Google to help SEBI tackle fake apps as finfluencer rules tighten
Google to help SEBI tackle fake apps as finfluencer rules tighten Read More »
Brand Safety & Suitability: You Might Be Unknowingly Showing Ads to Kids – Know How
Yes, you read it right. Your ads often get placed next to kids’ content. And the concerning part? Your brand safety filters don’t identify these placements as unsafe, because technically they aren’t. What they are, however, are brand-unsuitable placements. It is a systemic gap in how traditional brand safety tools classify content and demographic targeting that affects more campaigns than most advertisers realize. In this blog, we break down exactly how this happens through real examples, why your current filters and targeting settings may not be enough, and what it actually takes to ensure your ads are brand safe and brand suitable, in every sense of the word. Brand Safety & Brand Suitability: They Are Not The Same Thing Before we get into how this happens, it’s important to understand two terms that are often used interchangeably but mean very different. Brand Safety Brand safety is about making sure your ad doesn’t appear next to content that is harmful, offensive, or controversial — violence, hate speech, adult content, or extremist material. Most advertisers today are aware of brand safety and have some level of filtering in place for it. Brand Suitability This goes one level deeper. Brand suitability is not just about avoiding inappropriate placements. It’s about making sure the content environment your ad appears in actually fits in the environment, context, and sentiment of your brand, your product, and the audience you’re trying to reach. Here is a simple example. A children’s cartoon is not unsafe content. It carries no violence, no hate speech, nothing harmful. But if you are a premium financial brand targeting urban professionals between 30 and 50, running your ad before that cartoon is a suitability failure, not a safety failure. The content is perfectly fine. The contextual ad targeting is completely wrong. This is the gap most advertisers are not solving for. Why Do Basic Brand Safety Tools Fail to Identify the Brand Suitability Issues? Here are the two major reasons why your ads keep appearing besides irrelevant content ad placements. The Content Identification Problem Platforms and traditional brand safety tool do their classification work by reading what is written about a video – the title, the description, the tags, and other metadata. They do not actually watch the video. What’s written about a piece of content and what’s actually inside it can be two entirely different things. A video can be tagged as a cartoon and correctly land in a kids’ content category, but still carry themes, visuals, or emotional tones that are completely at odds with what that label suggests. The Audience Targeting Problem When an advertiser sets up a campaign targeting adults, say, 25 to 45 year olds, the platform uses data signals like age registered in Gmail accounts, browsing behavior, and declared gender to identifyand reach that profile. The platform then delivers the ad to that account. Technically, it has done exactly what it was asked to do. But here is what no one identifies; the platform has absolutely no way of knowing who is physically sitting in front of the screen at that moment. The account belongs to an adult; however, the viewer watching the screen at that moment could be a child. And this can only be prevented if the content is identified not just based on title and tags, but based on content, context, sentiment, as well as frame-level video analysis. How mFilterIt’s Brand Safety Solution Solves Brand Suitability Issues? mFilterIt’s brand suitability and brand safety solution, PACE, addresses both the content gap and the visibility gap that traditional tools leave behind. Here’s how it works and what it delivers for advertisers. Analyses videos frame by frame including visuals, audio, on-screen text, sentiment, and scene context to understand what a video actually contains, not just what it is labelled as. Classifies placements against GARM brand safety categories with risk levels as high, medium, and low, so exclusions are precise and not over-blocking safe inventory. Operates in real time, detecting and blocking unsuitable placements before your ad impression is served, not after the budget is already spent. Builds a curated whitelist of videos that are not just safe but genuinely suitable for your specific brand, audience, and campaign sentiment. Identifies regional and vernacular content with language-specific ML models built for the diverse market, where over a billion hours of regional content is consumed every month. The result: Your ad runs in the right context, in front of the right audience, every time. Conclusion Brand safety keeps your ad out of harmful environments. On the other hand, brand suitability makes sure it lands in the right one. Both matter. And right now, most advertisers are only solving either one or none. So, before you take another campaign live, ask this: Is the content my ad is running next to reinforcing my brand or quietly working against it? The brands that get this right aren’t just the ones with genuine results. They’re the ones who know, with precision and confidence, exactly where their ads are landing. To learn more about how we can help, Get in touch with our experts today. FAQ,s What is the difference between brand safety and brand suitability? Brand safety avoids harmful or inappropriate content, while brand suitability aligns ad placements with a brand’s values, tone, and target audience for better contextual relevance. Why is brand suitability important for branding campaigns? Brand suitability ensures ads appear in relevant environments that match brand values, improving audience perception, engagement, and overall campaign effectiveness. How can brands ensure safe and suitable ad placements? Brands can use content filters, whitelist/blacklist strategies, and verification tools to control where ads appear and ensure alignment with brand guidelines. What tools help monitor brand safety in digital advertising? Brand safety tools analyze content, detect risks, and provide real-time insights. They help advertisers avoid unsafe placements and maintain control over ad environments. How do contextual targeting strategies support brand suitability? Contextual targeting places ads based on content relevance, ensuring alignment with brand messaging and improving engagement without relying on user data.
Brand Safety & Suitability: You Might Be Unknowingly Showing Ads to Kids – Know How Read More »
$14.8B at Stake: Will You Let Cookie Hijacking Slip Through?
The U.S. affiliate marketing industry is entering a new phase of scale. It is crossing the $10 billion mark for the first time, up from $9.1 billion in 2023, and projected to reach $14.8 billion by 2028. With giants like Amazon, Walmart, and Target running large, complex affiliate programs, the stakes have never been higher. But as the channel grows, so does the race to claim commissions (sometimes wrongfully) which can also look like this-imagine a shopper comes directly to your website, ready to buy but yet somehow, a third-party partner ends up taking creadit for that sale. Many brands are already trying to tackle it, but the growing sophistication of the tactic makes it increasingly difficult to control. In this blog, we dive into a sophisticated tactic known as cookie hijacking where affiliate cookies are secretly inserted into a user’s browser to claim credit for organic traffic, ultimately stealing conversions that rightfully belong to the brand. Behind the Scenes of Cookie Hijacking: 3 Tactics You Might Be Missing Here are three common ways affiliates cause cookie stealing to hijack organic traffic: Extensions Injecting Cookie Affiliates driving sales by influencing real customers is ideal but them stealing is not. One common way an affiliate program experiences this issue is through cookie hijacking. While analyzing a leading global e-commerce platform, we found that many users were directly visiting the site to make purchases. However, some had browser extensions installed (like coupon or deal tools) that silently triggered affiliate links in the background, without any click or user consent. As a result, when the purchase was completed, the system attributed it to an affiliate. Since most tracking follows a “last click wins” model, the affiliate whose cookie was dropped last received the credit, despite having no real influence on the sale. Auto-redirect with Affiliate Tag Another way of cookie hijacking that we noticed in the same brand’s use case was, the page as when users were redirected to brand’s website. If a user is browsing normally and visits a random page (this could be a shady site, popup, or even hidden script). The page quickly redirected them to brand’s site and in a split-second redirect, an affiliate cookie is dropped silently. When that user makes purchase, the credit is given to the affiliate as system sees the cookie. Forced cookie from an external site A user visits a completely unrelated website, not your brand’s. In the background, that site quietly drops an affiliate cookie without the user clicking anything or showing any intent. Sometimes, the user is even redirected to your website, making it look like a normal visit. Later, when they make a purchase, the affiliate gets credit, simply because their cookie was already placed earlier. How Can You Safeguard Your Brand From Cookie Hijacking Cookie manipulation is a growing risk for U.S. brands, especially those running large-scale affiliate programs. As partner ecosystems expand, having clearer visibility becomes essential to avoid affiliate fraud and protect genuine performance. Legacy, surface-level tools can highlight obvious issues, but the real question is whether they can keep up with increasingly sophisticated fraud tactics. In most cases, they fall short. And for U.S. brands running high-stakes affiliate programs , uncertainty isn’t something they can afford. With a more advanced, third-party approach like mFilterIt’s, renowned brand are already bringing more transparency to their affiliate marketing programs. Here’s how it empowers brands- Launch instantly, stay in control – No integrations needed, just immediate visibility into your affiliate ecosystem Gain complete transparency – Always-on scanning ensures you see every leakage, not just the obvious ones Expand your risk coverage – Protect your brand from both known partners and unknown bad actors Make decisions with confidence – Accurate, low-noise insights you can actually act on Hold the right partners accountable – Clear attribution helps you take precise, effective action Understand your true customer journey – See exactly how users reach and convert on your platform Protect revenue in real time – Identify and stop fraud before it impacts your bottom line Conclusion The key to a smooth affiliate program is visibility to understand real user journeys and know where attribution is coming from. Brands that focus on transparency and proactive monitoring through holistic ad fraud solution can prevent revenue leakage and build stronger, more reliable affiliate programs. Frequently Asked Question What is cookie theft? Cookie theft is when someone steals a user’s cookie or places their own cookie in the user’s browser to wrongly take credit for a purchase they didn’t influence at the first place. How to prevent cookie hijacking? Monitor affiliate traffic and user journeys closely Block suspicious extensions, redirects, and unknown sources Validate partners and enforce strict program rules Use advanced tracking/monitoring tools for better visibility Why is cookie hijacking difficult to identify? Cookie hijacking is difficult to identify because it often happens silently in the background. Since the user still completes a genuine purchase, the fraud appears legitimate in standard attribution systems, making it harder for legacy tools to flag. What are the common signs of cookie hijacking in affiliate programs? Common signs include sudden spikes in conversions, abnormal click patterns, high traffic from unknown sources, and mismatched user journeys that indicate unauthorized tracking activity What impact does cookie hijacking have on attribution and commissions? Cookie hijacking manipulates attribution by assigning credit to fraudulent affiliates, leading to incorrect commission payouts and reduced returns for genuine marketing efforts. What compliance measures help prevent affiliate fraud in the US? US advertisers can enforce strict affiliate policies, conduct regular audits, use fraud detection tools, and follow FTC guidelines to ensure transparency and prevent fraudulent activities.
$14.8B at Stake: Will You Let Cookie Hijacking Slip Through? Read More »
Audit Ad Fraud & Media Wastage Before Your Financial Year Budget Reset
For years, viewability has been treated as the gold standard—but what if it’s just a myth? This infographic challenges the assumption that “viewable” ads are actually seen by real people. It invites marketers to rethink performance metrics, question what truly drives attention, and uncover the hidden gap between visibility and impact. Discover how Valid8 helps bust the viewability myth, enabling brands to move beyond surface-level metrics and focus on genuine human attention, cleaner data, and smarter media decisions that truly drive results. Download Submit
Audit Ad Fraud & Media Wastage Before Your Financial Year Budget Reset Read More »
FY Closing Checklist: Are You Auditing Ad Fraud Media Waste Before Budget Reset?
It’s that time of year again. Finance wants numbers. Leadership wants plans. And marketing teams across the country are doing what they do every time during financial year close: reviewing channel spends, comparing ROAS across platforms, and deciding where next year’s budget should go. But here’s what most of those budget conversations skip. Channel-level reporting tells you what you spent. It doesn’t tell you whether any of it actually worked the way you think it did. The uncomfortable reality is that media waste doesn’t happen only in bad channel choices or poorly targeted campaigns. It happens at every stage of the funnel: Impressions served but never seen Clicks generated by bots or non-intent traffic Visits that never engage Conversions that were misattributed or would have happened organically (Source: Statista) This means a vast majority of media advertising budget wastage, and ad fraud is invisible without deliberate, layer-by-layer auditing. As you close the financial year and plan for FY 2026, the most important question is not just where to spend more, but where your budget may already be leaking. The Full-Funnel Media Waste Audit Checklist To ensure your next year’s budget is based on reliable performance data, marketers should audit campaigns across four key stages: Impressions (Reach & visibility) Clicks (Traffic quality) Visits/Installs (Real engagement) Events/Conversions (True business outcomes) Below is a structured financial-year closing audit checklist for each stage. Impressions & Reach Stage You Paid for Reach. But Did Real People See It? Impressions are hardest to tie to outcomes and often get ignored while auditing ad traffic. It is because an ad delivered is often considered to have been viewed. As per IAB viewability standards, if a static ad is visible on the screen for a continuous one second, the impression is counted as served. However, delivered is not the same as seen. And seen is not the same as seen by the right person, in the right place, at the right moment. If you’re not actively auditing where your impressions are going, which placements, which audiences, which environments, you’re not running a branding campaign. You are just running a reach report. What Advertising Budget Waste Looks Like At The Impression Stage Invalid Traffic (IVT): Bot-generated impressions consuming budget and reporting as delivered. Viewability failures: Ads technically served but never actually in-view by humans. Brand safety violations: Impressions delivered in unsafe or irrelevant content environments. Pixel stuffing: Multiple ads hidden within a single placement or tiny pixel, generating impressions that users never actually see. Ad stacking: Multiple ads layered on top of each other in a single placement, with only the top ad visible while all register impressions. Audience mismatch: Impressions served outside your target demographic, geography, or intent band. Frequency breaches: Ads repeatedly served to the same users beyond frequency caps; inflating impression counts without increasing incremental reach. Made-for-Advertising (MFA) sites: Low-quality publisher sites designed primarily togenerate ad impressions rather than genuine user engagement. Know why brands need to go beyond viewability in details here. Here’s what we saw in one of the campaign audits for a FMCG brand A full-funnel audit conducted on an FMCG brand campaign running across placements over a four-week period, revealed something that the campaign dashboard simply wasn’t showing. At first, the numbers looked fine. Impressions in the millions, a 1.43% CTR, and IVT at 3.4%. But the real signal was buried in the visit-to-click ratio: of every 100 clicks recorded, fewer than 48 resulted in an actual website visit. More than half the clicks were going nowhere. Digging deeper into placement-level data made the picture significantly worse. Out of 4,859 total placements generating impressions, 92.98% of placements generated zero clicks further. Placement-Wise Breakdown Total Placements Active 4,859 across the campaign Placements with ZERO clicks 4,518 placements — 92.98% of all placements Impressions on zero-click placements 2,55,808 impressions completely wasted Good placements (11 only) Delivered 1,25,15,646 impressions (1.69% CTR) Placements with low VTC ratio 169 placements with only 17.88% visit conversion Moreover, some of these were structurally incapable of generating visits, screensaver apps and set-top-box interfaces where a user has no ability to click through to a website. What a programmatic campaign audit revealed for an energy sector brand A near-identical pattern emerged in a programmatic campaign run by a global energy sector brand across two major programmatic advertising platforms. The brand was running audio and display campaigns to boost visibility and audience reach. Reach and engagement metrics were low, but nothing on either platform dashboard was flagging why. After ad traffic analysis at the placement level across both platforms, here’s what the gap between the two platforms revealed. On Platform A, 11% of all traffic was invalid, with invalid geo as the dominant ad fraud type at 8.06%, meaning a significant portion of clicks was being attributed to the wrong geographies entirely. On Platform B, 38% overall IVT, led by IP Bot Repeat at 22.90%. More than a third of all programmatic budget on that platform was generating zero genuine human engagement. Furthermore, impression fraud didn’t stop at traffic quality. Brand safety violations compounded the financial waste with reputational risk. Ads were actively serving beside arms & ammunition content, generating 16% of impressions, and in a four-ad-stacked placement, absorbing 38% of impressions in a single cluttered slot where no user could meaningfully engage with any of the four ads. Neither violation was visible on the platform’s own reporting. The audit trigger questions advertisers must ask before the financial year closes ✓ Do you have a third-party verified viewability rate and attention metrics of each campaign, not just what the platform reports? ✓ What was your IVT % on programmatic inventory, and was it measured post-bid? ✓ Have you pulled a placement-level report showing click and visit performance by placement? ✓ Do you know which placements are structurally incapable of delivering website traffic? ✓ Were brand safety inclusion/exclusion lists active from campaign launch — not added mid-flight? Click Stage Your CTR Looks Fine. But Who’s Actually Clicking? Advertising budget wastage and ad
FY Closing Checklist: Are You Auditing Ad Fraud Media Waste Before Budget Reset? Read More »