The marriage of convenience between programmatic advertising and digital media is not over. Publishers must remain vigilant as deceptive, irrelevant ad experiences easily damage audience acquisition, retention, and engagement.  

Credibility is the new currency 

Trust is a crucial element in the user-publisher relationship. Daily run-ins with bad ads devalue publishers’ brands in the eyes of users. Online audiences have become increasingly wary of off-brand and unsafe ads, which makes them lose faith in publishers’ ability to ensure valuable experiences.

For incremental revenue, some publishers give up white space for a function that adds little value for audiences—and may remove value. More than three-quarters of publishers face ad quality challenges that impact user experience on their sites. Six out of 10 publishers reported that ad quality challenges have negatively impacted revenue. These ads frustrate users and reduce time spent reading content by 45%. 

Clickbait is one of the most frustrating forms of advertising and 56% of publishers have identified clickbait ads on their sites. We identified the five most prevalent clickbait scams served through publishers’ websites: financial scams, misleading product offers, brand infringement, tech support scams, and forced browser notifications. It’s no surprise that ads like this drive audiences away.

If you’re not listening to your audience, someone else will

Not only are many ad experiences unsafe, they’ve also become less relevant because they’re based on guesswork. Publishers set their ad quality policies based on assumed audience preferences. However, assumptions don’t make for adequate quality control. Unfortunately, this  means that publishers often serve ads and brands that are inappropriate for their audience, which leads to user churn and a tarnished reputation.

In the era of fake news and crumbling cookies, publishers must continually work to better understand audiences and maintain ongoing two-way communication. Since there’s no universal guide for what makes a “good” or “bad” ad, publishers must define what a bad ad looks like for their unique audience.

It’s time to implement new ways to listen to your audience. The idea of driving audience feedback isn’t new. It makes sense that in order to better engage your audiences you have to listen to what they want. To do so, publishers require a feedback loop and custom tech controls to maintain their standards. 

Resist the impulse to paint audiences with a broad brush. A user-first approach lets you get specific about your audience’s ad quality preferences and close the feedback loop by allowing audiences to respond to bad ads directly. Publishers require audience feedback, without additional platforms intermediating. For example, AdChoices reports bad ads to Google and any other platform that serves the ads. Audience input creates a framework for consistently relevant and engaging ad experiences. This helps foster a sustainable, profitable ecosystem. 

The sustainable feedback loop: Adapt to constant change

User-first publishers know what their audiences expect and take immediate action to eliminate unwanted ads. Allowing users to report poor experiences doesn’t just increase users’ trust in publishers’ brands. It also differentiates publishers from the competition, setting them apart as truly audience-centric. 

Publishers should follow the following principles: 

• Eliminate guesswork by closing the feedback loop and learning which ads your users are unhappy with.
• Fine-tune ad quality policies based on user feedback. Customize and adapt ads to suit your audience as their preferences change.
• Learn to guide your calls to encourage audience interaction in real-time. As a rule, the more instanuous and simple the better.
• Create engaging ad experiences for each site. Each of your channels attracts a different audience and you should cater specifically to them.

Stop screaming, start listening 

It’s nearly impossible to regain a user’s trust once the user has been shown an ad that contradicts the publisher’s tone, looks suspicious, or is malicious. This is especially true if the user clicks through to a misleading ad and gets slapped with an offensive site or deceptive scam. Listening to your audience is vital to the success of your long-term monetization strategy. But, listening takes time. Publishers don’t have to start from scratch, real-time ad quality tools eliminate the heavy lifting. When you start listening to users, what you learn will have immense benefits for long-term monetization. 

Remember: Effective communication is a reciprocal process. You never learn anything by talking.

Publishers have long understood that user experience and monetization go hand in hand. So it only makes sense to examine the impact of ad quality on experience and, by extension, on monetization.

According to our research, more than three-quarters of publishers (76%) say user experience on their sites has been impacted by ad quality challenges. What’s more, 66% say poor ad quality has affected their revenue. It’s clear that user experience and ad experiences are one and the same in the eyes of the audience. So why should digital publishers see it any differently? 

Maintaining user trust in a post-trust-era 

Few publishers are spared the burden of poor ad quality, hitting them where it hurts most—audience trust. Digital advertising is often characterized by clickbait, as well as deceptive and offensive advertising. These days, the audience sits at the most vulnerable position in advertising as digital scams and fraud run rampant. But they are also the most powerful element in the digital ad ecosystem, determining the success or failure of a publisher’s business. 

Along with sensitive ad categories, publishers should be wary of ads touting misleading product offers, financial scams, and brand infringement. It may seem that programmatic monetization automatically translates into poor ad quality, but publishers should understand that there is a better alternative. Quality advertising can reinforce a positive user experience, benefit a publisher’s relationship with the audience, and serve as a differentiator within a crowded market.  

The first step is to acknowledge the need to shift your approach to one that puts the user first.

What it means to be a user-first publisher  

Implementing a user-first approach is vital to ensuring a positive experience and safeguarding programmatic as a strategic revenue channel. But not every publisher who says they take a user-first approach actually does. 

In 2022, publishers that want to differentiate themselves must offer a user experience that surpasses the standard—and user expectations—because audiences see bad ads as more than a red flag. Beyond being simply annoying, bad ads send a message that a publisher doesn’t value its users. In fact, nearly half of publishers claim that poor ad quality impacts the lifetime value of visitors to their sites. Our researchers found fewer than 10% of users who experience bad ads even let publishers know. The vast majority churn silently. They leave the site, end their subscription, and opt for the competition, leaving publishers wondering what went wrong. 

To uphold truth-in-advertising, bad ads cannot appear on the page in the first place. This is the only way to exceed audience expectations, ensure user protection, and maintain user trust. Our research revealed less than a quarter of publishers who serve programmatic ads claim they have total transparency regarding the ads that come through those channels. Unless programmatic platforms can reign in bad ads, scams will continue to plague publishers and their audiences. 

Making technology work for you and your audience 

Publishers are the obvious choice to determine brand suitability. They set the standard for ads that meet their site’s content and audience expectations. After all, publishers know their audiences best. To ensure a high-quality user experience, technology must be used to provide complete transparency and control for publishers. 

We found that a staggering 80% of publishers say brand suitability enhances audience trust and ensures confidence. Real-time tech should provide publishers maximum granularity enabling internal teams to define the standards for what is and isn’t allowed on their site. 

Publishers require dynamic, real-time tools that proactively ensure brand suitability standards across programmatic channels most susceptible to bad ads. Though it is important to remember that, while high standards for brand suitability can be maintained with technology, the technology itself must be reliable. 

Thinking forward (not one step back)

A user protection approach can’t simply involve putting out fires. A positive and trustworthy user experience is at the heart of audience loyalty—and it requires a proactive approach. 

Trust in advertising requires truth in advertising. To put users first, publishers cannot compromise on user protection. Publishers must synchronize their user protection strategy with their business objectives by using a technology-based ad quality strategy.