1. MRC VIEWABLE IMPRESSION RECONCILIATION PROCESS: PHASE 3 RESULTS AND MOVING FORWARD Presented to IAB 3MS Educational Forum July 8, 2015

2. AGENDA  Background on the Viewable Impression Standard  History of Reconciliation Phases  Reconciliation Phase 3: Approach and Findings  Moving Forward Time for questions and discussion… 2

3. Background on the Standard 3

4. MRC Mission Statement  To secure for the media industry and related users measurement services that are valid, reliable and effective; we do this by:  Setting Standards; and  Conducting Audits to Verify Compliance with Standards. 4

5. Development of the Viewable Impression Standard  Timelines:  First viewability measurers emerge circa 2009-2010  3MS project launches in 2010, 3MS “Principles” published in September 2011  Agency Pilot conducted, Summer 2012  MRC Advisory Period in effect, November 2012-March 2014  Viewable Impression Guidelines Issued, June 2014  Vendor reconciliation phases:  Early 2014, Late 2014-Early 2015, Spring 2015 5

6. Reconciliation History 6

7. Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Why It’s Necessary Reconciliation Process Always Part of the Plan Some counting differences were expected Similar to Publisher vs. Third Party Ad Servers in Served Impression counting a decade ago A critical mass of accredited vendors was necessary prior to beginning a reconciliation effort Reasons differences in counting might be observed: Different measurement orientations Ex.: 3 rd party vs. ad server vs. publisher Differences in abilities to measure in all situations Differences in processes and/or ordering of processes applied 7

8. Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Phase 1  Findings issued on 3/31/14 as part of MRC Viewable Impression Advisory Update  Reasons identified for measurement differences included: 1. Granularity of Measurements 2. Non-rendered served ads 3. Order of processing and processes applied 4. Ad measurement vs. Ad Container measurement 5. Out of Focus conditions 6. Human error 8 Provisions to account for each of the above issues were included in the final Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines, issued June 30, 2014.

9. Viewable Impression Measurement Reconciliation: Phase 2 Findings  Issued to Viewability Vendors and Auditors on 4/13/15  Reasons identified for persistence in measurement differences included: 1. Inconsistent application of the optional large pixel threshold 2. Inconsistencies in measurement of multi-ad units 3. Inconsistencies in the use of the Page Visibility API 4. Inconsistencies in the use of the Flash “Throttle” indicator 5. Inconsistencies in processes applied by vendors who also provide “Enhanced NHT” filtration 6. Inconsistencies related to calculation of Viewable Rates using Count on Decision served impression measurements 9 Vendors put on alert to address each issue in near-term, as requirements around each will be included in next update to Viewable Impression Guidelines.

10. Reconciliation: Phase 3 10

11. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Background  MRC issued broad call to the industry on January 16, 2015, requesting data for campaigns measured by 2 or more accredited viewability vendors  All information provided on strictly confidential basis  In response, we received campaigns from a broad range of publishers, agencies, and marketers  Nearly 4 billion served impressions  Included display and video ads, covering a wide range of placements and sites  Campaign data included most major viewability vendors 11

12. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Differences by Campaign 12 Among campaigns with more than 100,000 viewable impressions.

13. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Topline Findings  Among sizable campaigns* examined, 63% of campaigns had viewable impression measurement differences of less than 10%  The weighted average of these differences was 4.1%  Among the 37% of campaigns where differences of 10% or more were observed, the median difference was 23%, and the weighted average difference was 34%  These ranges were higher than seen in prior reconciliations  Smaller campaigns demonstrated more variability  But reasons for differences consistent with larger campaigns 13 * = defined as >100,000 viewable impressions

14. Reconciliation Project: Reasons for Differences Observed 14 Among all campaigns for which data was received.

15. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences* Issue 1: 54% of the total difference was a result of differing treatments of mobile viewable impressions. Differences attributable to mobile viewable impression measurement have grown since our earlier reconciliation work. Segregation of mobile counts is highly critical. No one is currently accredited by MRC for mobile viewable impression measurement. 15 * Percentages based on data from all campaigns received.

16. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences Issue 2: 28% of the total differences observed was a result of differing treatments of multi-ad unit situations This issue was addressed in MRC’s April 2015 reconciliation guidance to vendors, and will be formally introduced into the Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines shortly when that document is formally updated. 16

17. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences Issue 3: 13% of the total differences observed was a result of differences in whether vendors measured ad traffic in campaigns served by ad servers other than themselves This was a new finding of Phase 3 of the reconciliation process, and will be addressed in the next update to the Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines document. 17

18. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences Issue 4: 2% was a result of differences in the application of certain ad verification processes This issue was addressed in the original Viewability Guidelines release, and reinforced in our April 2015 reconciliation communication to vendors. It will be emphasized again in the next update to the Guidelines document. 18

19. Reconciliation Project Phase 3: Reasons Identified for Differences Issue 5: The remaining 3% resulted from other causes, such as differing treatments of Large Size display ads; differing applications of invalid traffic filtration; and non-rendered ads included in served impression counts. This reconciliation provided more evidence that many non-rendered ads are currently being counted as served impressions, not only with “count on decision” methodologies, but sometimes even when a “count on download” approach is utilized. While this issue may have a limited impact on viewability metrics, it still needs to be addressed in the near future. 19

20. Moving Forward: Key Next Steps 20

21. MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward  The Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines document will be formally updated within the next 30 days to reflect the reconciliation learnings  Accredited vendors will have limited time to achieve compliance with any new or revised provisions  Mobile Viewable Impression Measurement Guidelines development is in progress  Interim Guidance on Mobile Viewability currently in place 21

22. MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward  Fact: Viewable impression measurement will never be completely static  Recognition that it will evolve and improve over time, as result of technological and other innovation  These changes may have impacts on reconciling vendors’ measurement results 22

23. MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward  MRC’s Work in this Area Going Forward  Audit and accreditation process replaces ad hoc reconciliation testing as primary means for achieving and maintaining consistency in accredited vendors’ measurements  Issues will be investigated and run to ground as they arise in audits and as special circumstances are brought to our attention  Additional guidance and updates to MRC Viewable Impression Guidelines will be provided as needed 23

24. MRC Reconciliation Findings: Moving Forward 24 A Key Point for All Users of Viewable Impression Data: Pay Attention to the Issues Identified Through Reconciliation, and Understand How Your Vendors Address Each

25. Discussion, Q&A George Ivie givie@mediaratingcouncil.orggivie@mediaratingcouncil.org Ron Pinelli rpinelli@mediaratingcouncil.orgrpinelli@mediaratingcouncil.org David Gunzerath dgunzerath@mediaratingcouncil.orgdgunzerath@mediaratingcouncil.org (212) 972-0300 25 Thank You!