Interesting article by Joe Mandese on MediaPost this AM. “Unsavory adjacencies” (which would be a great band name by the way) are indeed a huge concern for the largest brand advertisers as they ramp up their online investments. That’s why Brand.net pioneered preventative page-level content filtering with the launch of SafeScreen almost a year ago. Abbey Klaassen at Ad Age and Laurie Sullivan at MediaPost both covered the launch back in February.
Since then, while others have been in development, we’ve been busy protecting our customers. In the past year, SafeScreen has provided 8 of the top 10 CPGs, dozens of other Ad Age 100 spenders and each of the top agency holding companies with the cleanest inventory available on the web, preventing millions of “unsavory adjacencies” each week.
While we’re on the topic, I will reiterate the point I made in my iMedia article a couple months back – that quality is a page-level issue, not a site-level issue. The reason I bring this up is that in order to do any sort of page-level quality filtering, it’s necessary to know exactly which pages are requesting ads – i.e., which pages need filtering. This is a very difficult challenge due to common usage of iframes by publishers. This recent blog post provides a great background on iframes for the uninitiated.
SafeScreen works because Brand.net does the buying and the filtering. So if we want to buy from a publisher that uses iframes we can take steps in advance to make sure we have accurate page-level visibility so SafeScreen can work. The recently announced quality assurance products seem to suggest in their marketing claims that they can be dropped in front of a random, arbitrary ad buy and ensure safety. This simply isn’t technically possible due to the prevalence of iframes.
Buyers considering these “stand-alone” solutions should ask hard questions. If they do they will find they aren’t going to be nearly as safe as the marketing suggests.
Andy's Blog 
defenitly have to bookmark that really enjoyed reading your blog