000 mobile users to find out how they felt about this value exchange — the results of which can be found in our In-app User Privacy Report. In this post, we’ll dive into one portion of those findings: Which users are the most willing to watch ads for free content? And which content motivates users to share their data? Increased willingness to share data and watch ads Today’s users are more knowledgeable than ever about the data-sharing process. Privacy laws have opened consumers’ eyes to their digital rights. Opt-ins have become more prevalent and transparent. And users are increasingly exercising the right to access their data. As a result, mobile users’ opinions on data sharing have evolved. According to our survey, 58% of respondents are more willing to share their data on apps than they were two years ago. (More on that later!) And with an improved feeling of control over their data and insight into how ads help fund app content, users are also more willing to receive ads for free content. 67% of those surveyed agreed that they are more inclined to watch in-app ads in return for free content than they were two years ago — and between those that agreed and disagreed with this statement, there were notable demographic differences. Takeaway for advertisers Consumers are particularly accepting of in-app advertising, as they are aware of the value exchange that is taking place. This makes mobile apps an ideal environment for your ads to be positively received. Takeaway for publishers Transparency leads to trust. Ensure consent requests list the exact purposes for specific kinds of data collection and benefits consumers will receive. In return, users will feel more comfortable opting in. Who’s watching ads for free content? Our survey included users from the UK and the US, and although the majority of respondents in both countries agreed that they are more willing to watch in-app ads in exchange for free content than two years ago, those in the UK seemed to have a higher level of skepticism towards in-app advertising. Overall, there was a 13% gap in willingness to view ads for free content between these two countries. Looking at respondents’ age data, it is clear that younger generations have a better understanding and acceptance of the in-app advertising value exchange.  Over 80% of those under 34 years are more willing to watch ads in exchange for free content than two years ago. However, this willingness sees a dropoff with older generations. Takeaway for advertisers Millennials will soon wield the most purchasing power of any generation — and Gen Z’s collective spending, especially in the digital realm, is growing rapidly. The high willingness of these age groups to watch ads makes in-app advertising an effective way to reach the younger generations. Takeaway for publishers To ensure a pleasant UX for users that may be more resistant to in-app ads, activate solutions that can assess anonymized on-device activity and group audiences into interest-based cohorts. This will allow for precise targeting, without personal data, that delivers contextually-relevant ads. Where are users most likely to share their data? All apps are not created equal when it comes to users’ data preferences. Shopping and social media top the list of share-worthy apps. This isn’t surprising, since the respondents to our survey also indicated an appreciation for contextually-relevant advertising and likely welcome a product or service recommendation within these types of apps. The increasingly popular category of gaming also ranked quite highly, likely due to its association with in-app perks such as an extra game life. Takeaway for advertisers To reach users where they are most receptive to receiving ads, you can set specific targeting parameters or even purchase inventory via pre-packaged deals to ensure that your ads are being shown within apps of a specific category. Takeaway for publishers Deploy robust testing to achieve the best ad fit. This includes running A/B tests to see which ad spaces and formats yield the most desired actions for your app and provide the best experience for your users. Further insights This is just a sneak peek of the data available in our In-app User Privacy Report. Download the report today for further insights into consumers’ attitudes towards data and privacy, including: Which data users are most willing to share with mobile apps How to create valuable ad experiences for app users Action items for publishers to build trust and increase first-party data

As the name suggests, made-for-advertising (MFA) sites exist for one single purpose: to simultaneously buy and sell ad inventory. These domains are associated with low-quality ad inventory, poor user experience, and higher levels of invalid traffic (IVT). As a result, MFA sites waste both ad budgets and our planet’s natural resources. The good news is that advertisers can take measures to protect themselves from MFA sites, and by doing so, these sites – and their carbon footprints — will lessen in prevalence and size. What are MFA sites? Made-for-advertising (MFA) websites are sites designed to display as many advertisements as possible. Sometimes called “made-for-arbitrage” websites, MFA often feature low-quality content and use tactics such as pop-ups, auto-play videos, or intrusive ads to maximize ad revenue by charging advertisers for impressions and engagement. (Let’s be honest, though — any “engagement” is probably someone desperately trying to mute auto-play videos and escape the overwhelming popups!) Where does MFA happen? MFA is primarily an issue on web, where it accounts for nearly 10% of all ad spend. While CTV and in-app inventory is not totally immune to MFA tactics, they are considerably safer. And not only is in-app advertising much more resistant to MFA — both the share of unique apps classified as MFA and the mobile ad spend going to these apps is on the decline. According to Pixalate, mobile ad spend going to apps flagged as MFA decreased 29% from January to March 2024. Impact of MFA sites for brands It is clear that MFA sites are harmful to advertisers. Not only are the sites low-quality, they also produce high levels of IVT, which includes ad fraud. Therefore, they pose financial, reputational, and regulatory risks to advertisers. However, the damage can go even further than that — MFA sites also produce unnecessary carbon waste, undermining the efforts towards sustainability in which companies like Verve invest. Less effective campaigns MFA content funnels ad spend to low-value websites, leading to considerable budget waste. According to the ANA, MFA sites accounted for 21% of ad impressions across all channels in 2023. And the 15% of total ad spend that went to these sites amounted to a total of $10 billion. Luckily, advertisers that invest their budgets in mobile in-app and CTV are not as at-risk to these sites; however, they are also not immune.  Endangered brand safety While some traffic from MFA sites is fraudulent, much of it does originate from genuine human interaction. People are often driven to these sites via paid avenues like social media and content recommendation platforms. When a brand’s ads are then placed amid the undesirable content, the negative user experiences within the MFA site can harm that brand’s reputation. Impact of MFA sites on the environment The environmental impact of the digital advertising industry shouldn’t be underestimated. It’s why supply chain optimization (SPO) is a hot topic as companies take increased interest in cleaning up the supply path, eliminate unnecessary bids, and reduce intermediaries. Beyond just making the process more efficient, SPO also has the immense benefit of lowering carbon emissions. It’s why we at Verve partnered with Cedara, a company that identifies opportunities to do just this. “The MFA problem is not new to the advertising industry, but gained the spotlight this year with an increasing focus on SPO combined with the prioritization of sustainability from brands and agencies. In order to reach ‘Ad Net Zero,’ it’s critical for media buyers to eliminate high carbon-emitting suppliers, including MFA publishers, from the media supply chain. While not all publishers indexing high in carbon emissions are MFA, it’s safe to assume that all MFA publishers have higher emissions than other digital publishers. For instance, an MFA site can issue up to 100x more bid requests than an average web site, which results in significantly more energy usage, and hence carbon output, across network infrastructure and user devices. Ad platforms with net zero ambitions should ensure emissions transparency across their publishers, and publishers should proactively measure and reduce emissions to avoid being flagged on one of several key attributes of MFA.” Carolyn Reilly, Director of Publisher Development at Cedara MFA sites severely undermine sustainability efforts in digital advertising. A study by Ebiquity and Scope3 found that carbon waste was 26% higher on MFA sites than non-MFA sites. But considering the fact that these sites offer no value to consumers, the entirety of their carbon footprint is a waste of resources.   MFA sites are some of the worst polluters in the digital advertising industry, making it critical for environmentally-conscious brands to exclude them from their advertising strategy. How to protect your brand The reasons for wanting to ensure that your ads do not appear on these sites are clear. And luckily, there are steps you can take to protect your brand and ensure that you do not contribute to the carbon footprint of MFA sites. Learn to identify an MFA site Everyone in the digital advertising industry needs to be aware of these websites and know how to identify them. Here are the most common attributes of MFA sites: Low dwell time: Suggest users encounter obstacles like excessive ads. High bounce rates: Indicate users aren’t finding what they expected. Limited ad interaction: Suggests users aren’t engaged. Ad refresh rate:  More ads displayed per minute indicates a poor user experience. Ad density: A high volume of placement IDs per minute can mean low-quality inventory. Traffic source: Traffic from social and paid sources can indicate MFA. Create a strategy to avoid MFAs The most effective method for avoiding MFA sites is to partner with reputable ad tech firms (like Verve 😉). Supply partners should have brand safety measures in place to flag and block these sites. Since mobile in-app and CTV have much lower rates of MFAs than the web, focusing budgets on these channels is also a smart way to steer clear of such sites. Advertisers can also monitor their performance metrics to identify MFA sites. Metrics such as click-through...

Navigating ad tech can often feel like wandering through a labyrinth. Today’s tech giants have long acted as walled gardens that dominate the programmatic landscape. Publishers have also begun building their own mini-walled gardens in light of the uncertain future of third-party cookies. And retail media networks are creating their own closed ecosystems for data and targeting purposes. But all hope is not lost — programmatic ad spending in walled gardens peaked in 2020 and has been steadily declining ever since Apple implemented its iOS privacy changes with ATT in April 2021. And with over 4 million apps available for download via iOS and Android, it’s not feasible to expect individual publishers to establish the infrastructure required to create their own walled gardens. So what’s the key to breaking through the rubble as these walls slowly crumble around us? Both app publishers and ad tech partners must fight against the exclusivity and secrecy of today’s walled gardens with openness and transparency — and an important tool for accomplishing this is an open-source ad SDK. Open source vs. closed source The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal opened the public’s eyes to how their data can be misused by the companies they trust, and in the 8 years since, there have continued to be numerous cases of data misuse. Since GDPR came into effect in July 2018, it has accumulated over $4.4 billion in fines from companies that breached its privacy policies, a portion of which included ad tech companies being penalized for how they process personal data for targeted advertising. The best defense against such misuse of data is complete transparency. And in order to achieve transparency at every point in the programmatic supply chain, a crucial link is an open-source ad SDK. Let’s start by understanding what makes open-source SDKs so unique. Open-source SDKs have publicly-accessible source code. It is freely available for anyone to look at, and anyone can suggest modifications or improvements. It is common practice for users to adjust an open-source SDK’s code based on their individual needs. The code is also openly available for audits by security companies or others monitoring consumer data protection. Closed-source SDKs, also known as proprietary SDKs, are not publicly accessible. Users cannot view or modify the source code, giving the owner of the SDK complete control and secrecy over what exactly is included. In an industry that is becoming increasingly walled, open-source software is an important key to transparency and customization for publishers. How do publishers benefit from open-source ad SDKs? Companies that invest in making their SDK open source show a real commitment to their supply partners. Here are the ways in which publishers benefit from open-source ad SDKs. Transparency When integrating an ad SDK, it is important that publishers know exactly what they are getting. And that’s only truly possible with an SDK that is open source.  When publishers can see exactly how the SDK works, any potential concerns about unwanted code and functionalities are eliminated. It also protects against companies making baseless claims to promote their products. Open-source ad SDKs also allow publishers to know exactly what data the SDK is collecting about their users, which is crucial as the industry becomes more privacy-centric. Gone are the days of blind trust. Every player in the programmatic supply chain must be held accountable for following current data privacy regulations, and open-source code is the best way for ad tech companies to show their partners that they are doing just that. Continuous improvement Another key feature of open-source SDKs is their ability to be continuously improved in collaboration with the users. Since they are able to see the code, developers can contribute their own fixes and improvements back to the product.  Control and customization When it comes to mobile app monetization, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. The ability for developers to contribute to the ad SDK’s code means that they can tailor the code to fit their own unique needs. Instead of being stuck with a black box, each publisher can pick and choose which pieces of the SDK fit their app and their monetization strategy. In the case of mobile app monetization, this puts unparalleled control over the configuration of ads in the hands of the publisher. They can adjust the code to include and exclude exactly what is required for their app’s monetization strategy. Security Publishers are becoming increasingly privacy-focused, and rightly so. It is a common myth that open-source software is not secure. While closed-source software may provide a level of security through obscurity, that alone is not enough. Nobody should be asked to blindly trust that all of their business partners are following the current privacy and security standards — and with an open-source ad SDK, publishers don’t have to. Developers can audit the open-source SDK’s code to ensure that it meets all of their company’s security standards. Future-proof your app’s monetization Open source is not just a type of code, it’s an ecosystem based on transparency and the collective pursuit of building something meaningful. Open-source ad SDKs, such as Verve’s HyBid SDK, are a key part of a future-proof app monetization strategy. As a leading open-source platform, we empower developers with full visibility into our SDK. The HyBid SDK provides our supply partners with transparency and control. Publishers can freely explore our codebase on GitHub, gaining insight into the SDK data and security practices. Users can also provide feedback directly to our development team to help shape the future of the SDK. And by integrating the HyBid SDK, publishers gain complete control over their ad configuration. Want to learn more? To implement the HyBid SDK or select modules, follow the instructions on our documentation page. To learn more about the SDK and all it offers, please contact us here.

Thought leadership: There are rising industry concerns that greater consumer control over data sharing will result in reduced access for advertising purposes. But is that actually happening?

Thought leadership: Purpose-built marketplaces are specialized platforms are designed to cater to specific marketing goals, whether it’s driving immediate actions or building long-term brand awareness.

Though leadership: App publishers and ad tech partners must fight against the exclusivity and secrecy of today’s walled gardens with openness and transparency — and an important tool for accomplishing this is an open-source ad SDK.

Many discussions about privacy in programmatic advertising focus on mobile and web. But advertisers and publishers alike also need to pay attention to how connected television (CTV) is shifting in an increasingly privacy-centric world. In a recent Q&A with AdvertisingWeek, we explored the evolution of privacy in CTV, IAB’s Transparency Consent Framework, IP addresses, ID-less targeting, and much more. TV has traditionally been seen as privacy-safe. How has that changed as the connected TV (CTV) ecosystem has evolved? Fragmented development across digital and linear channels has made TV planning, activation and measurement more complex. In the advanced or addressable TV space, a key element of that has been transferring online data technologies and practices so that media owners can offer cutting-edge targeting and effective performance analysis for advertisers. This includes moving away from traditional limited (and opted-in) panels and shifting toward large-scale individual tracking using personally identifiable information (PII). Unsurprisingly, this has raised concerns around user privacy and questions about what should be done to improve data protection. For instance, a recent CTV report from the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) has encouraged deeper consideration of every privacy-related decision in line with several factors, including a company’s market position, how data usage balances business value versus privacy cost and compliance with regional regulations. But while these steps seem theoretically relevant, they are also likely to be too convoluted for CTV. In practice, enabling low-friction and future-proof growth will call for versatile and privacy-safe identity management approaches that can easily adjust to the needs and specifications of multiple media environments. When will the Transparency Consent Framework (TCF) be applied to CTV? While third-party cookies, device identifiers, and cross-industry IDs continue to play a major role in tailored ad delivery for web and mobile, their use is increasingly subject to consent-based provisions laid out by data legislation and tech providers. It therefore makes sense that the TCF — built to help keep advertising in line with regulations such as the GDPR and CCPA — has already gained significant ground in these areas. Despite attempts from leaders such as the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) to introduce opt-in mechanisms via its guidelines on using over-the-top platforms (OTT) advertising identifiers, the emerging CTV market has so far resisted standardization. Yet amid greater reliance on AVOD and hybrid monetization models, alongside tighter data handling rules from key tech players, avoidance is becoming less of an option. Google, for example, has recently announced plans to roll out its European consent policy to CTV, meaning publishers and developers using Google products must integrate with the TCF and implement a Google-certified consent management platform (CMP). Originally set to go into effect last month, the due date is now deferred to July 2025 but still very much on the horizon. What is the long-term value of identifiers based on first-party data (such as IP addresses)? Although seen as a “must-buy” for several years now, and especially important in branding campaigns, CTV’s addressability and measurement issues have posed persistent barriers to performance assessment that often put its ROI in doubt. Approaches that rely on first-party data such as IP addresses to identify specific households can help address this problem by supporting more precise ad delivery and evaluation. At the same time, however, they also have their difficulties. Topping the list of downsides is the fact that many global data laws consider IP addresses to be PII — including the EU and UK GDPR. Gaining consent to use IP addresses for ad purposes in CTV environments isn’t easy in these cases. Added to this is the strong likelihood that browser-based efforts to mask or disguise IP addresses, such as Apple’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention and Google’s Gnatcatcher, will expand to CTV apps and platforms sooner or later. In the future, we can expect heavy ongoing IP address use wherever possible across the CTV ecosystem. But as consent requirements incrementally chip away at data access, advertisers looking to maximize scalability will need to begin exploring a wider range of future-proof options that enable data sharing in a standardized and privacy-first way. What are the ID-less alternatives for CTV advertising? After years of innovation to facilitate cookie-free operations, the answer here is almost limitless. Take contextual advertising as an obvious example. Building on the historic method of marrying ads with basic TV programming categories, machine learning progress has created opportunities to achieve refined content analysis that enables granular classification by subject matter and sentiment, which ensures effective and ID-less matches. Cohort-based methods also provide ways to use device data to drive smart segmentation informed by anonymized interests or characteristics, without exposing user-level information. While tools rooted in third-party data such as Google’s Topics API are the typical example, seller-defined audiences aren’t dissimilar: media owners leverage user-supplied first-party data from sites, apps, and CTV platforms to create targetable audience groups. From a measurement perspective, brand uplift and conversion studies, panel-based ad ratings, statistical sampling and media mix modeling are the most privacy-conscious CTV choices. Why is attention becoming a more important metric? Aren’t ads always 100% viewable? It’s well-recognized that the high viewability of TV ads doesn’t always mean that they are seen by intended viewers, especially with second screening a regular global habit. In around 2015, researchers and vendors began working on tools to measure how audiences engage with ads. As you might expect, results showed that interaction was variable and campaigns that captured more in-the-moment attention drove better conversions. Subsequent studies proved that longer durations of attention for individual impressions closely correlated to increased impact throughout the marketing lifecycle — a finding that has cemented attention measurement as an essential performance metric that’s frequently more illuminating than simply tracking impression numbers and viewability. What do you see as the biggest future impacts for privacy on CTV? Will the rising volume of programmatically-traded inventory play a part? To a great extent, the general TV landscape will keep advancing in the same digital direction. Legacy linear practices of programming ad slots according to pre-determined schedules are rapidly becoming relics of the past while CTV takes a continually rising share of budgets; with European...

In the news: New research shows that while 68% of consumers feel more control over their app privacy settings than two years ago, 58% are also more willing to share data.

Thought leadership: Sameer Sondhi talks to Mediashotz at DMEXCO 2024 about anonymous targeting on mobile and the power of blimps.