ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

This research piece was developed by a panel of experts from the IAB Southeast Asia and India (IAB SEA+India) Brand Safety Working Group specialty teams focusing on ad fraud, brand reputation, and brand exposure.

IAB SOUTHEAST ASIA AND INDIA: THE REGIONAL BRAND SAFETY LANDSCAPE

INTRODUCTION

In this industry-first investigation of the region, IAB SEA+India surveyed digital advertising professionals from across the ecosystem to understand what the market reality is in Southeast Asia and India for brand safety. Brand safety is defined broadly for the purposes of this survey, encompassing brand suitability, viewability and ad fraud. This research was undertaken to find out how well these topics are understood in the region and to identify any gaps in the industry’s knowledge, in order to allow the IAB SEA+India to strategically position itself and benefit the industry through more education, the creation of guidelines and standards as well as setting benchmarks.

The survey was sent to professionals in the digital advertising industry ranging from entry to senior level, with responses received from brands, agencies, adtech platforms and publishers. With a sample size of over 200 targeted respondents from across the Asia Pacific region, we are confident that these survey results are a fair representation of the buy- and sell-side of the industry. Although responses came from across Asia Pacific and beyond, the majority were based in Southeast Asia and India.

We went into this survey with some educated hypotheses to test, and in doing so uncovered even greater insights about the state of brand safety in our region. This report focuses on three key areas of the survey results: brand safety standards and measures, viewability as a metric for effectiveness and the prevalence of ad fraud in the region. The report features selected anonymous quotes from senior participants from brands, publishers, agencies and adtech platforms.

I. BRAND SAFETY STANDARDS AND MEASURES

IS BRAND SAFETY AN ISSUE DRIVEN BY GLOBAL HEADQUARTERS?

One of our hypotheses going into the survey was that at the local and regional level brand safety is considered a lower priority and that it is therefore an issue driven by global company headquarters. In order to test this, we surveyed our respondents to ask whether brand safety standards and measures in their company are set on a global, regional or local level.

Our results initially appear to support this hypothesis: 84% of respondents reported that their company sets standards for brand safety at a global level. Within responses from adtech platforms, this percentage rose to 96%, and publishers also scored slightly above the average at 86% (see figure 1). With agencies, we see that far more responses indicated that their brand safety standards are set at the regional or local level.

This indicates that agencies are more careful in tailoring their brand safety standards and measures to regional or local markets, especially when compared to adtech platforms and publishers. From an industry point of view, this is a logical difference in approach; as media agencies represent the buy-side of the industry, it makes sense for them to provide more specific standards for their clients.

In returning to the hypothesis that brand safety is an issue driven by global headquarters, these results seem to show that this is only the case for adtech platforms and publishers. However, when we look into how many responses indicated that standards are set only at the global level, we get 58% of the total responses. This means that for the remaining 42% of respondents, local and/or regional dynamics are taken into account - a far higher number than would be expected if brand safety is deprioritised at the regional and local level.

This is one aspect of the hypothesis, analysing how companies in the industry set themselves up. The other aspect is to look at which brands are driving the concern, and our survey asked respondents to indicate which brands that they have direct relations with showed the most concern.

BRAND SAFETY STANDARD IN MY COMPANY ARE SET:

Figure 1. “At what level does your company determine its brand safety standards and measures? (Multiple selection available).”

ADTECH AGENCIES PUBLISHERS

Globally Regionally Locally

% o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

WHICH BRANDS DRIVE CONCERN OVER BRAND SAFETY?

We broke this question into two factors; the geographical reach of the brand (global, regional or local) and the industry background of concerned brands. We learnt that global brands prioritise brand safety far more - according to 80% of agency respondents, and 86% of adtech respondents.

[The] largest push still continues to be driven by global clients. Still plenty of confusion around what brands should

be doing and [there is] increasing local government and policy nuance on what is culturally brand ‘safe’.

When asked to name which verticals show the most brand safety concern, the predominant categories across all respondents were FMCG, Luxury Goods, and Financial Services (see Figure 2). When looking at this data more closely, we can observe that agency respondents showed more consistency across different verticals, whereas adtech respondents appear to distinctly prioritise FMCG and Luxury Goods as brands with the most concern for brand safety. Adtech respondents and publishers also selected Travel & Hospitality at a far higher rate than agency respondents, and publishers selected financial services as their highest category.

WHICH VERTICALS SHOW THE MOST BRAND SAFETY CONCERN?

Figure 2. “Please select the top 3 verticals which show concern for brand safety in your countries of remit”.

ADTECH AGENCIES PUBLISHERS ALL RESPONDENTS

Aut

omot

ive

Educ

atio

n

Ente

rtaim

ent

Fina

ncia

l Ser

vice

s

FMC

G

Food

& B

ever

age

Gov

erm

ent S

ervi

ces

Luxu

ry G

oods

Phar

mac

eutic

al

Real

Esta

te

Tech

nolo

gy

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

Trav

el &

Hos

pita

lity

% o

f res

pond

ents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

SO WHERE DOES BRAND SAFETY CONCERN COME FROM?

We understand from the above responses that while on the whole, FMCG, Luxury Goods, and Financial Services are the main drivers of brand safety requirements in this region, Travel & Hospitality are seen as particularly strong drivers of brand safety concern by publishers and adtech.

FMCG brands often run high yield campaigns, and thus need to take extra precautions to avoid misplaced creatives. Luxury Goods are naturally more careful and mindful of their reputation as premium products, whereas Financial Services often contend with specific regulations on advertising their services, increasing the need for caution.

Travel & Hospitality being primary drivers for brand safety concern for publishers is also logical if we consider that this form of advertising can easily be placed in the wrong context. If, for example, an airline wishes to advertise flights to a certain location, it might seem logical to appear contextually on news articles about that location. However, if those news articles are negative this is exactly the wrong context.

Armed with a better understanding of which brands are concerned about brand safety, the next step is to look into how they are addressing these concerns. By analysing which tools are used by the brands who show the most concern, we can spot patterns or inconsistencies.

THE USE OF BRAND SAFETY TOOLS

Our survey asked respondents which tools are being used by respondents to protect a brand’s reputation. The overall response shows a high adoption of all tools, so to have a better understanding of which patterns there are we also looked at the relative proportions of tools being used by adtech platforms, agencies, publishers and brands (see Figure 3).

BRAND SAFETY TOOLS BY COMPANY TYPE

Figure 3. “Does your company make use of any of the following tools to ensure brand safety?”

WHITELIST BLACKLIST KEYWORD BLOCKING VERIFICATION PARTNER(S) OTHERS

Adtech Agencies Publishers Brands

%

%

%

%

%

%

Interestingly, few brands made use of a verification partner, using whitelisting at a higher proportion. This indicates a lower investment into brand safety tools, likely expecting agencies and adtech to ensure their placements are placed in a safe context.

The highest category of tools reported across publishers, agencies and adtech platforms were blacklists, followed by whitelists. Publishers appear to use keyword blocking less than other company types, which is surprising as this is a method to specifically avoid advertising placements appearing in the wrong context.

It must be kept in mind that brands have different needs and each brand determines its own approach to brand safety. Our survey results give us some insight into what those needs are across the main verticals which showed concern for brand safety in Figure 4 below.

By analysing all the responses which picked FMCG, Financial Services, Luxury Goods, and Travel & Hospitality as verticals which show the most concern, we can gain insight into what brand safety offerings are tailored to these categories. For example, all respondents who chose Financial Services as a vertical that shows most concern for brand safety are likely to be made up of adtech platforms, agencies, and publishers that have worked with Financial Services and tailored their services and product offerings accordingly.

Respondents who worked with Luxury Goods clients showed a higher overall usage of all four brand safety tools - which is consistent with our understanding that Luxury Goods brands will be more concerned about brand safety due to their premium nature. This is exemplified by the relatively higher use of keyword blocking and verification partners when compared to those who work primarily with Financial Services and FMCG brands.

Keyword blocking in particular is a tool to prevent contextual misplacement. The use of verification partners is also a more rigorous step and also indicates that more budget is set aside, indicating that Luxury Goods invest relatively more in brand safety.

Financial Services, on the other hand, appear to be more concerned about appearing on the right type of website, prioritising blacklists over other tools. The fact that keyword blocking is used the least by those working with FMCG brands shows that the context of ad placements is a lower concern.

Beyond these minor differences, the overall trend still shows that there is an overall appreciation of brand safety issues in our industry, with a high availability of tools on offer from adtech platforms and agencies in our region.

WHICH BRAND SAFETY TOOLS ARE USED FOR COMPANIES WORKING WITH THESE VERTICALS

Figure 4. “Does your company make use of any of the following tools to ensure brand safety?”

FINANCIAL SERVICES FMCG LUXURY GOODS TRAVEL & HOSPITALITY

Whitelist Blacklist KeywordBlocking

VerificationPartner(s)

None ofthe above

Other

% o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

II. VIEWABILITY - A TALE OF MARKET MATURITY

When it comes to viewability in the region, there are three elements we sought to understand; which standards are being used, what metrics are considered alongside viewability for effectiveness, and what issues respondents encountered when it comes to viewability.

This also provides an interesting opportunity for us to revisit the results of the IAB Singapore “Uncovering Viewability in Southeast Asia” Report, published in 2017. That study used the Media Rating Council (MRC) standard as the basis to measure viewability rates in the region to test against global benchmarks. During that study, the working group agreed on the MRC as a common standard to be used as a basis for comparison. The results indicated that, with some exceptions, Southeast Asia’s viewability rates didn’t deviate significantly from US benchmarks using the same standard.

THE MRC STANDARD’S (LACK OF) DOMINANCE IN THIS REGION

For the first question, we sought to understand whether the industry has a common language for discussing viewability. On a global level, the MRC standard for viewability is often pushed as a default standard for viewability by US companies. For display, it is defined as 50% of an ad creative’s pixels being in view for more than 1 second.

VIEWABILITY STANDARDS

Figure 5. “How does your company define viewability?”

MRC STANDARD OWN DEFINITION

THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATIONSTANDARD

NO VIEWABILITY STANDARD

OTHERS (PLEASE SPECIFY)

52%

15%

20%

6%7%

1 GroupM’s viewability standard is defined as: Display Ads - 100% on screen, 1 second minimum duration. Pre-roll and mid-roll video - 100% on screen, 50% duration, sound on, user initiated.

One area of confusion is that some respondents specified that they used the “IAB standard” for viewability under ‘Other’; as the MRC standard was developed in collaboration with the IAB US organisation, these two phrases are used interchangeably in other markets.

Of the 15% of overall respondents who use their own standard, the vast majority indicated using the GroupM standard or some variation, setting a higher standard for viewability as compared to the MRC.

One interesting comparison to make is to see the difference when we isolate responses from mature markets and emerging markets in our survey. The panel of responses we received covered APAC and therefore the analysis below is based on the following categorisation. Mature markets are Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore. Emerging markets are China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

When doing this comparison, it becomes evident that the MRC standard is actually less relevant in mature markets (see figure 6). In the emerging markets, the MRC standard is used more, and third-party verification partner’s standards are also more prevalent, with far less using their own (see figure 7).

MRC STANDARD OWN DEFINITION

THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATIONSTANDARD

NO VIEWABILITY STANDARD

OTHERS (PLEASE SPECIFY)

MRC STANDARD OWN DEFINITION

THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATIONSTANDARD

NO VIEWABILITY STANDARD

OTHERS (PLEASE SPECIFY)

45%

25%

16%

8%6%

MATURE MARKETS

EMERGING MARKETS

Figure 6. Viewability standards used by respondents who only have mature markets as their priority markets.

Figure 7. Viewability standards used by respondents who only have emerging markets as their priority markets.

4%

63%

29%

4%

% o

f res

pond

ents

Time in view

Reach Video completion

rate

CPC CPA/CPS

CPL0

20

40

60

80

100

This tells us that when it comes to viewability, mature markets have more sophisticated needs around understanding the performance of their ad placements. It also indicates that as markets mature, the MRC’s relevance wanes and companies are more likely to seek to define viewability as a higher standard.

This result also indicates that emerging markets are more likely to accept global standards or those used by their third-party verification partners, which could mean that there is a lower desire to define viewability standards for themselves, preferring to use off the shelf solutions. This is in contrast to the approach in emerging markets to brand safety, where respondents indicated a much higher propensity to set standards at a regional and local level.

This result shows that the MRC standard for viewability is by no means the default standard in the region for viewability, and this is especially the case as markets become more mature. There are evidently different needs between the markets in Southeast Asia and India, and we can delve into this further by analysing which other ad effectiveness measures are used by the different markets.

ENGAGEMENT VERSUS PERFORMANCE IN THE REGION

The ad effectiveness measures used alongside viewability can generally be split into two categories: engagement metrics and performance metrics. Engagement metrics include time in view, reach, and video completion rate. Performance metrics are based around paying for a certain action; cost-per-click (CPC), cost-per-sale (CPS), and cost-per-lead (CPL).

Here, Figure 8 shows a divergence between the different parts of the ecosystem in which metrics are prioritised alongside viewability as measures of ad effectiveness.

WHICH MEASURES DOES YOUR COMPANY USE ALONGSIDE VIEWABILITY FOR EFFECTIVENESS?

ADTECH AGENCIES BRANDS PUBLISHERS

Figure 8. “Which of the following does your company consider alongside viewability as a measure of advertising effectiveness? You may select multiple options.”

ENGAGEMENT VERSUS PERFORMANCE METRICS

ENGAGEMENT PERFORMANCE

Figure 9. Comparison of the relative use of engagement and performance metrics by all survey respondents, respondents from emerging markets, and respondents from mature markets.

All

resp

onde

nts

Emer

ging

M

arke

tsM

atur

e M

arke

ts

100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Publishers generally reported using more engagement metrics, with cost-per-click (CPC) being an outlier and also scoring quite highly. Agencies put more emphasis on reach and video completion rate, and slightly more on cost-per-click than other performance metrics. Adtech platforms placed most importance on video completion rate, but less on performance metrics.

If we return to the question around how emerging and mature markets differ in their approach to ad effectiveness metrics, we can also observe that mature markets have a balanced approach between performance and engagement metrics, whereas emerging markets predominantly use engagement metrics (see figure 9).

This difference in approach also helps to explain why the MRC standard has less prominence in mature markets - with relatively lower emphasis being placed on engagement and more on performance, mature market needs are centered around getting a more comprehensive understanding of an ad’s effectiveness. Viewability, as an engagement metric, therefore tends to adhere to higher standards in these markets, such as GroupM’s 100% in view standard.

The opposite can also be said for the emerging markets, which place more emphasis on engagement. Figure 9 includes figures for all survey responses, which show an even higher use of engagement metrics. As the figures for emerging and mature markets isolate those who do not work across both categories, this tells us that when working across multiple levels of market maturity, companies appear to cater towards the needs of emerging markets. This might slow down development and use of more advanced effectiveness metrics, and it shows that the region as a whole is more focused on engagement metrics, driven by emerging market needs.

WHAT ISSUES ARE PEOPLE IN OUR INDUSTRY REPORTING AROUND VIEWABILITY?

For our final question on viewability, we asked respondents to indicate issues they have encountered with using viewability as a metric of effectiveness. The largest overall reported issue was that there is no clear link to return on investment (ROI) or return on ad spend (ROAS), at 52%.

Among C-suite respondents, the proportion rises to 64%, 58% of Directors, 53% of Managers and 42% of Execs. As higher level employees are more likely to have direct client relationships due to the nature of their roles and responsibilities, it is logical that they have a higher appreciation of delivering on ROI and ROAS. 14% indicated ‘other’ as a reason, and among the individual responses were some interesting trends. Some of the responses report that there are differences in expectations between partners, different benchmarks, and some reported that the in-app viewability space isn’t fully developed.

[Viewability] by definition already gives inventory a lot of leeway but still most publishers don’t hit benchmarks.

Also, the majority of publishers aren’t technologically ready.

III. AD FRAUD - INCONSISTENT APPROACHES

Our survey recognised that ad fraud is an area which is often looked at by more technically-oriented members of companies, and therefore included the question: “In your role within your company, do you have any experience with ad fraud?”. Respondents who answered negatively weren’t shown more detailed questions to prevent situations where respondents aren’t able to answer questions about which ad fraud types are encountered by their company.

Just under half of all respondents answered “no” to this question, leading us to conclude that ad fraud is currently not seen as a necessary skill or area of understanding across various functions, and that it is still more limited to those with more technical roles in the industry. As a result of having a much lower sample size for brand respondents this section will only consider individual insights from those responses.

In terms of seniority, relatively more Executive-level respondents said they do not have experience (63% No, 37% Yes), and relatively more directors said they do have experience with ad fraud. (42% No versus 58% Yes). Logically, ad fraud is understood better by those in more senior roles as they are more likely to have direct relationships with clients, as well as being across profit and loss statements.

Between adtech platforms, agencies, publishers and brands the overall ratio stays consistent, with only about half indicating they have experience with ad fraud. An appreciation of ad fraud therefore appears to be specific to an individual’s role and responsibilities, and in the absence of that there is no real driver to understand it.

As our responses above indicate, there is inconsistency in the region, including between emerging markets and mature markets. This likely adds to having issues around different expectations and benchmarks from stakeholders in different markets. A key take-away for the industry is that in the area of advertising effectiveness, inconsistencies between viewability standards and the use of different metrics hampers the understanding of how well ad placements are viewed, and how well they perform in terms of ROI and ROAS. This can in turn lead to slower growth in the region.

TYPES OF AD FRAUD REPORTED

We sought to understand more about ad fraud in the region by asking which types of ad fraud are encountered, and seeing which tools are being used to address ad fraud in Figure 10.

TYPES OF AD FRAUD REPORTED

Figure 10. “If you answered “Yes” to the previous question, please indicate which types of ad fraud your company has encountered. You may select multiple options.”

ADWARE OR MALWARE

BOTS, SPIDERS, OTHER CRAWLERS

CONCEALED OR STACKED ADS

FRADULENT PROXY TRAFFIC

DON’T KNOW/ CAN’T IDENTIFY

OTHERS

All Respondents Adtech Agencies Publishers

% o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Across company types, the proportions largely remain consistent with bots, spiders and other crawlers as well as fraudulent proxy traffic as the highest categories. Publishers reported far less adware and malware and concealed or stacked ad placements - but as they own the ad placements it would be odd for this to occur on their own site.

It should be noted that bots and proxy traffic aren’t necessarily malicious, and they can also be used as legitimate tools by search engines to index websites, for example.

We need broader adoption in the region of 3rd party measurement and a move away from Cost per click as

leading goal measurement, this leads to the simplest type of fraud. Inventory quality/standards need to increase before tackling a raft of other issues. This is a client and agency issue that needs to be tackled together.

Vendor pre-bid

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Vendor post-bid

WhitelistingTraffic sampling

Click to install analysis

Other (Please specify)

% o

f res

pond

ents

This comment led us to review whether respondents did indeed make higher use of cost-per-click (CPC) as an effectiveness metric. When we looked at which metrics are used for measuring effectiveness in Figure 8, CPC was predominantly chosen by publishers - this may explain why publishers reported bots, spiders and other crawlers as the most frequent type of ad fraud encountered.

HOW ARE COMPANIES TRYING TO PREVENT FRAUD?

The most commonly reported tool used to prevent fraud was whitelisting, selected by 76% of respondents. The less common types of anti-fraud measures were traffic sampling and click-to-install analysis - the latter especially could be explained by being an anti-fraud measure specific to mobile app installations. As a mobile-first region, this discrepancy may be problematic; if there are fewer protections against mobile app fraud there is increased risk.

TOOLS USED TO CATER TO DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES

Figure 11. “Which of the following mechanisms, tools or techniques does your company currently use to prevent ad fraud? You may select multiple options.”

FINANCIAL SERVICES FMCG LUXURY GOODS TRAVEL & HOSPITALITY

The high reporting of whitelisting as a tool or mechanism to prevent fraud could indicate that respondents are making use of filtering tools, or that it is the most available or cheap solution on the market to combat ad fraud. When we analyse on the basis of the four verticals from before, we see fewer discrepancies than we did for the use of different brand safety tools above.

Travel & Hospitality appears to be more concerned about tackling fraud around the bidding process, having a higher rate of using both pre- and post-bid solutions.

THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION VENDORS

The final question in the ad fraud section of the survey asked all respondents whether their company made use of a third-party verification partner to detect ad fraud. Only one respondent working at a brand answered yes, with most brand respondents indicating they didn’t have visibility on this in their role or didn’t work with a verification partner (see figure 12).

DOES YOUR COMPANY USE A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR TO DETECT AD FRAUD?

Figure 12. “Does your company use a third-party vendor to detect ad fraud?”

YES NO DON’T KNOW NOT APPLICABLE

This question revealed that the use of third-party vendors for ad fraud detection is predominantly left to adtech platforms and agencies. This indicates that the engagement of a third-party vendor is considered the responsibility of the advertising intermediaries rather than the ultimate buyers and sellers of inventory.

In order to address the problem of ad fraud, there needs to be a clear understanding of where ad fraud originates, and the industry as a whole would likely benefit from having a more collaborative approach. This does also tell us that those working at agencies and adtech platforms need the most support in terms of education, as they are currently seen as responsible for preventing ad fraud.

Adt

ech

Bran

dsA

genc

ies

Publ

ishe

rs

100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

CONCLUSIONS

While the survey results do appear to indicate that brand safety concerns are mostly driven at the global level, there is actually quite a high consideration of these at both regional and local levels as well. In our region, there are mechanisms and tools available from most adtech platforms and agencies to ensure brand safety. What stands out as a follow-up from this exercise is to understand to what extent brands are making use of those tools, and whether they are effective.

The survey also indicates that the industry doesn’t see viewability as a solitary metric for success, and that our region doesn’t follow one common standard. In fact, market maturity appears to be a factor influencing which metrics are adopted, with more mature markets seeking out more detailed standards and metrics for advertising success. The dynamic nature of this region means that companies are still placing stronger emphasis on engagement metrics, driven by the market needs of emerging markets.

This leads to a situation of inconsistency in measuring and defining ad effectiveness, which can hamper comparisons and our understanding of the state of the industry in our region. These inefficiencies could lead to problems in the longer-term if global investment into the region slows as a result of not being able to see return on investment.

This could be an even bigger issue when we look at our survey’s results for ad fraud. There is inconsistency in how ad fraud is approached, with most of the onus being on adtech platforms and agencies to detect and prevent fraud. Within these companies, understanding of ad fraud is driven by those who are in technical roles. A huge benefit to the industry would be a wider understanding of what ad fraud means, and more investment from brands and publishers into detecting fraud could aid this.

As a region where growth is driven by high mobile adoption, the relatively low use of app-related anti-fraud measures is a significant area of concern. Additionally, the trend of favouring cost-per-click as a measure of ad effectiveness also poses a risk in driving more bot-related fraud, and shows a need for more comprehensive ad effectiveness metrics. With the region being geared more towards tackling brand safety issues on a regional and local level, the next logical step is for the approach to measuring ad effectiveness and fraud to follow suit.

Based on the findings of this research piece, the IAB SEA+India Brand Safety Working Group is undertaking several initiatives to aid the industry, including education sessions, roundtables, further focused studies and brand safety specific initiatives to elevate the industry and drive responsible investment.

To stay informed and up to date, please join our mailing list and follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook.