People continue to ask me why I stress the concept of the tech-tax so much.

Why does a true understanding of ad-fraud depend SO heavily on an understanding of the technology tax?

Well, since 55% (http://digital.pwc.com/insights/iab-programmatic-advertising-revenue-report/) of programmatic ad revenue is taken up by the technology layers between the advertiser and the publisher, it is also true that ad-tech as an institution makes 55% of the ad-fraud revenue that is generated. Even if you take the industry’s public estimates:

$7.2 Billion — ANA

$8.2 Billion — IAB

$18.5 Billion — Distil Networks

The ANA estimate would suggest that $3,960,000,000 of revenue across ad-tech companies is from fraudulent traffic/practices.

The IAB estimate would suggest that $4,510,000,000 of revenue across ad-tech companies is from fraudulent traffic/practices.

The Distil Networks estimate would suggest that $10,170,000,000 of revenue across ad-tech companies is from fraudulent traffic/practices.

Many ad-tech companies would dissolve and disappear if it were not for ad-fraud revenue.

When trying to combat fraud from the advertiser side, brands MUST understand that ad-tech as an institution benefits more financially from fraud than the “fraudsters” do.