The issue of ad misplacement and the importance of content verification tools to uphold the standing of the programmatic media trading are hardly new to ExchangeWire readers. But an ominous BBC report linking ad misplacement to funding extremist militant groups aired recently shows just how the ‘bad internet’ is raising concerns among policy makers, and some of the highest powers in the land.

A BBC investigation into how ads from tier one outfits, including the UK Government’s National Citizen Service (NCS) and global charity Oxfam, have appeared next to content posted by extremist militant groups on user-generated content (UGC) sites such as YouTube and Orange-owned DailyMotion was published last week.

This effectively means that “companies' and taxpayers' money may have gone to jihadi groups because of the way the sites like YouTube operate,” according to the BBC report, which also highlights how NCS and Oxfam have subsequently pulled from such portals.

Advertisers as ‘unwitting’ backers of extremism

The report also carries claims from the BBC itself adding that it may rethink its internet advertising strategy as a result of the findings, as (obviously) none of the above parties want to “unwittingly fund extremists”.

The report – aired on the broadcaster’s flagship current affairs programme Newsnight – highlights how the topics of ad misplacement and content verification tools are likely to become increased areas of scrutiny for major advertisers and public policy makers alike.

A telling passage in Oxfam’s statement carried in the piece reads: "On sites like YouTube, these decisions are made automatically and in this instance the system has led to a placement that is not acceptable. The ad has now been removed and we will work to make sure this doesn't happen again.”

This clearly highlights how the prevailing dynamics within the wider programmatic advertising industry allow such instances to occur (ExchangeWire is not pointing the finger at any one company in the industry for allowing this to happen).

Closing the loopholes, and closing off ad dollars from the ‘bad internet’

What is clear is that moves must be taken to tighten the existing loopholes, and open advertisers eyes to the potential implications to simply trusting in black box programmatic solutions where scale and cheap clicks are the name of the game.

Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and their ilk, are always quick to take the obligatory actions required by widely-held public mores (and advertisers demands) when such instances arise within the public domain.

But the issue of ad misplacement is a recurring one, especially within UGC environments. A little over 12 months ago Facebook was embroiled in a high profile case involving tier one brands’ ads appearing against content advocating domestic on the social network.

Surely others will follow, this is a problem inherent with ads appearing on such populous media platforms where automated systems decide the placement of ads.

Arguably Premium publishers and media-buying behemoths, allied with the likes of ‘white hat’ players like Project Sunblock, AdTruth and Integral Ad Science, are best-placed to offer advertisers the peace of mind they need to increase investment in programmatic media trading.

In a piece published on this site earlier this year, Ciaran O’Kane, ExchangeWire, global editor and CEO, said: “In the five years I have covered this industry I have never seen a bigger opportunity for publishers. At least 70%-80% of the web is total garbage.

“Facebook, despite what the industry tells you, is user generated content. Regardless of targeting, it is not brand safe.

“What’s got more brand context? The FT? That’s a given. The Guardian? Without doubt. The Telegraph? Of course. Facebook? Sure, I want my ad appearing alongside some teenage fool engaged in idiotic drinking games.”

‘Brand safety’ lies within premium, not the populism of UGC

He went on to argue that if the aforementioned publishers act in harmony and convince advertisers of their superior content quality (as is the case in France where premium publishers there have banded together to sell inventory the La Place Media and Audience Squared outfits) this will lessen the risk of brands appearing such offending content.

“I would suggest publishers examine the La Place model and look to take themselves out of the 80% ‘bad internet’ [such as poorly-vetted UGC portals],” added O’Kane.

“Brands may avail of cheap CPM prices in the ‘bad internet’ but at what cost? Premium publishers taking a stand would be in their benefit.”

Media buyers too are reportedly waking up to this notion of refusing to buy from ‘open’ environments where the guarantee of their clients’ brand safety is less guaranteed, such as public ad exchanges, as is noted in a more recent ExchangeWire post (even though a healthier profit margin on their own behalf may also be a contributory factor).

Put simply, such high profile instances of brand misplacement are increasing the public scrutiny on programmatic media trading, those involved in the premium sector of the industry are best placed to draw attention to its potential benefit for the media business, as opposed to its potential negative social implications.