Home On TV & Video How To React To YouTube’s Fraud Scandal? Treat It As If It Were TV

How To React To YouTube’s Fraud Scandal? Treat It As If It Were TV

SHARE:
Sean Cunningham, President and CEO, VAB

It has been just a few working days since the Adalytics revelations of a major YouTube ad fraud scandal that duped 1,000 major advertisers over the past three years.

The crux is that YouTube was charging a premium for assured high-quality ad placements in the safest YouTube environments. But, in actuality, those ads were routinely placed in the least desirable places: the lowest-tier sites that generate a mountain of useless impressions while risking brand damage with every compromised (fraudulent) ad placement. 

Many of us are waiting to see the right level of outrage directed at YouTube from advertisers and agencies. 

What’s the right level of outrage? As one advertiser said to me: “Can you imagine the reaction and consequences if this fraud was done by TV? There would be absolute hell to pay.”

Holding YouTube accountable

We can all imagine what would happen if TV service providers perpetuated such a betrayal of trust and knowingly did damage to a wide group of major advertisers just to prop up their own numbers. 

It would be considered unconscionable to inflict that kind of damage on their ad clients. It’s only fitting that YouTube, which has long coveted TV’s ad dollars and advertisers, should find out what it feels like to be treated as if it were TV.

What should the consequences look like? 

For one thing, this level of fraud warrants outrage and immediate consequences from brands’ CMOs. There should be demands for financial reparations from YouTube. And YouTube should be pulled in front of the ANA board to answer a room full of very tough questions. There should be calls for remedy from the heads of agency holding companies and an announced suspension of ad dollars to YouTube until named conditions are met. The industry needs real transparency from YouTube to ensure something like this can never happen again. 

As not seen on TV

Fortunately for all of TV’s advertising partners (including the many who also bought YouTube), there’s a reason this type and scale of fraud is actually “unimaginable” on TV. 

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

That’s because it literally couldn’t happen on TV. There are enough third parties involved in currency and verification to prevent this from ever happening for any period of time – let alone three years. 

Then there’s the most obvious reason TV could never get away with generating empty impressions at scale for any significant duration. Over 800 of the newest advertisers on national TV are mostly analytics-first companies (DTCs, etc.) that would detect any significant volume of unproductive impressions and quickly shift their dollars elsewhere.

The fact that the vast majority of those 800 new-to-TV advertisers continually increase their TV ad investments is because TV doesn’t produce or sell empty or unproductive impressions.

To all those CMOs and agency heads mulling over what their reaction to YouTube’s scandal should be: YouTube should be treated like TV. Channel your outrage over YouTube’s ad fraud into holding the platform to the same trust standard that’s been long established in television. In this instance, YouTube deserves it. 

On TV & Video” is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video. 

Follow VAB and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.

For more articles featuring Sean Cunningham, click here.

Must Read

Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony of any government witnesses who aren’t economists or antitrust experts during the upcoming ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Execs Off the Stand In Its Upcoming Antitrust Trial

Google doesn’t want AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley – you know, the godfather of programmatic – to testify during its ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

How HUMAN Uncovered A Scam Serving 2.5 Billion Ads Per Day To Piracy Sites

Publishers trafficking in pirated movies, TV shows and games sold programmatic ads alongside this stolen content, while using domain cloaking to obscure the “cashout sites” where the ads actually ran.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Thanks To The DOJ, We Now Know What Google Really Thought About Header Bidding

Starting last week and into this week, hundreds of court-filed documents have been unsealed in the lead-up to the Google ad tech antitrust trial – and it’s a bonanza.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Will Alternative TV Currencies Ever Be More Than A Nielsen Add-On?

Ever since Nielsen was dinged for undercounting TV viewers during the pandemic, its competitors have been fighting to convince buyers and sellers alike to adopt them as alternatives. And yet, some industry insiders argue that alt currencies weren’t ever meant to supplant Nielsen.

A comic depicting people in suits setting money on fire as a reference to incrementality: as in, don't set your money on fire!

How Incrementality Tests Helped Newton Baby Ditch Branded Search

In the past year, Baby product and mattress brand Newton Baby has put all its media channels through a new testing regime for incrementality. It was a revelatory experience.

Colgate-Palmolive redesigned all of its consumer-facing sites and apps to serve as information hubs about its brands and make it easier to collect email addresses and other opted-in user data.

Colgate-Palmolive’s First-Party Data Strategy Is A Study In Quality Over Quantity

Colgate-Palmolive redesigned all of its consumer-facing sites and apps to make it easier to collect opted-in first-party user data.