This study examines inconsistencies in the brand safety classifications of online news articles by analyzing ratings from three leading brand safety providers, DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science, and Oracle. We focus on news content because of its central role in public discourse and the significant financial consequences of unsafe classifications in a sector that is already underserved by digital ad spending. By collecting data from 4,352 news articles on 51 domains, our analysis shows that brand safety services often produce conflicting classifications, with significant discrepancies between providers. These inconsistencies can have harmful consequences for both advertisers and publishers, leading to misplaced advertising spending and revenue losses. This research provides critical insights into the shortcomings of the current brand safety landscape. We argue for a standardized and transparent brand safety system to mitigate the harmful effects of the current system on the digital advertising ecosystem.

翻译：本研究通过分析三家领先品牌安全服务提供商（DoubleVerify、Integral Ad Science 和 Oracle）的评级结果，探讨了在线新闻文章品牌安全分类中存在的不一致现象。我们聚焦新闻内容，是因为其在公共话语中的核心地位，以及在该领域数字广告支出本已不足的情况下，不安全分类可能引发的重大财务后果。通过收集来自51个域名的4,352篇新闻文章数据，我们的分析表明，品牌安全服务经常产生相互冲突的分类结果，不同服务商之间存在显著差异。这些不一致可能对广告主和出版商均产生有害影响，导致广告投放错位和收入损失。本研究为当前品牌安全生态的缺陷提供了关键见解。我们主张建立标准化、透明的品牌安全体系，以缓解当前系统对数字广告生态系统造成的有害影响。