Uncategorized

digital-marketing-budget

Are You Using Your Digital Marketing Budgets for Paying Your Offline Orders?

Yes, this is one of the digital ad frauds that the affiliate networks are doing, and the advertisers end up paying for orders that are not online orders. As a result, offline orders get cannibalized into online orders, and marketing budgets are drained. Apart from the loss of digital marketing budgets, the advertiser pays online offers/discounts for these offline orders. How is this Fraud Happening? In the below graph, a fraud affiliate has used a Bot to send spiked traffic during a specific hour of the day to control the conversion ratio. However, orders are placed during the whole day from two devices only. As a result, the flat line conversion rate is at 26%, in which orders are coming from two devices (offline cannibalizing). However, the spiked traffic conversion rate is 2%, in which orders are all coming from the same two devices. This clarifies that this traffic is purposely spiked in this hour to control the overall conversion ratio. Actual repetitive events are coming from visits. Moreover, these visits are from the same desktop and IP, which indicates that the visits are coming from the exact location, and offline orders are getting punched in. These orders can be cash on deliveries and canceled at any time or a meager value that adds nothing to the bottom line. What Does the Network Achieve? ● Advertisers Make Payouts Affiliates team up with the retailer to earn commission from advertisers by completing the KPIs of a campaign by unethical means, which are other than digital sources. This happens when a retailer places orders using affiliate and referral links. The affiliate receives a monetary benefit from the advertiser for delivering high conversion rates or confirmed orders. Moreover, most affiliates receive a fixed payout from the advertiser for delivering confirmed purchases. But, on the other hand, the “order value” is not often set. Therefore, the affiliate could receive a payout of Rs 20,000 or Rs 200/100 order, whereas the order value could be as low as Rs 50/order or Rs 5,000 for 100 orders. Assuming the affiliate pays a fixed amount to the retailer for placing the order, let’s say Rs 5,000, the fraudulent affiliate still makes Rs 15,000. Moreover, the retailer can place CODs and reject or cancel online orders. So, the advertiser might not even receive money but must make payouts to the fraud affiliate. Therefore, the advertiser loses money for non-online orders. ● Loss of Commission/Offer/Discount on Online Orders The retailer partnered up with the affiliates to get a better-discounted value on their sale. They also can resell the products to their offline customers at the MRP. As a result, the retailer is making money by reselling products and even receives money from the fraud affiliate for placing the orders. mFilterIt & Ad Fraud Solution checks for retailers creating multiple fake profiles on e-commerce apps by detecting their location and device as it remains constant. By detecting such anomalies, brands can avoid cannibalizing their online orders and making commission payouts for offline orders to fraudulent retailers. What Losses Do Advertisers Incur? ● Offline Orders Get Cannibalized The retailer orders for multiple customers by creating various profiles with a single delivery location. Therefore, the retailer cannibalizes online orders offline and makes additional money by reselling at MRP to offline customers after availing of online discounts/offers. On the other hand, the brand suffers a loss as it doesn’t expand its customer base. Moreover, the advertiser fails to explore the scope of areas with the demand, as the existing customer base lies with the retailer. Furthermore, the advertiser only receives a signal that a single location has high demand when the reality is different. ● Digital Marketing Budgets Incur Offline Order Payments Through their digital marketing budget, brands make payouts to affiliates and retailers. As mentioned earlier, the retailer places the order using the fraud affiliate and resources, and the fraud affiliate shares a portion of the earned commission with the retailer. Moreover, the retailer will likely resell these orders at MRP to offline customers and earn more money from the sale. There were no payouts required for these offline orders as the affiliate is incentivizing retailers for placing orders, a.k.a., incentive fraud. Furthermore, the affiliate hides the peaking conversion rate by using bots to deliver high traffic within certain time intervals. For example, an affiliate spikes 1000 visits using bots and displays a 100% conversion rate. As such, CVR can never achieve its full scale. On the other hand, legit affiliates have a 1-1.5% CVR. Therefore, such a high CVR indicates ad fraud and is only done by fraud affiliates to hide their fraud CVR. In reality, the fraud affiliate might be using 100 visits to deliver 100 purchases. Therefore, advertisers are losing the marketing budgets by paying commissions to fraud affiliates and retailers. ● Derails Reachability to Potential New Customers The fraud affiliate uses a retailer to create multiple profiles and place orders at the exact location. As a result, the advertiser fails to build a new customer base. Moreover, the customer base created by the advertiser is also displaying falsified information, as the same retailer creates the profile. Additionally, we can say that fake users also avail of discounts/ offers. Moreover, the advertiser pays a commission to the fraud affiliate for delivering bot traffic and not a single customer. Such partnerships between affiliates and retailers drain the marketing budget to attract legitimate customers from different locations. Furthermore, the advertiser may attract zero customers if the retailer cancels the orders. Takeaway Partnerships between affiliates and retailers are cannibalizing offline orders as online. As a result, brands and advertisers lose their marketing budgets to commission payouts. Also, it leads to warped marketing analytics and polluted business numbers. Putting an end to this is possible by detecting ad fraud, especially incent fraud in marketing campaigns. mFilterIt ad fraud solution detects any sudden spike in online traffic and displays the source credentials to advertisers. As a result, advertisers can recognize the fraud affiliate and attract a new

Are You Using Your Digital Marketing Budgets for Paying Your Offline Orders? Read More »

ad-fraud-attacks

Ad Fraud Attacks on Gaming Apps

Market research suggests that mobile gaming apps will witness a CAGR of 12.3% between 2021 and 2026. The increment is attributed to the boost in WFH conditions, increased smartphone users, and tech adoption over the last couple of years. The penetration of mobile games through social apps like Facebook has also contributed to the incremental rise in the installation of gaming apps. The continents with the highest gaming app adoption include North America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. A NASSCOM study estimated that the potential of the Indian mobile gaming market would reach 628 million users in 2020. The key competitors in the mobile gaming market include Tencent Holdings Limited, Zynga, Activision Blizzard Inc, and many others. The rise in the adoption of gaming apps has increased mobile ad fraud. Our research reveals that less than 36% of the online traffic includes humans, whereas 64% includes good and bad bots. Mobile ad fraud is a technique used by fraudsters to target mobile advertising (bypassing mobile marketing funnels) for obtaining financial gain. Our research states that fraud in apps can range between 18% and 36% depending upon the type. These include click spamming, SDK spoofing, incent fraud, IP fraud, geo fraud, etc. However, these don’t account for the 45% of retargeting ad fraud in the industry. Fraudsters infiltrative apps to steal paid/organic user credits, trigger in-app events, display false event information, etc. Moreover, ad fraud in mobile apps also hampers brand safety. Elimination of mobile ad fraud is important for avoiding misattribution, losing the advertising budget to fraudsters, and building strategies around real-time analytics. 3 Types of Fraud in Gaming Apps ●     CPA Fraud in App CPA models believe that quality users take action after installing the app. Advertisers use factors like tutorial completed, level reached, and in-app purchases to determine users’ lifetime value (LTV). The CPA model was adopted to diminish the install fraud rates. Unfortunately, fraudsters created SIVT or sophisticated invalid traffic to bypass fraud detection and crush in-app economies. Advertisers also generate revenue through in-app marketplaces and purchases. Freemium businesses also make revenue through in-app advertising. Advertisers make revenue based on cost-per-sale models created after analyzing premium users. Fraudsters use ad frauds to obtain the cost per action through in-app ads as the fixed percentages or rates provide high payouts. CPA campaigns are believed to be robust as they deter ad fraud because the general notion assumes that it is difficult to replicate in-app user behavior as compared to faking an install. Unfortunately, the bad actors are far smarter than that. The fraudsters not only use bots to create in-app events, but they go a step further and steal credentials such as account info, and credit details of real users (both organic and paid) who are likely to be far more active within the app. ●     Attribution Hijacking Publishers commonly work with attribution models for tracking events like installs, purchases, link clicks, etc. The fraudster acquires credit for the first/last click before the event, commonly installed in gaming apps. By doing so, fraudsters obtain revenue from advertisers in exchange for the fraud credits. The method affects organic and inorganic users equally. Install hijacking is commonly practiced by injecting false referrals or delivering false click reports. Users who click on an install app are redirected to the Play Store, and whenever the user installs the app on the Android device, the other apps are alerted through Standard Android Broadcast. Any malware installed through another app installation is triggered and builds a fake click report with install attribution towards the partner, even though it came from a media partner. Attribution hijacking is commonly witnessed in retargeting campaigns. ●     SDK Hacking/AKA Spoofing Another fraud that happens through existing malware in user devices through app installation is SDK hacking. This bot fraud spoof installs by tricking servers and providing monetary gain to cybercriminals. Brands using open-source technology or poor encryption should know that fraudsters use these loopholes for manipulating or reverse-engineering attribution codes. Besides installs, SDK spoofing can even tamper with clicks and other engagement signals. Identifying SDK spoofs requires tracking unused SDKs, watching out for install frauds, and generating a report for fraud exposure. The best methods to avoid AKA spoofing are avoiding open source SDKs, ensuring secure communication between SDKs and servers, detecting behavioral anomalies, and using a solution for bot detection. One of the largest drawbacks of mobile ad fraud is account takeover (ATO). It has led to implications like cyberbullying of children, loss of money, and data privacy breaches. Moreover, ATO attacks on apps can reward a fraudster instead of a professional with tournament entries and awards. ATO attacks also cause brand infringements, tarnish a brand’s reputation, and flush goodies out of inactive accounts. Conclusion The presence of ad fraud in the mobile advertising domain is causing serious grievances for advertisers and marketers. Brands should eliminate ad fraud by building marketing strategies with real analytics, saving dollars on spending, and acquiring real conversions. Combating ad fraud and ensuring brand safety requires a 360-degree solution with specialists available around the clock. Moreover, the ad fraud solution should have AI and ML capabilities to detect SIVT, analyze anomalies, and scan the web for brand infringement. By incorporating such a technology, brands can ensure a safer digital ecosystem, ad servers, and systems for managing consumer data. Get in touch to learn more about the Ad fraud attacks.

Ad Fraud Attacks on Gaming Apps Read More »

affiliate-campaign

What to Look for in Your Affiliate Campaign?

Affiliate marketing means hiring people to promote a brand/product/service to boost sales/leads/installs. Affiliates use websites, videos, and social media for advertising/marketing the product or service. Affiliate marketing drives performance. Affiliate marketing drives conversion/ sales/ revenue for a brand. It is one of the most effective tools for establishing a brand. Affiliate marketers combine multiple efforts to achieve the brand’s goals throughout the funnel. They help in attracting new demographics and help establish the market share of the brand by promoting the brand, positioning it ideally, and tapping the untapped regions. Unfortunately, advertisers/brands often become victims of affiliate fraud, i.e., generating fraudulent results in exchange for collecting financial payouts. In 2017, Kevin Frisch, Head of Performance Marketing and CRM, revealed that Uber diminished $100 million of $150 million yearly affiliate marketing spends. The paid promotion was for the installation of the rider app. The brand discovered no change in campaign performance after decreasing the advertising budget. Moreover, the brand detected that paid channel conversions were occurring through organic sources. In 2018, an IAB report stated that one-third of companies spend more than ten percent of their marketing budget on affiliate marketing. The study even revealed that 11% spent more than $100k monthly, whereas 28% invested $25k monthly. 4 Impacts of Affiliate Marketing Scams ● Loss of Trust The infiltration of fraud in affiliate marketing removes advertisers’ faith in running campaigns through it. Affiliate fraud also hampers the market reputation of legitimate publishers and drives away potential revenue from them. It impacts the company’s goodwill and trust negatively. The biggest fear of any business is to lose customers and frauds like this get you closer to this harsh reality. ● Lower ROIs One of the biggest drawbacks is the exponential increase in conversion costs. Bot-simulated clicks appear human, to begin with, and therefore advertisers pay for it. It is when they start engaging with it, that they realize the fake interaction and by then they have already bled their ad budgets. Affiliate fraud jeopardizes the potential ROI of a campaign. Brands receive fake leads/clicks/events that are meaningless. Third-party cookie dropping to simulate a click even though a user hasn’t engaged is a gross waste of advertising dollars. A closer look at down-the-funnel shows ridiculous ratios of click-to-visit and visit conversion ratios. Ultimately, a performance campaign that does not perform is not welcome by brands. ● Misguided Marketing Strategies Inaccurate numbers for running analytics are the foundation of the biggest strategic blunders that a brand can commit. Brands determine their ad campaign strategies based on the clicks, leads, and conversions. Unfortunately, affiliate fraud data adds fake data into the analysis. Because of the polluted data, it becomes challenging for marketers to determine the correct direction/approach for their upcoming campaigns which results in a potential loss of revenue for the brand. ● Devalues Marketing Efforts A recent study mentioned that two-thirds of the traffic online is contributed by good and bad bots and the balance is humans. In a situation like this falling prey to ad fraud can be the last nail in the coffin. Not having access to well-deserved data sets can choke the marketing funnel and create complete chaos within the organization. Exposure to polluted data from a sales/marketing standpoint can fundamentally jeopardize the business as a whole. 3 Methods to Identify Affiliate Fraud ● Unexpected Campaign Results On average, an install or click conversion rate through advertising campaigns doesn’t exceed 10%. So, if you witness a sudden spike of more than 40%, it is most likely fraudulent. Marketers and advertisers should analyze the affiliate source, compare the affiliate with other sources, etc. A proactive approach would include vetting the marketing partner before signing an agreement. Usually, an abnormally high CTR, very short user session (50% lower than average), high bounce rates, and visitors without cookie files are the most common parameters to understand fraud ● Unresponsive Leads As a marketer, it is very important to completely understand a user’s journey. This essentially helps to map the various stages leading up to conversion. This is the key to differentiating between a legitimate and an illegal engagement. Sudden spikes in traffic can be a very short-lived joy as the chances of fake leads being generated are considerably high. Machines don’t pay for things so taking up bot leads and hitting the wall is a marketer’s worst nightmare. ● Spike in Consumers Complaints Contacting forged data leads can often spike consumer complaints, as the person never connected with the brand or its advertisements. The consumer feels that their privacy is violated and they never convert. Moreover, brands can even witness unusual chargebacks or refunds. Many fraudsters make fake sales using stolen credit cards. So, the merchant might witness a high return volume or chargeback after paying a commission to the cybercriminal. Brands should investigate the cause of such complaints and unearth the fraudulent activity. 4 Types of Affiliate Fraud ● Cookie Stuffing Fraudsters use cookie stuffing for lead misattribution and to obtain financial gain from advertisers. A cookie is a tracking tool used for analyzing consumer journeys on a website. Cybercriminals drop third-party cookies on the visitor’s web browser without consent. These redirect the visitors to the brand’s website whenever they view the brand’s advertisement on a partner site. By doing so, fraud affiliates acquire attribution for click/view on the ads. Hence, cybercriminals hamper the campaigns of legitimate affiliates. ● URL Hijacking A common ad fraud practice associated with cookie stuffing is URL hijacking. Cybercriminals create URLs similar to the brand’s product/service pages with typos. A user redirects to the original website page after clicking these duplicate URLs. The Search Engine Result Pages (SERPs) also display the fraudulent results with the typo URL. This activity allows fraudsters to obtain credit for a visit to the brand’s website by stuffing cookies through the fraudulent webpage on the visitor’s browser. ● Transaction Fraud Transaction fraud involves using information from a stolen credit card to purchase a brand’s products/services. It causes credit card chargebacks, steals ad revenue, and

What to Look for in Your Affiliate Campaign? Read More »

Scroll to Top