The Media Rating Council has extended DoubleVerify’s accreditations to include impression and viewability measurement and reporting for display and video ads on Facebook and Instagram.
This marks the first time that a third-party solution has secured MRC accreditation for integrated viewable impressions measurement on a large digital platform.
DV’s third-party integrated measurement solution lets clients see their media spend across all digital platforms and environments.
MRC Executive Director George W. Ivie said the accreditation, involving “an end-to-end audit” that included elements of Facebook’s data collection and transmission and DV’s intake, processing and reporting of it, demonstrates that “independent, third-party advertising measurement is achievable today on large digital platforms.”
During the multi-year accreditation process, independent CPAs conducted an audit on behalf of the MRC to verify that DV’s procedures, controls, disclosures and reporting meet industry standards for validity, reliability and effectiveness.
Ad placements accredited as reported by DV include display and video creative served within the Facebook Newsfeed on desktop and mobile web, as well as those served on the Facebook and Instagram mobile apps.
“Being the first to achieve accreditation for third-party measurement on a large digital platform such as Facebook is an attestation of DV’s commitment to reliable and accurate processes and methodologies across our platform and company,” stated DoubleVerify COO Matt McLaughlin.
DV first received MRC accreditation in February 2013 for its impression quality suite of services and desktop display viewability. In 2015, the MRC accredited DV for desktop video ad viewability and invalid traffic for both desktop and mobile web, and in 2017, DV received additional accreditation for the detection of invalid traffic within mobile apps.
Just remember that Impressions is not equivalent to Audience. And to reinforce it in shorthand ...
IMPRESSIONS <> AUDIENCE.
(And the corollary is that Impressions is always a larger quantum than Audience.)
That my esteemed colleague, John Grono, would have to remind the industry, and as critically reporters, that this accredited measurement has nothing to do with audience or critically their actual viewing or exposure of content or ads, speaks to the flawed term, "viewable impressions". I suggest it shoud never have included the word "impression"! I posit that his fundamental reminder confirms my position on the truly misleading nature of, "viewable impressions" which was established by the MRC. Maybe DoubleVerify will confirm that its use is sadly a great diservice to the industry?
"Viewable impressions" merely refers to content rendered on a screen albei,t for DoubleVerify, to MRC requirements and specifications. As such it is a measure of "proper" distribution of content to screens. No more, no less ... and neither audience nor impressions based on the term "impressions" as it has been used in media for decades. It represents a measure at Level 1 of the ARF Media Model not at Level 3 - Exposure - the critical metric to advertiser's media investments. At the media agencies, we used to call it, "proof of performance" at the basic distribution level which was required before any target audience or impressions analysis was executed via the syndicated audience measurement services.
For advertisers, I urge you to ensure your media agencies are providing ARF Level 3 media exposure data for your brand target. Rendered is not viewing or exposure. No viewing or contact, no brand campaign outcomes for your brand target.