Google Faces a Vexing Image Crisis

You are currently viewing Google Faces a Vexing Image Crisis
  Reading time 5 minutes

About 80% of Google’s video-ad placements on third-party sites violated promised standards, The Wall Street Journal reports

New discoveries reported by The Wall Street Journal have exposed a troubling surprising fact about Google’s ad practices. The journal’s investigation reveals that around 80% of the ads served by YouTube across the internet have breached the company’s own terms of service, potentially leading to significant financial implications for the tech giant.

The revelation comes at a time when Google is already grappling with multiple challenges, including growing dissatisfaction with search results and ongoing antitrust lawsuits. However, Google has refuted the claims made in the report, asserting that the research methods employed are inaccurate.

Advertisers pay YouTube to have their ads displayed before or after videos, however according to Adalytics data, an advertising research organisation, over half of these commercials are not really aired on YouTube. Through its “Google Video Partners” programme, YouTube also extends its ad reach to other websites and mobile apps. Google claims that these partner sites offer an ad experience equivalent to YouTube, with fully visible advertising and skippable audio.

Contrary to Google’s claims, Adalytics discovered that ads on these partner sites are often muted, autoplay off to the side of the screen, and cannot be skipped. Consequently, the ads advertisers pay YouTube to display do not receive the promised exposure or experience. This has a significant financial impact, as brands typically pay around $100 for every 1,000 views of their ads on third-party sites, anticipating high-quality placements. However, Adalytics found that lower-quality ads were frequently displayed, selling for a mere $5 per 1,000 impressions.

In essence, brands are paying a premium price with the expectation that their ads will be prominently featured on YouTube. In reality, more than half of their ad budgets are being allocated to displaying inferior ads on non-YouTube properties. This glaring discrepancy in price and quality constitutes a substantial loss for advertisers.

The Adalytics study scrutinized ad campaigns from over 1,100 major brands, encompassing billions of ad impressions between 2020 and 2023. The list of affected brands includes industry giants such as Disney+, Samsung, Johnson & Johnson, American Express, Sephora, Macy’s, and even The Wall Street Journal itself. Government organizations like Medicare, the U.S. Army, the Social Security Administration, the EU Parliament, and various New York City municipal agencies were also impacted. Shockingly, their ads were found on disreputable, shady websites disseminating misinformation, hosting pirated content, and other mediocre sites. This directly contradicts Google’s promise that ads would only appear on meticulously screened, high-quality websites.

As expected, advertisers are outraged and are taking steps to claim their funds for these inappropriate ad displays. This backlash poses a warning to Google’s relationships with advertising agencies and its credibility in the advertising market. Joshua Lowcock, global chief media officer at advertising agency UM Worldwide, conveyed his disappointment, stating, “This is an unacceptable breach of trust by YouTube. Google must fix this and fully refund clients for any fraud and impressions that failed to meet Google’s own policies.”

In response to the allegations, Google issued a statement refuting Adalytics’ claims. The company argued that the report relied on “unreliable sampling and proxy methodologies” and characterized the assertions about the Google Video Partners (GVP) network as “extremely inaccurate.” Google sought to clarify that the “overwhelming majority” of video ad campaigns run on YouTube, not GVP.

Google emphasized that GVP is a separate and smaller network designed to help advertisers expand their reach by over 20% and target additional audiences. Advertisers retain full control and transparency over their GVP campaigns, with the ability to opt-out, exclude specific websites, and access real-time reporting on ad placements and expenditures on YouTube versus GVP. To ensure credibility, Google partners with third-party entities, such as DoubleVerify and Moat, to validate GVP ads.

As the controversy deepens, Google faces an uphill battle in recovering advertisers’ trust and restoring its reputation in the ever-competitive advertising landscape.