MAM
Havas launches meta quality barometer to tackle ad fraud
MUMBAI: As per eMarketer ad fraud is a top concern for both media buyers (33 per cent) and suppliers (44 per cent), and both groups also show great concern for ad viewability.
Adledge estimates that only 42 per cent of all impressions served were considered ‘visible’ according to the definition of the Interactive Advertising Bureau and eight per cent were displayed in a potentially damaging context for the advertiser.
White Ops recently reported that non-human traffic (aka bots) alone will cost digital advertisers worldwide over $6.3 billion this year.
To improve media inventory and campaign quality, Havas Media Group has launched a unique Meta Quality Barometer, based on a comprehensive, inclusive approach to data. The Meta Quality Barometer from Artemis Alliance delivers continuously updated data across global, pluri-media campaigns, to share with all stakeholders (technology partners, media publishers and clients) to optimise investments.
Havas Media Group global managing director Dominique Delport said, “Confidence in data quality is a critical issue for our industry. The scale of fraudulent inventory generated by sophisticated ‘bots’ is extremely concerning and neither media vendors nor agencies are safe. We need to bring trust and clarity back for our clients. For these reasons Havas has invested in our best-in-class Artemis Alliance data platform for over a decade. Now it manages 100 per cent of our online campaigns, harvesting over 300 billion secure and disaggregated data points each year and was recently awarded ISO27001 certification by Bureau Veritas. Its focus – to create an actionable measurement for viewability, brand protection, media inventory and campaign quality.”
He added, “As a result, we are delighted to launch the first Meta Quality Barometer for our industry. Helping us to connect the dots of the most advanced tech providers, delivering a unique and systematic “meta” barometer on data integrity, security and brand safety. This will facilitate and boost our communications with media owners to increase the quality of inventory for our clients. I am extremely proud of the teams in Artemis Alliance who have formalised a systematic approach to challenging industry practices so that we can help to provide better business solutions for our clients and media partners.”
Leveraging its extensive experience in handling event level data, Artemis Alliance collects detailed and raw data from all of its technology partners (Adledge, Catchpoint, ClarityAd, Hub’Scan, WhiteOps, Integral Ad Science and Peer39/Sizmek). That data, at its most granular level, is used to analyse and score the quality of the media inventory by industry, by market and by media owner.
Havas Media Group EVP Media Futures & Innovation Rob Griffin summarised, “This is a win-win deal. We can now pull in data from across all screens, technology companies and media partners to provide the first external, objective review of outcomes across the five critical areas of Compliance, Experience, Impact, Context and Traffic. While we can’t guarantee 100 per cent viewability or zero fraud, we can make a commitment to our clients and our publishers to improve the quality of inventory available and make the information clear and easy to activate. The ultimate win, therefore, will be for clients, who will benefit from smarter solutions and cleaner data to drive investments and business decisions.”
With the help of extensively researched data, the Meta Quality Barometer covers five main areas:
1. Compliance: Matching impressions against purchased media
Artemis Alliance rates media owners’ compliance with campaign directives: promise (purchased versus delivered media) and technical qualifications (specifications and requirements). Artemis Alliance constantly audits both tagging systems (with partner Hub’Scan) and creative work provided for each campaign (with partner ClarityAd).
2. Experience: User experience
Artemis Alliance takes into account user experience and user interaction with campaign messages, in particular how long it takes for pages and ads to load for users (with partner Catchpoint), as well as where the ads are located on the page.
3. Impact: Viewability and performance auditing
Artemis Alliance can correlate performance (in particular in terms of audience) and viewability of media campaigns, to gauge their impact, through automatic and personalized tracking for each advertiser and for each action.
4. Context: Media content and brand safety
Brand safety services are codes inserted in campaign tags, which allow Artemis Alliance to protect a brand’s image, quantify the number of blocked impressions (undesirable context), and identify the context where these impressions were delivered (with partners Adledge, Peer39).
5. Traffic: Securing campaign distribution
To combat the rise of illegitimate Internet traffic worldwide, Artemis Alliance provides teams with both manual and technological solutions. Media teams identify and blacklist all suspect URLs based on abnormal click-rates, coded URLs and pages without ads. Artemis Alliance also works with several anti-fraud technology solutions to better protect our campaign results (with partners Adledge, Peer39, Integral Ad Science, White Ops, etc).
MAM
Brands push beyond compliance as trust takes centre stage
ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026 spotlights shift from legal checks to credibility.
MUMBAI: In a world where a disclaimer can be legally sound yet socially suspect, brands are learning that compliance may tick boxes but trust wins markets. At the inaugural ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026, a panel on “Beyond Compliance: The New Currency of Trust” unpacked a growing industry reality: the gap between what the law permits and what consumers accept is widening and fast.
Moderated by Meenakshi Ramkumar of National Law School of India University, the discussion brought together leaders across law, marketing and academia to examine how brands must evolve in a digital ecosystem increasingly shaped by scrutiny, scepticism and speed.
Ramkumar set the tone by highlighting a critical shift, advertising today operates in the same digital space that fuels misinformation, scams and fake news, making credibility harder to establish. “The challenge is not just about what brands do, but the broader context of low institutional trust,” she noted, adding that when violations go unchecked, trust erodes not just in brands but in the regulatory system itself.
This vacuum, she said, has given rise to consumer activism from boycotts to social media backlash as a parallel accountability mechanism.
For Amit Bhasin, Chief Legal Officer at Marico, the distinction was clear, legal compliance is non negotiable, but insufficient. “Compliance is the minimum threshold. The real challenge is staying aligned with changing consumer expectations,” he said.
He pointed to how advertising narratives have evolved from traditional depictions of gender roles to more shared responsibilities reflecting a broader societal shift. “Earlier, it was fine to show one person doing the household work. Today, that may not land well. Consumers expect brands to reflect reality,” Bhasin observed.
He also highlighted internal debates where campaigns that may be legally permissible are still rejected for being culturally insensitive, noting that responsible advertising often requires asking uncomfortable questions before the public does.
If compliance is the baseline, reputation is the battlefield.
Bhasin noted that reputational risk has become a far greater concern than legal exposure, particularly in an era where campaigns can be dissected within hours online. “Earlier, a controversial ad might invite a newspaper editorial. Today, within hours, you’re at the centre of a storm,” he said.
Brands, he added, now evaluate campaigns through a dual lens legal viability and reputational vulnerability with the latter often proving more decisive.
From a healthcare perspective, Satish Sahoo of Cipla Health underscored the complexity of operating within fragmented yet stringent regulatory frameworks, spanning drugs, food, cosmetics and Ayush. “Anything under a drug licence is the most tightly regulated,” he said, adding that this necessitates proactive, not reactive, compliance.
He shared an example from the oral rehydration salts (ORS) category, where Cipla resisted the temptation to position products aggressively despite competitive pressure. “Our product is WHO compliant, and our communication reflects that. We chose not to blur the lines, even if others did,” he noted.
The long term payoff, he suggested, lies in credibility built over consistency, not quick wins.
Yet, as Harsha N of National Law School of India University pointed out, even perfect compliance does not guarantee trust. Drawing from historical and modern examples from exaggerated product claims in the 1800s to contemporary environmental and health advertising, he argued that legal frameworks often lag behind consumer expectations. “A brand can be fully compliant and still be perceived as misleading,” he said, citing instances where fine print disclosures fail to reach or convince the average consumer. He added that larger companies carry a disproportionate responsibility to set ethical benchmarks, even in areas where the law remains silent.
The conversation also turned to digital advertising, where the challenge extends beyond content to how ads are experienced. From algorithmic targeting to personalised messaging, brands now operate in an environment where regulation struggles to keep pace with technology.
Sahoo noted that social media has amplified awareness, with influencers and consumers increasingly scrutinising product claims and calling out inconsistencies. “Awareness has gone up dramatically. People are questioning what goes into products and what brands are saying,” he said.
The role of self regulatory bodies such as Advertising Standards Council of India also came under the spotlight.
Harsha acknowledged that while SROs play a crucial role, they are not immune to criticism, particularly around perceived conflicts of interest and enforcement gaps. “SROs have a higher threshold of responsibility not just to interpret the law, but to anticipate societal expectations,” he said.
He added that failures in self regulation often push the burden back onto government intervention, underscoring the need for stronger, more proactive oversight.
One of the more nuanced debates centred on whether building trust comes at a cost. While Sahoo acknowledged that quality and compliance can increase costs, he argued that companies must absorb them as part of their long term strategy.
Bhasin, however, framed the challenge differently not as cost, but as competitiveness in a market where not all players play by the same rules. “The real tension is when others cut corners and you choose not to,” he said.
The panel concluded with a call to embed trust into business metrics.
Sahoo suggested that organisations must go beyond revenue targets to include consumer equity and trust based KPIs, ensuring that ethical considerations are not sidelined in the pursuit of growth. “Trust sounds abstract, but it can translate into measurable consumer equity,” he said.
As the discussion wrapped up, one message stood out: the rules of advertising are being rewritten not just by regulators, but by consumers themselves. In an ecosystem where attention is fleeting and scepticism is high, brands that merely comply may survive, but those that build trust are the ones that endure.
