Fraud filters were found to be ineffective and more costly compared to blacklisting. Across four exchanges, using fraud filters resulted in costs that were 20-24% higher than blacklisting, but did not lower the rate of fraud and sometimes even increased fraud. Blacklisting suspicious sites and apps based on atypical metrics was recommended as an effective and free alternative to fraud filters.

1. September 2017 / Page 0marketing.scienceconsulting group, inc.
linkedin.com/in/augustinefou
Fraud Filter vs Blacklist Study
KEY FINDINGS
1. Rate of fraud (confirmed bots, dark red) was not lower in any cases, and were higher
in some cases when fraud filters were turned ON (e.g. Exchange 1).
2. Costs for using fraud filters were 20 - 24% higher on an eCPM+ basis than not using.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Apply your own blacklist of sites and apps quickly, near the start of the campaign.
Look for line items that have metrics that are too high (click rates, win rates, etc) or
too low (bounce rates, NHT rates, etc.); this saves 20 – 24% costs off the top.
2. Note that blacklists are not enforced equally well on different exchanges. If they can’t
enforce, then reduce spend or stop spending with them. This is “table stakes” stuff.
Marketing Science took a deeper dive into fraud filters and compared them with simple
black listing. All mobile and app inventory had to be manually excluded because none of
the fraud filters work in mobile. Across 4 exchanges, the cost of using fraud filters was 20
– 24% higher (on an eCPM basis) but the filters had no effect in lowering fraud (dark red).
In some cases, the fraud was actually higher when fraud filters are ON, as shown
previously – “Fraud Filters Don’t work.” Blacklists worked just as well; cost nothing extra.