Ad quality isn't a checkbox - it's a context

"If you ask someone in ad tech what makes an ad "quality," chances are they'll fire off a familiar answer: "Viewable." "Human." And just like that - it's case closed. But consider this claim: The above barely scratches the surface. Yes, for years, these two metrics - human and viewable - shaped how advertisers measure, price and evaluate ad placements, treating them as matter-of-fact, not pausing to question them."

"But here's the thing: The very fact that an ad meets the standard doesn't mean it made an impact. It doesn't even guarantee it was actually seen. The ad ecosystem has matured. So have advertisers' capabilities. But the metrics that are relied on? They're still stuck in a world where "technically visible" is good enough. It's time the industry revisits what quality really looks like and what signals actually indicate whether an impression had impact."

Ad quality cannot be reduced to being merely viewable and human. The one-second, 50-percent viewability benchmark often registers impressions that never register with consumers, such as quickly scrolled banners or fleeting roadside billboards. Reliance on technical minimums misleads pricing and optimization toward metrics that do not guarantee impact. Advertisers have access to richer signals that better indicate whether an impression had the conditions to influence audiences. Measurement should shift toward outcome-based metrics and underutilized indicators like time-in-view to ensure spending aligns with actual ad effectiveness rather than superficial technical thresholds.

Read at Digiday