Pixalate’s analysis of IAB Tech Lab’s app-ads.txt and ads.txt programs reveals that over 182,000 apps and over 1.2 million domains have adopted the initiative
PALO ALTO, March 2, 2020 — Pixalate, a global ad fraud intelligence and marketing compliance platform, today announced the release of its 2019 App-ads.txt and Ads.txt Trends Report. The report updates programmatic buyers and sellers on the latest trends around the IAB Tech Lab's initiatives.
Key Findings: 5,550% growth in app-ads.txt adoption in 2019
App-ads.txt’s explosive growth: 5,550% rise in app-ads.txt adoption in 2019; over 182,000 apps now have app-ads.txt
Ad fraud (IVT) impact: Apps with app-ads.txt had 13% less invalid traffic (IVT), but domains with ads.txt had more IVT (17%) compared to those without
iOS has faster adoption for programmatic buyers: 73% of the top 1,000 iOS apps in terms of programmatic ad volume have app-ads.txt, compared to 53% of the top 1,000 Android apps; programmatic ad volume as measured by Pixalate
Ads.txt adoption doubles YoY: The desktop ads.txt program is still growing, with over 1.2 million domains now having ads.txt files
Top SSPs: Google and Rubicon Project rank high across the board on both app-ads.txt and ads.txt files
Latest adoption trends for app-ads.txt and ads.txt
App-ads.txt adoption comparison for iOS vs. Android
Ad fraud (IVT) impact for both app-ads.txt and ads.txt
Adoption rates for the most popular apps & domains
Top SSPs for Android, iOS, and desktop (broken down as ‘reseller’ and ‘direct’)
“It’s encouraging to see ads.txt adoption reach critical mass, unlocking new scale and eliminating the risk of buyers going through unauthorized channels,” said Jalal Nasir, CEO of Pixalate. “With the right checks and balances, brands can avoid buying misrepresented inventory in the programmatic supply chain.”
The content of this press release, and the 2019 App-ads.txt and Ads.txt Trends Report, reflect Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that, opinions, which means that they are neither facts nor guarantees.
Disclaimer: The content of this blog reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that - opinion, not facts or guarantees.
Per the MRC,
“'Fraud' is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in U.S. Court or other
legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes. Also per the MRC,
“‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic
that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts.
Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”