Invalid Click Cost Savings Exceeded the Service Fee

How IDOM Used Spider AF to Visualize and Reduce Wasted Ad Spend

IDOM Inc., best known for Gulliver, its nationwide used-car buying and sales brand, introduced Spider AF following a proposal from Dentsu Digital.

While IDOM was already aware of the issue of invalid clicks, the company had not yet taken any specific action to address them. With Dentsu Digital leading the initiative, IDOM began tackling the problem and was able to reduce the advertising costs associated with invalid traffic.

We spoke with representatives from both IDOM and Dentsu Digital about what led to the introduction of Spider AF, how the implementation was approached, and the results they have seen since.

Spider AF: Thank you for joining us today. To start, could you tell us a little about your business and your role?

IDOM: Our business is centered around Gulliver, our used-car buying and sales brand with locations across Japan. In addition to our standard locations, we operate a range of store formats, including large-scale showrooms and after-sales service facilities, while continuing to develop new services that meet the needs of customers in each region.

I work in the Digital Promotion Unit, where we support customer acquisition for our vehicle purchasing and sales locations, mainly through digital advertising.

Challenges Before Implementing Spider AF

We Knew It Was an Issue, but Hadn’t Taken Action Yet

Spider AF: You support customer acquisition across a nationwide network of stores. Before introducing Spider AF, how aware were you of ad fraud, and what measures were you taking at the time?

IDOM: We knew that ad fraud was an issue, but we did not fully understand how much it was affecting us. Because of that, we had not taken any specific action to address it.

Spider AF: Knowing that ad fraud exists, but not knowing how significant the impact is, is a challenge many advertisers face. Before you learned about Spider AF, how did Dentsu Digital view the issue?

Dentsu Digital: We understood the importance of addressing ad fraud. At the same time, while advertising platforms had their own measures in place, it was difficult for us to clearly quantify how many invalid clicks were actually occurring across our clients’ campaigns.

As an agency, we felt there was a need to better understand where ad spend was being wasted, identify clicks that were not contributing to results, and use that insight to improve the efficiency of our clients’ advertising budgets.

Spider AF: So from the agency side, you were facing a similar challenge in understanding the true scale of the issue. What led you to start considering a dedicated ad fraud solution?

Dentsu Digital: We felt it was important to help IDOM make better use of its advertising budget by reducing clicks that were not contributing to meaningful results.

In particular, we believed that if we could clearly show the number of invalid clicks and estimate their cost based on CPC, we could make the financial impact much easier to understand. This would allow us to present ad fraud prevention not just as an operational improvement, but as a practical way to improve advertising efficiency and reduce wasted spend.

Why IDOM Chose Spider AF

We Trusted Our Agency Partner and Moved Forward

Spider AF: Thank you. It is interesting that the proposal was positioned not simply as an operational improvement, but as a way to improve investment efficiency. What was your first impression when Spider AF was introduced to you?

IDOM: My first reaction was, I didn’t know a tool like this existed. As I mentioned earlier, we were aware of ad fraud, but we had not taken any concrete steps to address it.

As Dentsu Digital explained the solution to us, we realized that the cost burden caused by invalid clicks was a significant issue. We felt Spider AF could be an effective way to address that issue, so our initial impression was very positive.

Spider AF: Could you tell us how the implementation process unfolded and what ultimately led you to choose Spider AF?

IDOM: Dentsu Digital proposed the solution and recommended that we conduct a free assessment. The assessment made the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of implementation visible.

We determined that it could have a significant impact on reducing our costs, which led us to make the decision to implement Spider AF.

Spider AF: So the results of the free assessment helped support the decision. Before implementing Spider AF, how much invalid-click activity did you expect to be occurring in your advertising? And once you conducted the assessment, how did the actual results compare with your expectations?

IDOM: To be honest, because our advertising volume is large, we had no idea of the scale of activity that might be associated with fraud. We had not even considered visualizing it.

Dentsu Digital recommended the free assessment, and once we conducted it, we found that a considerable amount of traffic consisted of invalid clicks. That made us feel there was clear value in implementing a countermeasure.

Spider AF: So the scale was larger than you had anticipated. What were the main reasons Dentsu Digital recommended Spider AF to IDOM?

Dentsu Digital: The reason we recommended Spider AF was that it was easy to implement within IDOM’s advertising operations, from visualizing invalid clicks to configuring exclusions by advertising platform.

It was also easy to explain the impact after implementation in terms of the amount of invalid-click costs reduced. In addition, the fact that we could expect sufficient cost-effectiveness relative to the contract fee made it easier for us, as an agency, to recommend the solution.

Spider AF: We are glad to hear that you found both the implementation process and the ability to communicate the results straightforward. How did you first learn about Spider AF?

Dentsu Digital: We became aware of Spider AF while researching ad fraud countermeasures and then began considering it more specifically as a potential solution for IDOM.

Once the decision to implement it was made, we arranged a three-party meeting between IDOM, Dentsu Digital, and Spider AF. A member of Spider AF’s support team also joined the meeting, and together we aligned on the objectives of the implementation and the configuration policies for each advertising platform.

Spider AF: So the implementation moved forward through close collaboration among all three companies. What concerns or uncertainties did you have during the evaluation process, and how were they resolved?

Dentsu Digital: Our main concerns were how specifically we would be able to demonstrate the impact of the implementation to IDOM, and how to organize existing IP exclusion settings and the settings for each advertising platform.

Through meetings and information sharing with Spider AF’s sales and support teams, we were able to clarify how to measure the results based on the value of invalid-click costs reduced, compare CVR before and after implementation, configure blocking by advertising platform, and handle existing exclusion settings. This made it much easier for us to explain the initiative to IDOM.

Spider AF: So you were able to work through each concern during the meetings. What role did those three-party meetings play in the implementation process?

Dentsu Digital: We believe the three-party meetings helped us define the settings and policies required for implementation in concrete terms.

We were also able to estimate the expected impact after implementation and demonstrate that the projected cost savings would be sufficient relative to the service fee. That ultimately helped us make the case for continued use.

Results After Implementing Spider AF

We Have Seen a Reduction in Invalid-Click Costs

Spider AF: It sounds like you had a solid foundation in place before implementation. Since beginning to block invalid traffic with Spider AF, what changes or results have you seen in terms of invalid-click costs and advertising operations? And how are those results viewed internally?

IDOM: Since implementation, we feel that we have achieved a certain level of effectiveness through measures such as preventing ads from being shown to specified IP addresses and reducing costs associated with invalid clicks.

Internally, we also evaluate the solution positively in terms of its cost-effectiveness.

Spider AF: So you have been able to see tangible results in the form of lower invalid-click costs. From Dentsu Digital’s perspective, what changes have you seen in the numbers since implementation?

Dentsu Digital: Based on our calculations of the results after implementation, we found that even with conservative estimates, the cost savings exceeded the service fee, so we proposed continuing the initiative.

From an agency perspective, one of the major benefits was that the amount saved by reducing invalid clicks could be reinvested to generate more valid clicks.

In addition, by using Spider AF’s invalid-traffic log data to follow up with advertising platforms and take other actions, we were also able to improve the quality of our advertising operations. For these reasons, we concluded that the initiative delivered clear cost-effectiveness.

For Companies and Agencies Considering Spider AF

Spider AF: The fact that your estimate showed cost savings exceeding the service fee is compelling. What was your biggest concern before implementation, and how did it turn out in practice?

Dentsu Digital: Before implementation, we were concerned that the workload associated with configuration and verification would increase, as well as how we would maintain consistency with our existing exclusion settings.

In practice, there was some initial work required, but we were able to move forward using the manuals and support provided by Spider AF, and the workload was not as significant as we had expected.

In fact, it also gave us an opportunity to review past exclusion settings and reassess the overall state of our advertising operations as an agency.

Spider AF: If you had to describe Spider AF in a single phrase, what would you say?

Dentsu Digital: Spider AF is like a powerful tool for improving performance and maintaining trust—it helps visualize and reduce inefficient ad spend while making improvement proposals to clients more convincing.

Spider AF: We are very pleased to hear Spider AF described as a powerful tool for improving performance and maintaining trust. From IDOM’s perspective, what kinds of companies would you recommend Spider AF to?

IDOM: Brand safety is of course important, but I would definitely recommend Spider AF to any company that is pursuing results through digital marketing and has not yet implemented measures like these.

Because it is an intangible service, it can be difficult to feel the impact firsthand. Even so, I believe simply having such measures in place can make a significant difference.

Spider AF: Thank you. Finally, could you tell us about your plans for the future?

IDOM: While continuing to protect our brand, we want to minimize the impact of ad fraud, maximize our investment in digital marketing, and continue working to provide the best possible services to our customers.

Spider AF: Thank you very much for sharing your insights with us today.

Summary

Although IDOM was aware of ad fraud, visualizing the actual scale of the problem remained a challenge.

Following a proposal from Dentsu Digital, IDOM established a three-party collaboration framework involving IDOM, its agency partner, and Spider AF. Conducting a free assessment to visualize the extent of invalid traffic became the first step toward taking concrete action.

Since implementing Spider AF, IDOM has reduced invalid-click costs, optimized its advertising spend, and made it possible to visualize the savings as budget that can be reinvested.

There may still be unseen waste hidden in your own advertising campaigns.

Why not start by visualizing your current situation with a free assessment?

Free Assessment / Contact Us

‍