Commentary
What Does Key Bridge Collapse Have In Common With Digital Ad Fraud?
- by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, April 25, 2024
Almost immediately after the horrific and deadly collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, maritime experts were in the news, speculating what might have caused Dali, the 685-foot container ship, to suddenly lose power and crash into one of the bridge’s pillars. While it is way too early to know the cause, and a full investigation will certainly take months, I was surprised to hear so many of the experts point to the same potential cause: “tainted” fuel.
Apparently, the maritime industry today has a big issue with “bunkering fraud.” Bunkering is the term for refueling ships, and the industry has gone through a lot of changes over the past few decades. The composition of fuels has changed; the ships have gotten much bigger; the cost of fuel relative to other shipping costs (labor, etc.) has grown dramatically; and the capacity to deliver fuel at a volume or quality not consistent with the anticipated purchase has gotten much easier, as the number and type of intermediaries has increased. (You can learn more about it here in a very helpful piece from a plaintiff-oriented law firm).
advertisement
advertisement
From the piece, I learned about some of the forms that bunkering fraud can take:
- Delivering less fuel than promised
- Heating or aerating the fuel to increase its perceived volume
- Conspiring with ship officer or crew to defraud the purchaser
- Buying the fuel at non-sanctioned places where it's easier to onboard and pass off smuggled or stolen fuel
- Mixing water or chemicals into the fuel to then sell low-grade fuel at high-grade fuel prices
Sound familiar? I’m sure it does. I thought I was reading about the digital ad business today, as in a report from the ANA, VAB, Adalytics or Augustine Fou on fraud in digital ads.
That’s what we get when players in our industry use digital automation, black-box algorithms and a daisy chain of opaque intermediaries to commoditize the media business: It becomes like the oil business -- in the process, restructuring media suppliers, client-focused agencies and tech and data-enabling firms as media trading companies and ancillaries to those traders, aligning value propositions around trading and margin participation, not the maximization of customer creation value in marketers’ advertising investments.
If tainted fuel turns out to be the culprit for the Baltimore Harbor allision (what you call the event when one moving object strikes an object fixed in place), I have some confidence that governments, regulators and shipping industry groups will take some steps toward reform. Not only did six bridge workers die, but we will see tens of billions of consequential costs from the bridge’s collapse -- and a high likelihood of similar disasters in the future.
Meanwhile, many in the world of media, digital ads and ad tech see fraud in our business as a “victimless crime.”
Digital ad fraud is not a victimless crime. First and foremost, companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars are not getting the sales growth they paid for. That money is being stolen and people are losing jobs over it. The ANA has done a great job showing that advertising isn’t working nearly as well as it used to.
And, whether we’re talking bots, made-for-advertising sites, web video ads labeled as CTV, undisclosed revenue shares, faux attribution or verification that doesn’t verify, digital ad fraud siphons money away from legitimate content companies and real journalists. It suppresses real pricing. It supports money laundering. It enables national actors to fight misinformation and disinformation wars against us.
Bunkering fraud and digital ad fraud are two peas in a pod. Who would have thought?
Who can disagree, Dave? But what do we--or you---do about it? If the people who are being robbed don't seem to care---or are so ignorant or disinterested that they remain oblivious to what is happening? It's the same problem that honest cops have faced for generations, when they know who the crooks are but the crooks have the politicians in their pockets and no penalty is paid.
Many years ago, the magazine industry began selling ads and some publishers were found to be claiming circulations that weren't true. In some cases the only copies that were printed were those sent to the advertisers as proof of performance. So the ad industry demanded something be done and the Audit Bureau Of Circulations was set up to make sure that the publishers' circulation claims were verified. Problem solved. Much later, after a congressional investigation into TV ratings, the MRC was set up to make certain that the researchers who served TV, radio and print media were doing what they said they were doing. Again, problem solved and, again, with the industry acting in unison.
But now, we have the sellers taking over---as evidenced by the TV seller-orchestrated "JIC", which seems to be circumventing the MRC----and nobody is concerned. So why are we surprised that there is no outcry about digital media fraud and all of the related issues that you and a few others have been calling out? In my book, the answer is evident---the "victims"---the advertisers---and their agencies----have other things on their minds.
I suspect that you are not going to get many media sellers, or agency media buyers to agree with you in a public forum---even if they agree, privately---as this would probably end their careers. So the only solution I can come up with is to work with selected, major advertisers to try to get their vocal and tangible support. If a few begin to demand that their media buys be denied to those that cheat and insist on third party verification, etc.,maybe others will follow. But only if these efforts are widely publicized.
Ed, I share your frustration. I do believe that one of the answers is continuing to expose the fraud and the elements and incentives that enable it, as well as those that hide it. Also, we might need to look at it differently ... while I don't know that building mix models on everything will fix things, Brian O'Kelley makes some very good and important points herehttps://bokonads.com/p/an-open-letter-to-the-advertising
Dave, I doubt that media mix models will accomplish anything regarding the issues that you are raising. One thought, however, concerns the platforms you are using. I doubt that many CMOs or brand managers pay the slightest attention to media forums so here---and elsewhere, you are basically talking to those who are playing the game. Why not try "The Wall Street Journal" or "The New York Times" as these are read by many of the folks who are the victims in question. Or, maybe, one of the cable business news networks.
Excellent point Ed that the marketers and their bosses need to be found and communicated in channels that they use and get their attention ... getting this issue (potential solutions) treated in the WSJ where we need to go. They coverage of Adalytics work and MFA sites has been helpful. Now we need them to better report on why it happens and where the disconnects are.
0f course ed is right; i've been preaching this solution for ages, including comments on this web site. so how do we get a full court press by a coiple of major advertisers or the ANA? if they're not listening one option option--and it's ugly --is a full court press on the cfo's of major comapnies --maybe through an ANA finance committee. after all theses are the folks whose reponsibility is to insure integrity in meda spend as well as other elemnts that marketers employ.
going to the finamcial types will also make the marketing and ad people, including agemcies and their ad buying groups ,VERY nervous.
of course, one or two messengers may get "shot", but "C'est la Guerre"