A Comscore report shows that most advertisers plan to maintain or increase programmatic ad spend this year, but the share of advertisers planning increases has dropped significantly from prior years. That decline reflects growing unease—yet marketers continue to invest heavily despite well-documented programmatic fraud. Instead of confronting systemic issues, many rely on optimization myths and vendor assurances. At this point, continuing to pour money into a fraud-ridden ecosystem looks less like a strategy and more like willful ignorance.
According to a new report from Comscore, a strong majority of advertisers plan to either increase or maintain their programmatic advertising investment this year. On the surface, that sounds like confidence. Dig a little deeper, and it appears to be denial.
While 58% of respondents say they plan to increase their programmatic spend this year, that figure is down sharply from 72% last year and 62% the year before. In other words, enthusiasm is fading — but not fast enough.
Despite years of headlines, lawsuits, and internal audits showing widespread fraud across the programmatic ecosystem, marketers are still largely staying the course. That raises an uncomfortable question: are marketers making informed decisions, or are they simply unwilling to confront an inconvenient truth?
The Programmatic Fraud Problem Isn’t New
Programmatic fraud isn’t some emerging risk that caught the industry off guard. It’s been well documented for years. Fake inventory. Bot traffic. MFA (Made for Advertising) sites. Domain spoofing. Ad stacking. Pixel stuffing. The list goes on.
And yet, many marketers continue to act as if fraud is either:
- Someone else’s problem (the agency’s, the platform’s, the DSP’s), or
- An acceptable cost of doing business.
Neither stance holds up.
If any other line item in a marketing budget carried the risk that a meaningful percentage of the spend would be stolen outright, executives would shut it down immediately. Programmatic somehow gets a pass.
“We’ll Optimize Later” Is Not a Strategy
One reason programmatic spend remains resilient is inertia. Once budgets are locked in and dashboards are built, it’s easier to tweak targeting or frequency than to fundamentally question whether the channel is delivering real value.
Marketers tell themselves they’ll “optimize out” fraud.
They rely on vendors who promise “industry-leading fraud protection.”
They trust metrics that are often generated by the same ecosystem that profits from inflated impressions.
That’s not skepticism. That’s wishful thinking.
Declining Enthusiasm Should Be a Warning Sign
The fact that fewer marketers plan to increase programmatic spend compared to previous years is telling. It suggests cracks are forming. Some teams are finally asking tougher questions. Some finance leaders are demanding proof that impressions equal outcomes. Some CMOs are realizing that “cheap reach” isn’t cheap if no one actually sees the ad.
But the bigger issue is this: why are 58% still planning to increase spend at all, given what we know?
At some point, continuing to invest heavily in a system riddled with fraud isn’t optimism — it’s negligence.
Accountability Is Still Missing
The programmatic ecosystem thrives on complexity. Complexity makes it harder to assign blame, trace dollars, and admit mistakes. Marketers are rarely incentivized to say, “We wasted millions.”
Until advertisers demand real transparency — not just prettier dashboards — programmatic fraud will remain embedded in the system.
As long as marketers continue to fund it, the system has no incentive to change.
Discover more from New Media and Marketing
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
