The document discusses invalid traffic (IVT) and viewability in online advertising. It defines viewability as ads appearing within the visible space of a browser window. Both static and dynamic factors are considered in viewability measurements. IVT includes traffic from generators, unwanted ads from plugins/injectors, unseen ads like popunders, and misrepresented ad placements. Detection requires diverse telemetry from tags, panels, crawlers and honeypots. Filters are developed to identify IVT signals. Q1 2016 data showed regional IVT levels ranging from 1-5% and in-view rates for display/video around 30-60%. Addressing IVT requires understanding evolving threats and tools for detection, mitigation, and decision support.

1. For info about the proprietary technology used in comScore products, refer to http://comscore.com/About_comScore/Patents
Invalid Traffic & Viewability:
What is the cost of an unseen ad?
Paul Barford
Chief Scientist
May 2016

2. Overview
• Objectives
• Viewability
– What & how
• Invalid traffic (IVT)
– What are attackers doing?
• Ad blockers
• Counter measures
– Detection, filtration and mitigation
• Recent measurements
– Views, IVT, ad blockers
1comScore Inc. Proprietary

3. Measuring viewability
comScore Inc. Proprietary 2
Browser
Viewport
Ad
X,Y coords
of browser
X,Y coords
of viewport
X,Y coords
of ad
ABOVE THE FOLD
BELOW THE FOLD
Screen Size
1280 x 1024
Browser Size
1048 x 944
Viewport Size
1025 x 875
Ad Size
160 x 600
Page Size
1025 x 1325
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
– Ad viewability: ads that
appear within viewable
space in a browser on a
user’s screen
• MRC standards
– Considerations
• Screen size
• Location of the browser
• Location of the ad
relative to the page
• User actions including
tab, scroll, minimize

4. A hybrid approach
• Both static and dynamic characteristics must be
considered to produce accurate viewability
measurements
• Geometry: consider X,Y coordinates of ad to determine
it’s exact location in the viewport
• Timing: use clues associated with content to determine if
creative is in-view
• Hybrid method enables broad coverage (97%) plus
adaptability to browsing dynamics
comScore Inc. Proprietary 3

5. The threat landscape
• What motivates ad fraud?
– “Because that’s where the money is.” W. Sutton
• Fraudster’s advantages
– Anonymity, vulnerabilities, complexity, scale
– Humans in the loop
• Key requirement – a way to put $$ in the bank
– Ad exchanges and DSPs are obvious opportunities
4comScore Inc. Proprietary

6. Who is harmed?
comScore Inc. Proprietary 5
Brands Agencies
Trading
Desks
DSPs Exchanges SSPs Networks Publishers
Everyone

7. Attack vectors
• Invalid traffic falls into four general categories
– Traffic generators – human & automated
– Unwanted ads – plugins & injectors
– Unseen ads – including popunders & PPV
– Misrepresented placements – placement laundering
• Grey areas abound!
Invalid traffic includes both clicks and
impressions that Google suspects to not be
the result of genuine user interest
6comScore Inc. Proprietary

8. Traffic generation
• Valid traffic generation offerings
– Adwords, Outbrain, BingAds, Facebook ads, etc.
• Type “purchase web traffic” in Google
– MANY traffic generation offerings
• Simple threats: script-based page retrieval
– Ubiquitous - $12/10K impressions
– Not very human-like
• More complex threats: botnets*
– Objective – look more “human”
– As much as $100/10K impressions
7comScore Inc. Proprietary

9. Plugins and injectors
• Software that generates ads that are not part of publisher
placements
– Most do not try to hide
• Plugins enhance native browser functionality
– PageRage, BuzzDock, Sambreel, etc.
• Injectors impose ads other than or in addition to those intended
– Trick users by promising extended functionality
– Google: say 5% of their users have an ad injector
– Superfish, JollyWallet, etc.
8comScore Inc. Proprietary

10. What about bots?
• Bots have been around for a long time
– Originally developed in 90’s to manage host
– Compromised hosts under the control of remote entity
• Bots are characterized by key capabilities
– Impressions and injection
• Example: Athena botnet
– Various ad viewing capabilities
• But, why bother with a botnet?
– Clouds are better…
K. Springborn “Inside a Botnet: Athena and Ad Fraud”, comScore blog, 2014.
9comScore Inc. Proprietary

11. Unseen ads and PPV nets
• Ads that appear in invisible frames
– Simple additions to web pages that can be “viewable”
– Many not be 0-size, but still invisible
– Often appear as pupup’s/popunders
• PPV network: groups of sites that run tags from a single TG service
– Some TG services offer a JS tag that when included on a site pays attractive
CPM
– “…will not block any of your site content…”
– Tag will “display” camouflaged 3rd party websites
10comScore Inc. Proprietary
K. Springborn and P. Barford, “Impression Fraud in On-line Advertising via Pay-Per-View
Networks”, In the USENIX Security Symposium, 2013

12. Placement laundering
• How do we know who is requesting an ad or where it’s placed?
– We typically rely on trust and Javascript
• “Domain laundering” coined by comScore’s Jeff Kline in ’14
– Recent press release with Google on vulnerability in Safeframe
• Key issue: Low quality ad: $0.01 CPM, High quality ad: $10 CPM
Placement laundering is the act of sending false
information to an ad provider about an ad placement
J. Kline and P. Barford, “Placement Laundering and the Complexities of Attribution in
Online Advertising”, Under submission, 2015.
11comScore Inc. Proprietary

13. Ad blockers on the rise
• Ad blockers (browser extensions) have received significant attention
over the past year
– Blockers have been available for over a decade
– “…ad blocking is robbery, plain and simple” R. Rothenberg,
AdAge
• Blockers are here to stay, what can we do?
– Measure and assess their prevalence and impact
– Develop technical counter-measures
– Take control of the narrative on responsible advertising
comScore Inc. Proprietary 12

14. Addressing the threats
• Basic issues are similar to IT security
– Need to understand (evolving) threats
– Detection vs. mitigation
– Tools and processes for decision support and remediation
• Core components for addressing ad fraud
– Diverse measurement capability
– Filters to identify/mitigate threats
– Tools for visualization and forensics
13comScore Inc. Proprietary

15. Start with telemetry
• Objective: breadth and depth
– Any specific measurement method has limits!
• Challenges: scale, diversity and dynamics
• Census/Ad tags: for a wide variety of threats
– Careful attention to errors/failures
• Panel: for plugins, injectors, traffic generators and publisher
side threats
• Crawler: for publisher side threats
• Honeypots: for traffic generation threats
14comScore Inc. Proprietary

16. From telemetry to filters
• Objective: accurate, efficient threat identification
• Approach: mine diverse telemetry for signals
– Hypothesis-based, iterative process
• Write code (i.e., filter) that isolates signals in telemetry associated with
fraud
– General vs. sophisticated
– Detection vs. active mitigation
• comScore has over 25 different IVT filters
15comScore Inc. Proprietary
M. Molloy, S. Alfeld and P. Barford, “Contamination Estimation via Convex Relaxations”,
In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, 2015

17. Raw Q1 ’16: impressions/IVT
comScore Inc. Proprietary 16
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
-
10,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
70,000,000,000
80,000,000,000
Jan Feb Mar
Gross Impressions
Percent IVT

18. Raw Q1 ’16: regional imprsn/IVT
comScore Inc. Proprietary 17
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
-
10,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
Jan Feb Mar
North America
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
-
2,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
8,000,000,000
10,000,000,000
12,000,000,000
14,000,000,000
16,000,000,000
Jan Feb Mar
Europe
Gross Impressions
Percent IVT

19. Norms Q1 ‘16: IVT
18comScore Inc. Proprietary
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
January February March
US, desktop
Display
Video

20. Norms Q1 ‘16: in-view
19comScore Inc. Proprietary
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
January February March
US, desktop
Display
Video

21. pbarford@comscore.com 20
Norms Q1 ‘16: direct/indirect
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Display Video
Viewability IVT

22. Conclusion
• Summary
– Your ads may not be seen
• Viewability has a fixed objective
• IVT detection and mitigation is a moving target
• Ad blockers are having an impact
– Diverse telemetry + data science can address threats
• Q: What is the cost? A: Depends on where you advertise
• Future
– Broad deployment of active mitigation
– Anti-ad blocking
– Cross media
22comScore Inc. Proprietary

23. Thank you
23comScore Inc. Proprietary