I think the real point to the article is that a major advertiser is starting to question the current model. It's not living up to the perceived promise.
Of course it isn't. It hasn't for years. And to put the cherry on top, the leading third party networks have, from day one, encouraged, even practiced, all sorts of 'mischievousness'. And what is most telling in all the hullaballoo is the silence of the major agencies for they were and are often complicit.
From 2105, the shot that stunned the ad world: Julie Fleischer of Kraft 'caused' the impressions scandal by reporting that Kraft had rejected 85% of impressions billed by ad networks.
* 80% of enterprise CMO's have never seen quantifiable results from social media.
* the FaceBook video streaming 'miscalculation' (as in overstating by ~75%); for some reason it was worse in Australia at over 94% overstated.
* online ad spending growth in 2016 was half that of 2015.
From this year:
* as engine mentioned, Marc Pritchard of Proctor & Gamble say they will no longer pay agencies or networks that don't use industry-standard viewability metrics, fraud protection, and third-party verification.
Note: his accepted metrics are pretty slack and the fraudsters are generally well ahead of the fraud defences but that third party verification ?should? hit the ad networks black boxes (looking at you FB, G) hard.
* you may remember that last spring, following the Kraft announcement, a new 'standard' of 50% viewable for 1-second was announced for CPM ads.
Lumen Research ran a study that found:
* only 65% of the viewable ads are - drumroll please - actually viewed.
-> 100% served impressions
-> 54% deemed viewable impressions (50% viewable for 1-second)
-> 35% were actually viewed aka eyes actually 'saw' it
* only 9% of served impressions were actually viewed for more than 1-second.
Study after study has concluded that AdWords click through traffic is significantly/largely/mostly bots. The absolute lowest number I've read is "more than 18%", the highest "up to 98%". If we drop these two as outliers we are left with a fairly consistent range between 40% and 60%.
The networks are greedy and keep getting their hands caught in their ever 'improved' cookie jars. And, increasingly, there are only two jars. Outside of China Google and FaceBook account for 72% of online ad revenue. Last year ad spending growth went primarily to Google (+23%) and FaceBook (+68%). However, did you know that for pretty much everyone else 2016 saw a 2-5% drop? As in negative compared to 2015.
While the situation is pure gravy for my direct ad sale revenue in a general sense we are ever closer to a battle of titans: the big advertisers and the big 2-online ad networks. With the ad agencies getting squished in the middle and the smaller publishers getting lambasted. If it weren't for the last I'd say 'have at it!'