Report: Over 40% Of Mobile Ad Impressions Fraudulent

First the disclaimers: I'm not a researcher, I'm a copywriter.

When I print research results I try to use only 3rd party sources I trust. There are often no perfectly dispassionate sources and you have to use some discretion. But unlike idiot agencies, you shouldn't rely on Facebook to tell you what Facebook's metrics are.

Nevertheless, all research is modeling and interpretation so you always have to look at the source, the methodology and the credentials of the researchers before you take it too seriously.

Having said that, a report issued last week by Marketing Science is pretty astounding. It claims that overall, 43% of mobile ad impressions they studied were fraudulent.

This remarkable result is based on a study of 1 billion ad impressions from nearly 1,000 mobile apps.

Marketing Science is the consulting company of Dr. Augustine Fou, whose credentials are pretty impressive. Here's a summary of what they found. Click to enlarge.

Second, here's a summary of a study conducted by Dr. Fou on viewability. The bottom line is that he found only 41% of ads were viewable on open exchanges vs 91% for "good publishers" -- another ugly blemish for ad tech and programmatic buying.

Proof I'm An Idiot

Before we get to today's indisputable proof that I am a complete idiot we have a long way to go, so stay focused.

First we start with Oath. As you may know, Oath is the new name of Yahoo's parent company. Yahoo's parent company used to be called Yahoo, but when Yahoo sold off everything it owned that was worth anything the remaining dregs were branded "Oath."

Only marketing people could come up with a name as alarmingly dumb, but we'll save that for another day.

Oath now owns Yahoo, AOL, and a bunch of other rotting media carcasses.

Working at Oath is a guy named David Shing. Shing is known as "Shingy" in certain circles. Shingy's title at Oath is "Digital Prophet" the same modest title he held at AOL for many years.

I love Shingy. He is so monumentally full of shit that he makes bozos like me seem sensible in comparison. He also has amazing balls. Not just the little dimpled Titleist kind of balls, but big inflatable multi-colored beach ball kind of balls. Anyone who can get up in front of audiences and get away with the incomprehensible horseshit he spouts is my kinda guy.

Plus he has the greatest  hair-do on the planet. Somewhere Between Jackie Kennedy and Phyllis Diller.

With that as background, I was reading a piece in The Drum a few days ago that was sent to me by the great Claudia Caplan. It had me very confused. It was an article entitled  "‘Brand love must be core to the DNA of the brand’: Oath launches new video series exploring emotional connections"

 The article stated that the video series was a group of "in-depth conversations" by Shingy with  "industry prodigies" to "explore the nuanced aspects of what drives brand love..."

As you can imagine, within seconds I was strenuously exercising my gag reflex. Just for starters...

- Are there 2 companies anywhere in the world that have destroyed their brands more thoroughly than Yahoo and AOL? In what bizarre universe do they have the balls to lecture anyone on "brand love?"

- Is there a more profitless prophet anywhere on the planet than the fabulous Shingy? What have his brilliant futuristic insights done that have created a nickel's worth of value for AOL?

But what really blew me away was the fawning, gee-whiz nature of the article.

• Shingy was referred to as a "digital prophet" without a hint of irony, as if he really was one.

• It posed the question, "what can brands do to make their customers fall in love with them?" as if "brand love" was a recognized fact instead of a steaming pile of marketing droppings.

• It promoted the participants in this festival of horseshit as "some of the most respected and interesting minds in media, marketing, and entertainment" who were offering "one-of-a-kind insights and rare perspectives on how brands can make that crucial emotional connection with the consumer."

I read the article three times in utter disbelief. It claimed Shingy "represents a nexus of brand and individual, thinker and marketer, and analog and digital, making him the perfect choice to lead this conversation."

What kind of journalism is this?

What the fuck is going on here? I asked myself.

And then I saw it. Greyed out, near the name of the so-called "reporter", were the words "Sponsored by: Oath." The whole thing was a fucking ad masquerading as journalism.

You'd think a cynical old fox like me wouldn't be fooled by the despicable, corrupt games the online media are playing. But I was.

Is it any wonder that nobody trusts a fucking word they read from online "news" sites.

Except, of course, from bloggers.

Marketers And Millennials

Earlier this week, The Drum had a piece by Samuel Scott about marketing and millennials.  As an add-on to the piece, Scott interviewed me about my thoughts on the subject. The following is a reprint of that interview.

Samuel Scott: One rule in marketing is to 'hook ​ them while they're young', so marketers have usually devoted some of their budgets to that. After all, no one would want to purchase luxury cars in middle age unless they had seen ads for those cars their entire lives. How useful has this approach been in general over the decades? Has the usefulness of this practice changed in recent years?

Bob Hoffman: It depends on the category. People buy luxury cars in middle age that didn’t even exist when they were young (Tesla). But some products (Coke) are bought not because we saw an ad yesterday, but because of the ads we’ve seen for 20 (or 30 or 40) years. For the most part, advertising now because you think somebody’s going to buy your product in 20 years is stupid. We see that all the time in the car industry.

​Scott: A frequent comment about millennials is that they are still broke at worst or underemployed at best following factors including the 2008 financial crisis. How valuable of a demographic segment are they today? But even if they have less money today, will they not have more money tomorrow? What is the problem with brand advertisers targeting them with long-term goals in mind?

Hoffman: There’s nothing wrong with targeting millennials when appropriate. The problem isn’t targeting. The problem is obsession.

Scott: ​Of course, 'millennials' may be a demographic segment but they may not be a useful marketing segment. Why are there so many news articles and marketing essays today that focus on what millennials want as though they have a single identity and set of characteristics?

Hoffman: There is just as much diversity within generations as there is between generations. The idiotic idea that all millennials are this or all baby boomers are that is just the stupid lazy thinking that makes most of marketing a joke. Remember, marketing consultants and researchers have to make a living. So every few years they have to come up with new 'generational' bullshit to sell to jackasses in marketing departments and ad agencies.

Scott: Most news articles out there portray millennials in a negative light. They are supposedly narcissistic, selfie-absorbed snowflakes who are lazy and want trophies for everything. I don't believe that. But why does everyone have those negative perceptions?

Hoffman: You can always find a component of any population that is lazy, self-absorbed and narcissistic. Nothing new here. But because culture and technology change, the manifestations of laziness, self-absorption and narcissism change. Consequently there is always something that seems new to write about. It’s horseshit, but it’s good copy.

​Scott: ​ Many marketers believe in segmentation. But is there not a case for some B2C products and platforms with millions of users such as Snapchat or Coca-Cola targeting a broad demographic group such as millennials?

Hoffman: Sure. At different age stages we use different types of products.

Scott: From what I have read, baby boomers have all the money and are projected to live a very long time. So, why do you think that marketers ignore them?

Hoffman: I could write a text book on this subject. In short, marketers ignore mature people because we hate them. All the 'reasons' for ignoring older people are bullshit. Ignoring mature people and obsessing over millennials is just narcissism disguised as strategy. It is marketing by selfie-stick.

Scott: Can you cite any examples of brands losing sales or market share by focusing on millennials?

Hoffman: Scion targeted millennials, although at the time people over 35 bought 88% of 'youth vehicles'. It succeeded in becoming the car brand with the youngest owner population — and it went out of business.

Scott: What do you recommend brands do in the future in terms of generational targeting?

Hoffman: I recommend they ignore the ignorant, lazy thinking of generational cliches. Stop trying to hold a mirror up to your target and saying “we’re just like you”. Advertising should be about the desirability of your product, not your superficial assumptions about who I am.

Scott: What do you wish digital-focused millennials would know about traditional marketing and advertising?

Hoffman: I wish they knew how much they don’t know.

Scott: Lastly, I myself straddle the border between Generation X and the millennials. Generation X has always gotten lost in the debate. What do you think of us?

Hoffman: I think you’re all lazy, self-absorbed and narcissistic.

                                                                                 ***

In other news...
I have a new website which you are welcome to visit here.
The Australian Financial Review did a nice story on my misgivings about online advertising here.