Analysis: Can IASH halt blind chain buying?

on online networks, following discussions with ISBA (see box).

IASH, now part of the IAB, exists to ensure that display ads placed via
member networks do not appear on web sites that could jeopardise
advertisers' brands. IASH provides members with a framework for best
practice when buying, selling or brokering internet advertising
space.

The trade body has been quick to assure advertisers that its members
were not involved in the recent malpractice complaints, although there
remains speculation in the industry that the parties responsible were in
fact members of IASH. The results of an independent ABCe audit,
commissioned by IASH, were not expected to be released until September
(after Revolution went to press). Any network found to have breached
IASH's code of conduct will face suspension and possible expulsion.

IAB chief executive, Guy Philipson, says: "By trading with
IASH-compliant networks, advertisers can be sure inventory has been
vetted and any 'barred' content will not be sold. The Panorama programme
will be a timely wake-up call to the industry."

Barred content includes sites featuring obscenity, violence or race
hate. Philipson and IASH chair, Khalil Ibrahimi, blame the practice of
chain buying (when networks buy inventory from other networks) and
unregulated networks.

Philipson adds that blind chain buying is tempting because it offers
cheap inventory and the potential to hit high CPA targets. "That's candy
to direct response advertisers," says Philipson, "but the clear danger
is ads ending up on unsavoury sites. While cheap inventory, such as
minority sports sites, may convert, the IAB advises advertisers to
identify sites that will work best for their brand rather than spray
gunning across the web."

EasyCar was one of the brands included on the Panorama documentary. The
first that marketing director, John Sinke, heard of the ad placement was
via a screengrab of PSfights.com supplied by the BBC. Sinke and
easyCar's agency LBi put the matter down to an unfortunate incident of
chain buying.

"We had asked the networks to take every measure possible to prevent
such an incident," says Sinke. "This has exposed and damaged our
brand."

Since being alerted to the issue, LBi has contacted each of its partner
networks. All have denied responsibility. LBi media director, Caroline
McGuckian, points out that without hard evidence, LBi is struggling to
identify the culprit. "We are comfortable we've taken the investigation
as far as we can," she says.

McGuckian believes IASH's effort to standardise content definitions is a
great start. But while getting all members to define inventory in the
same way is great news, it won't stop such incidents happening again.
McGuckian says that beyond IASH terms and conditions, each network also
has its own set of terms and conditions. She also questions the validity
of IASH membership, on the basis that Drive PM (formerly Media Brothers)
is the only agency she believes to have completed the full audit.

Sinke points to the fact that IASH has been aware of the dangers of
chain buying for some time now, citing a trade magazine article posted
on its own web site, entitled: 'IASH faces early criticism over ability
to deal with chain buying.'

IASH forbids its members from buying inventory from non-IASH networks,
but the reality is that chain buying to one non-IASH site or network can
still occur. According to appendix B of the IASH code of conduct,
non-IASH publishers are not asked to contractually agree not to place
advertising next to barred content. Rather, they are asked to agree to
take down such advertising "as soon as reasonably practicable" upon
request. A recent press release states that IASH "issued a warning to
members to tighten up their adherence to its code of conduct and refrain
from re-selling advertising inventory to non members."

David Gilbert, director of planning at TBG, says: "This suggests that
IASH members may not be adhering to their own code of conduct. Unless
immediate steps are taken to resolve such ambiguities, IASH may lose its
credibility and purpose in the industry altogether."

He adds: "Blind networks work so well in terms of CPA and ads on adult
sites, for example, may generate great conversions. But the negative
impact on a brand is far more important."

It is the blind nature of such advertising that is the underlying cause
for concern, he says. "Clients spend millions each year building their
brands through advertising, and they have a right to know where their
ads are appearing. The failure of blind networks to identify their
partners nurtures unease, and leaves advertisers open to the
inappropriate placement of their ads."

TBG took the decision to halt blind-buying from late June, a bold move
for a direct response agency measured on CPA by most of its clients. The
agency has received mixed messages from networks. Some are happy to name
the sites that ads run on, and TBG spends more money with these networks
as a result. "The obvious benefit is peace of mind for clients. As an
agency, we can optimise campaigns better by identifying the sites that
work well."

A handful of networks mentioned increased rates, though TBG is confident
it can minimise this risk to its clients through negotiation.

Transparency

Jarvis Coffin, chief executive at Burst Media, says transparency is the
key issue. Burst Media has operated this way for 11 years, publishing a
list of sites where ads will run. "The dirty little secret about a lot
of online advertising is that it is bought from the lowest cost
provider. You get what you pay for. If targeting is on a low CPA, that
price may not include transparency. The market has to find the right
balance between quality and price - that's where value lies," he
says.

Coffin believes the market may have to look beyond IASH. While IASH may
particularly benefit DR advertisers, he advises brand marketers with
well-developed businesses to demand full disclosure from media
providers. He agrees with Philipson that this is a healthy conversation
for the industry to be having: "This is a consequence of the increasing
amount spent on online advertising. It's about the internet growing up
and maturing."

This is a valid point - online advertising is now worth more than £2bn (IAB). As the medium becomes bigger and more visible, ad placements
that may have remained unnoticed are now more likely to come under
scrutiny. The networks representing 20 per cent of spend within display
will be prime suspects when mistakes happen.

Guaranteeing that a PSfights.com incident won't happen again is tough.
Media owners can now sell inventory on online exchanges, the best known
being Right Media, generally very cheaply. "How is that inventory
vetted?" asks Philipson. "The saving grace is that buyers have to
actively agree to put a campaign on to the particular site, rather than
the network, helping visibility."

IASH makes networks more accountable - it is self-regulated and networks
risk being suspended if they fail on regular audits or spot checks.
Whether or not IASH can prevent mistakes, networks may risk losing
business if they aren't signed up. But will networks want to be exposed
to this scrutiny?

There are 13 networks in IASH, and 40 outside of the body. Philipson
finds it interesting that there are four networks in the process of
applying to join. One of these is Advertising.com, a large network that
operates a zero-tolerance internal approach to chain buying. Chief
operating officer, Colin Petrie-Norris, explains: "We won't place an ad
on a URL that we can't go and check. Each URL has an individual
placement assignation, which we monitor to ensure it remains as we
bought it."

While these checks monitor ad placement, publishers remain ultimately
responsible for site content. This is something to be aware of,
especially on UGC sites where content is regularly uploaded.
Advertising.com adds that it works closely with its publishers on
quality.

Petrie-Norris says: "Larger networks with brand reputation to protect
take this issue very seriously. Get to know your provider, develop a
strong relationship and it will emerge who is reputable and who is
not."

REVISED IPA AGENCY GUIDELINES

IPA agency guidelines on online ad networks (published August 2007, ISBA
endorsed):

- Advertising agencies that purchase media space through intermediary
online networks should require, in their contracts, specific warranties
and obligations that the company's advertisements will not be associated
with any objectionable content

- When these are breached by mistake or human error, every effort should
be made to withdraw the advertising immediately and no fee should be
paid to the media owner

- Additional measures can also be considered by an agency:
reconsideration of trading relationship with network; legal action
against the network

The IPA recommends agencies consider IASH-audited accreditation to help
ensure display ads do not appear on web sites that could jeopardise
advertisers' brands.