BEARNE ON MEDIA
IASH takes step backwards with proposed member chair
Share
The news IASH has opted against appointing an independent person as chair of the ad network trade body is disappointing.
IASH, which has a chequered history but has been enjoying a smooth ride for nearly a year, has made significant strides to improve its image, such as looking to introduce a centralised database to classify sites for ad networks.
With this in mind, opting for a non-independent chair could be viewed as a major move backward.
When former chair and founder of Unanimis Khalil Ibrahimi announced he was stepping down in 2007, members and agencies called for an independent chair without any vested interest. But IASH’s interim chair Richard Sharp, who has been heading it since independent chair James Aitken stepped down, says the ad network body is preparing to appoint an IASH member. He argues the body already has an independent voice in IASH manager Julia Smith.
Smith has done an amazing job since taking the reins in January. She’s been busy organising a centralised site vetting system and trying to extend the body to include ad exchanges and video ad networks. So in fact it’s almost surprising that her role wasn’t expanded to include chairing the body as well. Perhaps Smith could have stepped up to combine the roles and chaired the Council without any bias.
At a time when there have been many redundancies within the media industry, including ad networks, it’s baffling that none of the members could nominate an ex-Microsoft or AOL employee to take up the role.
It’s a shame, as the addition of an independent chair would have continued the increasingly improved reputation that IASH has worked hard for over the past year.
Ratings of the Top 100 interactive agencies
Directory of all Marketing Services companies
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | Tue, 2 Jun 2009 2:33 pm
What is IASH exactly? How do they actually audit the integrity of the sales houses that are members? having worked for an organisation that audits on a live basis, the performance of such networks, I failt to see the benefit of IASH accredition, more specifically in relations to the advertisers whose brands they are affecting.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 2 Jun 2009 4:40 pm
IASH needs to implement an ad misplacement technology.
They consistently come up with excuses for this simple technology, by setting the demands so high that they are impossible to meet. The technology required to ensure banner misplacement is independently monitored - in a manner that IASH members are not able to detect - requires IASH members to actually give these auditing powers to the company they appointed to audit their activity, namely ABCE. They seem rather too precious about something or other - expecting everyone to accept the same "self-regulatory" model that led to financial crises. We'll know they are clean when they genuinely give their regulators some teeth and a bite, rather than just a warning bark!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 2 Jun 2009 5:39 pm
Ad misplacement technology would be an excellent start for the likes of IASH to set standards, for such sales houses' to actually adhere to. However, what about ads that aren't actually being delivered, yet these so-called IASH accredited sales houses' are claiming to be paid for? Surely this should be looked into independently?
I think its fair to say that there are a lot of inherent relationships with each sales house, along with the publishers that are appearing in their networks.
I've come across far too many IASH accredited ad networks, whose 6 monthly ABCE "audits" cannot even pick up a large majority of what we do on a daily basis, in the interest of the advertiser. What's the point of having a body like this at all?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:46 am
Does anyone actually care about IASH ? All major ad networks will provide some sort of 'guarantee' to agencies about placement anyway. Bottom line, can anyone from an agency honestly say that they make planning decisions based on whether a network is in IASH or not. Or more to the point, if a network offered a placement 'guarantee' and a good price, would anyone from an agency turn down the buy because the network wasn't in IASH ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:00 pm
Lets turn this round a bit. We are an IASH network and very much proud of it. Mainly for the reason that it shows we are trying to make things better. It costs a lot of time and money to become a member and is very much a formal stand on what the network believe is right. Of course with out solid technology in place there is always going to be a chance an ad get placed where it shouldn't be. Sadly there are some cash hungry publishers that just want the quick money and are willing to break contracts and rules to make it. . I personally think its going to be a while until 100% safe, but IASH does make the whole situation massively better than buying from a non member. IASH has definitely made display advertising a much safer place for advertisers using IASH accredited networks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 25 Jun 2009 9:28 pm
The previous posting (25th June) is daft.
Firstly, odd that a network so 'very much proud' would choose to remain anonymous !
Let's get this straight. IASH will not reach 100% safe. It can't. And every member, or at least every member with any real experience, knows this. You may take every precaution for 100 billion ads, but it'll be the dozen that were accidently or otherwise posted on the wrong tags in the wrong place by some publisher or link in the chain and ended up in the wrong place. Or simply, just ended up on the wrong part of an 'approved' site accidently. And then the whole system falls down - and takes all the other members with it. The bigger you get, the riskier it gets for all the other members. IASH doesn't prevent bad placement, it simply draws more attention when one of the networks messes things up.
Let's also be clear on another point - even with a 'solid' technology in place, it cannot stop ads ended up on the wrong page at the wrong moment. It just might, and it's a thin 'just', retrospectively catch it.
The end result ? Buyers will trust each network and publisher on it's own merit. Like they always have done. IASH just 'costs a lot of time and money' and achieves very little, if anything at all, in terms of affecting an agencies or advertisers decision to buy.
Finally, I disagree with the 'IASH has definately made display advertising ... safer..'. Rubbish. It's simply fear of getting caught that has done that. IASH has just added a bunch of paperwork. The idea that a bad network affected all network buying was a load of rubbish anyway. All IASH has done is dumped everyone in the same, poorly made, boat.
There.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment