Agency network’s latest Media Responsibility Index also found wavering sustainability progress among both programmatic and social media platforms.
Inconsistencies in how programmatic platforms are tackling made-for-advertising (MFA) websites is impeding progress on solving the issue, according to a new report from IPG Mediabrands and its media investment unit MAGNA.
The media agency network studied for the first time how 10 ad tech firms addressed key issues within the industry — from brand safety to misinformation — as part of its latest Media Responsibility Index.
It found unified enforcement against MFA sites, a hot topic over the past year, to be “one of the largest areas of opportunity” to clean up the ad tech ecosystem, according to the report’s author Eli Harris, EVP of impact investment at IPG Mediabrands.
Of the supply-side platforms (SSPs) studied in the report, all stated that they had policies to categorize and remove MFA inventory, but their approaches and definitions varied.
“Every SSP has a different definition of what MFA sites actually are, so when it comes to the categorization or the removal, it becomes a lot harder,” said Harris.
How this inventory is filtered out of the supply chain also differs by partner; some SSPs allow buyers to opt out of buying MFA inventory by default, while others require more manual controls.
“Not only should there be an industry aligned definition of MFA, but enforcement is also something that should be standardized,” said Harris.
The evaluation is based upon a survey of five major demand-side platforms, including Amazon, Google’s Display & Video 360, The Trade Desk, Viant and Yahoo; as well as five SSPs, including Amazon, FreeWheel, Magnite, OpenX and PubMatic.
The companies completed questionnaires between January and March this year containing a list of questions about the audience and inventory controls, metrics, standards and enforcement measures they have in place. Mediabrands then ranked the partners based on how they address safety, inclusivity, sustainability and data ethics.
For the most part, it found “a lot more consistency” in how programmatic partners approach key issues versus other media categories it has studied, such as TV and social media platforms, Harris said.
MFA is a newer issue that industry bodies have yet to establish standards around. It shot to prominence in June last year after the Association of National Advertisers released a study which found MFA comprised 15% of total open web programmatic ad spend, translating to billions of dollars in waste.
In the wake of the report, many digital ad firms announced tools and partnerships to eliminate MFA inventory from ad buys. But research firm Adalytics claimed in a March report that major Fortune 500 brands were, as of January, still spending millions on this inventory as a result of enforcement failures.
Patchwork approaches to sustainability
Sustainability strategies were also identified by Mediabrands as an area for improvement among both programmatic and social media companies.
While many companies share a vision to eventually achieve net zero emissions, measurement standards and policies vary widely by partner, Harris said.
“We aren’t seeing clear and consistent definitions of what climate mis- and disinformation is, and policies to at least identify or avoid greenwashing for advertisers is something that is majorly lacking within the programmatic space as well,” Harris said.
The same issue holds true for social media platforms, where progress in identifying and monetizing climate misinformation or climate denial narratives has actually reversed.
Of the 10 platforms studied for the report, Harris said only one had a policy for identifying and demonetizing climate disinformation. A September report by the EU DisinfoLab found that only TikTok included climate change specifically in its misinformation policy; Meta and YouTube were found to have climate disinformation measures but limited enforcement.
Social media platforms studied by Mediabrands: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube.
‘Cautiously optimistic’ about election meddling
Much has changed about the Media Responsibility Index since its last public release nearly two years ago. The scope of both the companies and topics covered have expanded.
One platform in particular, which IPG Mediabrands declined to name, particularly shone in the added areas of age appropriate design and manipulated media identification and labeling.
But IPG Mediabrands declined to share specific scores for each platform or areas where certain companies excel over others, as it has in the past.
Harris said the “platform versus platform scrutiny” can “distract from the overall ambition we have with these partners — which is to improve upon their own performance year over year.”
In a critical year for democracy, with the generative AI boom threatening to disrupt elections around the world, he said he was “cautiously optimistic” about social media’s ability to rein in harm.
“There were some platforms that were a lot more advanced with their own internal systems for identification of manipulated media, and not everyone is there, but it was at least good to see that the technology and infrastructure exists to start to solve this problem in a really scalable way,” he said.
Read the full article here.
