We love blaming walled gardens for grading their own homework. Fair enough. But everyone’s doing it. Agencies, brands, and platforms configure measurement around their goals. Platforms define engagement and attribution in ways that emphasize their value, while agencies and brands structure reporting around what they can optimize or defend. The result is multiple accurate views shaped by how each system is set up.
Marketers configure systems differently and create their own categories and definitions based on their needs. Then they blame the industry when the data doesn’t reconcile. They spend too much time pointing at what they can’t control while ignoring what they can.
Marketers don’t control every platform, but they do control the requirements they set and the partners they fund. As you plan for 2027, three things need to change.
1. Build the campaign to support MTA, MMM, and incrementality
Campaign setup limits what measurement can tell you.
Most teams inherit setup practices and rarely question them. They activate as usual without asking whether the campaign will support the business questions that matter.
Problems appear later. Campaign and placement names become strings of codes that no one outside the team that created them can decipher. Creative filenames reveal little about the message, format, audience, or version. Tracking pixels, click trackers, and site-served creative can leave gaps in what ran, where, and which creative was seen.
Multi-touch attribution (MTA) needs usable exposure, interaction, and conversion signals. Marketing mix modeling (MMM) needs stable, comparable inputs over time. Incrementality needs a valid comparison designed before media runs. If those requirements aren’t built in before launch, the data won’t support the questions marketers want answered afterward.
Recommendation: Audit how campaigns are set up, activated, and tracked across platforms, agencies, and teams. Review identifiers, naming rules, conversion definitions, attribution settings, and tracking configurations against the questions MTA, MMM, and incrementality must answer. Fix the structural gaps.
10X your SEO with Semrush for Enterprise.
The world’s most powerful SEO platform, purpose-built for Enterprise.
Request demo
2. Harmonize measurement with a common language
When I started Project Eidos at IAB, one of the first priorities was developing a common taxonomy for ad inventory and ad types. Agencies said, “We already have a taxonomy.” Then they admitted maintaining a different version for every client.
Everyone labels things their own way, and analysts spend hours translating before analysis can begin.
“We need to customize this to align with how the client wants to see it” sounds reasonable. But when every client has a different language, customization becomes fragmentation. A company may need its own reporting views, categories, and levels of detail. Those can sit atop a common structure. They shouldn’t replace it.
IAB and IAB Tech Lab have developed campaign data standards and other taxonomies and technical standards covering audiences, content, ad products, inventory, and measurement signals. They aren’t one-size-fits-all, and they won’t make every dataset complete. But they give marketers, agencies, publishers, and other media owners, platforms, and technology providers a common foundation for describing and exchanging information.
But standards won’t solve fragmentation if only part of the supply chain uses them. Analysts still have to translate the same information, and the results remain difficult to compare.
AI makes this more urgent. It may combine five different definitions of engagement without knowing whether they represent the same behavior. Unless those definitions and calculations are documented and mapped to a common structure, AI can produce a confident answer based on mismatched inputs. Agents need that common language, too. Without it, they can’t reliably compare inventory, recommend allocations, or evaluate results.
Recommendation: Treat applicable industry taxonomies and technical standards as table stakes for campaign setup, reporting, and partner data mapping. Add custom fields only where necessary and preserve a clear mapping to the common structure. Require partners to disclose which standards and versions they support, along with any modifications or omitted fields. Put those requirements in onboarding and contracts, and review compliance regularly.
3. You want transparency and accuracy. Prove it.
Every marketer says they want transparent, independently reviewed measurement. If it matters so much, why isn’t it a routine requirement when partners are selected and renewed?
Certification, accreditation, and independent audits can be expensive and take time. Avoiding that work has a cost, too: companies apply different methods and filters, then report the results under the same metric name. If you’re wondering why measurement remains broken, start there.
Following an industry standard is a claim. External review provides evidence that the relevant implementation or service has been evaluated. That review may take the form of technical compliance certification, measurement accreditation, or other market- or service-specific assurance.
As of August 2026, the Media Rating Council’s digital accreditation directory contained 40 digital service listings from about 25 providers. Now compare that with the number of platforms marketers use and the metrics they rely on. Yet marketers continue to fund widely used platforms and rely on their metrics. That is a market failure, not a technical one.
Recommendation: Don’t accept “we follow industry standards and guidelines” as the answer. Require partners to document how their counts are calculated, where their methods differ, and exactly what has been independently reviewed. Make applicable certifications, accreditations, and other forms of independent assurance part of partner selection and renewal, or require a firm timeline for obtaining them. If independent measurement matters, fund the companies willing to prove their work.
Stop applying digital duct tape
If nothing changes, next year we’ll blame AI instead of signal loss. Give AI bad data and it will scale the problem, then deliver the answer with confidence.
Marketers don’t need to become engineers, auditors, or media operations specialists. But they need enough technical understanding to ask better questions about campaign setup, partner standards, and what is actually certified or accredited. They also need to stay current as standards evolve and engage with the groups shaping them.
This takes time, expertise, and investment. But marketers should fund the foundation before buying another tool that simply works around its weaknesses. Otherwise, it adds another layer of digital duct tape.
You decide which partners get renewed, which platforms get next year’s budget, and whether existing standards are actually enforced. You’re writing the check. Set the terms.
Fix the setup. Unify the language. Require independent review where it matters. Then measurement can shift from explaining why the numbers don’t work to using them to make better decisions.
