Last week, an insightful AdMonsters article summarized the current publisher perspective on ad quality solutions. It made three important points:
Along with Ad Monsters’ own findings, recent Ad Lightning research was cited throughout the story to illustrate the current trends behind the story.
We thought it may be helpful to add some color to the stats that came from our research:
The AdMonsters article also pointed out that publishers are increasingly dissatisfied with reactive solutions. This is also supported by some of our survey results that weren’t included in the AdMonsters piece. Here’s a glimpse of the greatest challenges publishers identified in the various solutions they relied upon:
We highlighted some of these and other survey results in our own article last month. You can read more about that here.
It’s obviously not enough to address the issue du jour with a quick-fix point solution. It’s not enough to implement a patchwork of reactive technologies when s critical threats arise. Publishers seeking true ad quality control should address redirects as well as the “three pillars” (malicious, offensive and non-compliant ads) with a single solution is both proactive and reactive. That approach enables better, more predictible user experiences and greater efficiency among ad ops teams.
We believe the AdMonsters article accurately reflects the importance of, and shifting tides toward, comprehensive, proactive protection against the gamut of ad quality threats.