Inconsistencies in Classification of Online News Articles: A Call for Common Standards in Brand Safety Services

TL;DR

This paper investigates the inconsistencies among leading brand safety providers in classifying online news articles, highlighting the need for standardized standards to improve accuracy and trust in digital advertising.

Contribution

It provides an empirical analysis of classification discrepancies across three major brand safety services for news content, emphasizing the necessity for common standards.

Findings

Significant discrepancies found between providers' classifications.

Inconsistencies can lead to misallocated advertising budgets.

Highlights the need for standardized classification systems.

Abstract

This study examines inconsistencies in the brand safety classifications of online news articles by analyzing ratings from three leading brand safety providers, DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science, and Oracle. We focus on news content because of its central role in public discourse and the significant financial consequences of unsafe classifications in a sector that is already underserved by digital ad spending. By collecting data from 4,352 news articles on 51 domains, our analysis shows that brand safety services often produce conflicting classifications, with significant discrepancies between providers. These inconsistencies can have harmful consequences for both advertisers and publishers, leading to misplaced advertising spending and revenue losses. This research provides critical insights into the shortcomings of the current brand safety landscape. We argue for a standardized and transparent brand safety system to mitigate the harmful effects of the current system on the digital advertising ecosystem.