61% of online advertisers will shift media spend if their verification needs are not met

Nearly all (97 per cent) all of the participants believed that all digital media owners’ inventory should be measured by a third party, with 61 percent of ANA respondents indicating they would shift their spending elsewhere if digital media owners did not provide independent measurement.

Additionally, nearly two-thirds of respondents claimed they feel "very strongly" that a digital media owner should have their "internally derived metrics" accredited by a third party, such as the Media Ratings Council (MRC).

The report goes on to note how "some large media owners do not allow third-party measurement vendors to report viewable ad impressions to their clients", instead they opt for the aforementioned "internally derived metrics".

The above statement can be viewed as a broadsword at the internet's largest media owners, such as Facebook and Google, who have recently relented to advertisers' calls for third party verification of the viewability of ads bought on their properties.

Bob Liodice, ANA president and chief executive, added: “During a time of intense scrutiny on transparency and accountability, it’s vitally important that all digital media owners measure viewability by an independent third party, consistent with industry standards. That’s just ‘table stakes’ for digital advertising."

However, it is worth noting that the ANA survey results was based on the responses of over 150 ANA members (all brand-side advertisers) taken during the summer of 2015, prior to the announcement of the aforementioned changes from both Facebook and Google.

A release promoting the study also contains a supporting statement from trade body the 4A's, which reads: "The 4A’s feels that the growing importance of this issue is demonstrated by the fact that 61 percent of clients are willing to shift dollars to digital media owners which use independent measurement sources."

Despite these reassuring moves from some of the internet's largest players, advertisers must also grapple with the diversity of reporting methodologies from the ad tech vendors accredited by the MRC (currently numbering over 20).

The problems with ad tech vendors trumpeting MRC accreditation of their measurement capabilities have been highlighted by equivalent trade bodies such as JICWEBS members, including auditing body ABC, which have bemoaned discrepancies in the measurement methodologies of such players.

Previously speaking with The Drum, Richard Foan, noted: “The industry has more work to do when it comes to reducing discrepancies, and coming up we will be looking at things like measuring video, such as how to measure when an ad is being played, and whether the sound is on, etc.”

The problem with fragmentation over viewability is likely to be exacerbated by the industry's shift to mobile. Also speaking recently with The Drum, comScore's chief research officer, Josh Chasin noted how a recent MRC "reconciliation study" that looked at the various reporting numbers of different ad tech vendors found that mobile was the biggest area of disagreement.

For instance, many maintain that as long as an ad is served in-app that it is deemed viewable, while many take issue with this. "We all know that this isn't the case. A lot of people are misidentifying ads as being seen when they are not," says Chasin.

The Drum will host its Programmatic Punch conference on 8 December in Hospital Club, London, where issues around transparency in the online media sector will be debated by representatives from across each tier of the industry.