In light of the stunning report recently published in Adweek, Lotame CEO Andy Monfried admits that over 10 percent of the 4 billion audience profiles (40 million) are fake and bots. As a result, notice programs using this “programmatic partner” are likely overreported by a significant margin — meaning humans never saw the notice based on Lotame data.
Now, couple the ad fraud problem with another class action notice tactic aimed simply at delivering the lowest cost to optically boost reach and you quickly see that class members are increasingly deprived of the opportunity to see an online notice. The optical boost occurs from a tactic called campaign frequency capping, which provides a class member with an online ad three or fewer times during a 30- to 45-day campaign. It also gives practitioners the false belief that their notice campaigns are sufficiently reaching their class members.
Further, low-frequency levels also run counter to empirical best practices in the advertising industry as well as best practices now detailed in the “Guidelines and Best Practices Implementing 2018 Amendments to Rule 23 Class Action Settlement Provisions” to be published by Duke University School of Law in 2018, which notes that a lifetime frequency cap of three or less is insufficient. In fact, data from Nielsen’s “Digital Brand Effect” study reveals the optimal average exposure to digital advertising is five to nine times to improve recall and campaign resonance.
So why should you care about this and how does this affect due process?
Digital display ads are not all in-view, some may load below the scroll or in an unused tab. Three key advertising industry associations, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s)are calling for greater viewability and quality of exposures. Read the full article here.