As third-party cookies disappear from the digital advertising scene, publishers are waking up to a harsh reality: it’s time to rethink how they do business. For years, the industry has buzzed about data transformation, revenue diversification, and the importance of privacy regulations. But one key element is often overlooked — how to build a solid identity strategy that can reliably function within both the company and with external partners.

Here’s the bottom line: if publishers don’t focus on building a strong identity graph now, they’re going to fall behind. With so much change in the ecosystem, revenues shifting or diminishing,  it’s not just about survival — it’s about thriving in a privacy-safe, data-driven future.

Identity Plays A Key Role In The Future Of Programmatic Demand

Without third-party cookies, the ecosystem that once drove programmatic advertising is fading. Revenue is dropping, and many publishers are looking to rebuild addressability, opting to rely on rented identity solutions — those that pool data from other companies just to stay afloat. These solutions inject a quick fix, but in the long run, lack the required transparency and revenue models to make this a sustainable solution.

Publishers need their own robust identity architecture to not only bring in more money but also to reduce the total cost of ownership and increase margins.

More and more PII-based identifiers are emerging, but deploying multiple IDs can become complex. Additionally, it’s difficult to evaluate if and when hashed emails should be exposed on the page. Whether a publisher chooses a client-side or server-side deployment comes down to one question: how much risk are you willing to take when it comes to privacy?

The latest version of IAB Tech Labs’ OpenRTB enables to inject identifiers directly into the bidstream, adding transparency to the process. By collaborating with third-party data partners or industry solutions like ID5, publishers can inject their own identity signals into the bidstream, enhancing their ability to target users effectively and increase revenue, all while staying on the right side of data privacy.

Breaking Down the Data Silos

First-party data is gold for publishers right now but it’s difficult to mine. Many publishers are collecting a vast amount of data, including identity,  across different platforms — whether through ads, subscriptions, or events — which has led to a huge problem: fragmented data. This is amplified when there are multiple business units that all have different systems and policies. With no underlying identity architecture and different systems for managing content, consent, and customer data, many publishers find themselves staring at disconnected pieces of the puzzle.

That’s why the conversation around identity is so critical. If you’re not connecting the dots, you’re only looking at small pieces of the puzzle, effectively making decisions in silos. A unified identity framework tied to a data foundation, lets publishers see the bigger picture with an opportunity for cleaner data sets – how users engage, how that ties to revenue, and where there are opportunities to grow.

Creating a True Single Customer View

A single customer view is no longer a “nice to have” – it’s a must. This is the flip side of eliminating data silos, but it also connects to greater actionability concerning users. To maximize engagement and performance, publishers must track users across every device and environment they interact with. It’s about understanding your logged-in users and anonymous users, as both are crucial for monetization.

Building a persistent identity graph that updates in real-time helps publishers make informed decisions. This isn’t just about driving ad revenue; it’s about understanding every user touchpoint, from what content they consume to how they interact with your brand.

Getting Ready for What’s Next

The value of data is skyrocketing. To tap into that potential, publishers need more than just a surface-level understanding of their audience – they need a solid identity strategy & architecture. Identity sits at the center of every monetization and engagement opportunity for a publisher. As more advanced data analysis rolls out, these data foundations are critical to leverage newer approaches like AI, predictive analytics, and new data collaboration models. If you don’t have your foundation set, you’ll be left scrambling when the next big opportunity comes knocking.

Many publishers have under-invested in building a comprehensive identity strategy because of the level of cross-functional thought, effort, and collaboration required. However, waiting longer creates an even bigger risk to their business. If publishers don’t invest in data and identity now, they’ll be left out of emerging revenue streams.

The reality is clear: we’re entering a new era of advertising, and identity is at the center of it all. Those who get it right will have the upper hand in a cookieless world. The time to act is now.

The post Owning Identity in a Post-Cookie World: Why Publishers Need to Get Real About Data appeared first on AdMonsters.

The ad tech industry is experiencing a transformative shift. Media entities are navigating a challenging landscape characterized by declining profits and the continuing phaseout of third-party cookies. In these times, self-serve platforms are emerging as a compelling solution, offering significant benefits to both the buy-side and sell-side markets.

However, despite many advantages,  there are still a limited number of self-serve platforms available today and even fewer that provide complete independence from vendor support teams.

Navigating Profit Loss and Cookie Phaseout: A Publisher’s Path Forward

One primary reason publishers seek to regain control within their ad tech stack is the need to address declining profits. The traditional programmatic advertising model, which relies heavily on third-party cookies, is becoming unsustainable. Brand publishers are increasingly returning to direct campaigns, which often necessitates expanding their sales teams — overhead smaller publishers can’t afford.

Signal loss also pushes publishers to explore alternative revenue streams and monetization models. In this landscape, working with multiple intermediaries and not having a clear view of how the publisher’s data is collected and processed becomes especially unsustainable.

Taking Back Control: How Self-Serve Platforms Empower Publishers

Self-serve platforms offer a viable solution by not only enabling publishers to leverage their first-party data more effectively but also tools and capabilities to manage advertising campaigns in a privacy-compliant manner.

Operational efficiency is another critical factor in the success of any advertising campaign. Self-serve platforms streamline the ad buying and selling process, reducing the time and resources required to manage campaigns. Publishers can quickly set up, monitor, and adjust their Prebid configuration in real-time, leading to more effective and timely optimizations.

Fully automated publisher systems handle everything from inventory management to bid optimization to A/B testing, freeing up valuable time and resources.

Breaking Barriers: Self-Serve Solutions for Smaller Publishers

The ad tech industry is characterized by high entry barriers, particularly for smaller media entities. Top SSPs often have stringent minimum requirements not just in terms of traffic volume and geolocation, but also brand safety commitment and privacy integration, forcing smaller and regional publishers to work through agencies.

That’s what makes self-serve platforms so appealing. Publishers can often get around the minimum requirements and obtain direct SSPs while simultaneously working with resellers’ accounts. This allows them to manage both until they secure their own direct accounts.

Smaller media entities can leverage self-serve platforms to manage their ad campaigns independently and plug in their direct SSP accounts without the need for agency intermediaries, something that previously was only accessible to media with their own in-house Prebid.

The pay-as-you-go model, which many self-serve platforms operate on, benefits Tier 2 and Tier 3 publishers by offering a flexible, cost-effective solution that aligns with their often unpredictable traffic levels. A monthly fee often comes with access to a suite of advanced features and tools that might otherwise be out of reach for smaller publishers. However, a scalable, usage-based pricing model ensures that even publishers from less economically robust regions can leverage enterprise-grade technology without being burdened by unsustainable fees.

Why Ad Tech Vendors Are Embracing the Self-Serve Revolution

The trend that has become evident in the last couple of years is that initiatives like The Trade Desk’s OpenPath challenge SSPs’ traditional value propositions by altering the dynamics between the buy-side and sell-side.

The shift is clear: as supply path optimization wars intensify, SSPs are trying to differentiate and are moving towards a SaaS model, positioned as a necessary change to foster more meaningful, strategic, and economically viable partnerships.

Very simply, with ad tech entering the era of disintermediation, ad tech vendors are following suit.

Earlier this year, Setupad launched a fully automated self-serve platform for Prebid. Yieldbird introduced an all-in-one extension for GAM (essentially a self-serve interface). Hashtag Labs, PubWise, and Assertive Yield, to name a few, are all platforms offering exclusively Prebid-as-a-Service products. Not to mention the industry powerhouses Pubmatic’s OpenWrap and Magnite’s Demand Manager and other SSPs with their non-public self-serve offerings.

The Buy-Side Boom: Why Advertisers Are Going Self-Serve

It’s not much different. There’s a lot of demand from programmatic advertisers for self-service buying right now. Advertisers benefit from easy targeting, access to first-party data, and control over their campaigns. And it’s not a secret that advertisers often find their ads missing the target audience (especially SMEs), particularly with a loss of signal.

DSPs like AdLib and AdRoll rebranded themselves into “self-serve DSPs.” Infillion acquired MediaMath, officially admitting the reason for the purchase was to add self-service capabilities to its core business.

The buy-side self-serve industry is dominated by giants like The Trade Desk and DV360, but, just as on the sell side, the customization depth of these platforms varies. Moving towards the self-serve route isn’t just smart due to a growing interest in self-serve advertising, but also because of the wider trend that seeks to exclude DSPs from the supply chain.

Last year, both Magnite and Pubmatic cut out DSPs by launching ClearLine and Activate, respectively, products designed to give advertisers direct access to CTV and online video inventory.

Differentiating your offering comes with a lot of first-mover advantages. For example, accumulating vast amounts of data sooner than competitors is perhaps one of the most valuable for DSPs.

What’s Holding Back Ad Tech’s Self-Serve Evolution?

Although the trend is obvious, the majority of ad tech players still haven’t advanced their offerings or haven’t made it public.

Why? Building a robust platform requires significant upfront investment in technology and infrastructure. Transitioning existing customers to a self-serve model can be challenging, as it requires changing established workflows. Vendors are also afraid to sacrifice the existing revenue shares that bring great profits.

The readiness of the market to adopt a self-service model can significantly impact its success. And big publishers, to no one’s surprise, are very slow to change their ways.

However, with ad tech being as fragmented as it is now, it leaves few options but to advance and differentiate.

The complexity of the UI of the two behemoths in the self-serve space offered by Pubmatic and Magnite opens a lot of room for smaller ad tech vendors to differentiate and offer a compelling solution with flexible pricing. However, one area where you can’t compromise is technological capabilities.

The post How Self-Serve Platforms Are Revolutionizing Ad Tech and Empowering Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

Chris woke us up with a bang, delivering a highly insightful session at AdExchanger’s Programmatic IO. He shed light on bidstream congestion, a major issue complicating digital advertising today. Bidstream congestion occurs when the same ad impression opportunity is offered multiple times through different supply paths. 

It leads to discrepancies, increased cost, and complexity in the bidding process. Chris addressed this by walking us through the intricacies. His emphasis on “deepening the dependencies” was vital to understanding the financial flows within the supply chain, urging the audience to think beyond surface-level transactions. From the open internet share shift to the nitty-gritty of auction duplication, Chris provided a deep dive into how advertisers, publishers, and intermediaries interact in such a crowded space.

The explosive growth of the industry catalyzed an arms race among publishers competing for attention in an overly saturated market, leading to challenges for advertisers and media agencies alike.

The Big Players and Their Influence

Chris started his session with a detailed analysis of open internet ad spend over the past eight years. Over this timeframe, we saw Google’s gross ad spend take off in 2021, with them dominating the market from 2020 to 2024. Google leads open internet gross ad spend projections for 2024, with The Trade Desk and Amazon DSP right behind them.

Walled gardens like Google, Meta, and Amazon operate closed systems that significantly influence market dynamics. Google’s non-search advertising is projected to hit $35 billion, Meta commands between $100 billion and $120 billion, and Amazon is at $45 billion. In contrast, the open internet still retains a significant share of the market, valued at $70 to $75 billion, providing an alternative to these walled gardens.

What’s also interesting is how these platforms reshape how the industry allocates spending.

According to Chris, LinkedIn, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Snapchat, and Pinterest are rising challenger gardens. But things are shifting. While these platforms may not match the spend of the giants, they are creating their own lane. This share shift could totally reshape the competition. In his overview, Chris highlighted just how huge the Walled Gardens’ influence is over market activity. This was the central theme of his discussion as he dove into detail about the various aspects of the ad tech supply chain.

While walled gardens offer a streamlined approach with integrated services, the open internet is more flexible. Navigating between these two requires a nuanced understanding of each platform’s strengths and limitations. Enterprises must strategically balance investments to optimize their advertising reach and efficiency.

The Anatomy of Bidstream Congestion: The Bloat

Bidstream congestion happens when multiple publishers send the same ad impression through different supply paths, resulting in redundant auction entries that DSPs need to sift through.

DSPs process approximately 30 million bid requests per second, a number that grows as publishers try to ensure their inventory gets noticed by the right buyers. Each publisher competes fiercely to make its inventory attractive to DSPs, who ultimately decide which auctions are worth pursuing.

Chris emphasized how ads.txt bloat has become symptomatic of this congestion. The average number of authorized supply paths for top RTB-traded websites, mobile apps, and CTV apps has skyrocketed from January 2020 to January 2024.

This means more paths for advertisers and more complications for DSPs drowned with duplicate and redundant opportunities. Despite publishers initiating numerous auctions, DSPs often listen to the same bid requests. This disparity reveals a harsh truth: initiating more auctions doesn’t necessarily improve a publisher’s chances of being selected.

Auction Duplication: A Path to Efficiency or Chaos?

One huge contributor to bidstream congestion is auction duplication. In this process, publishers engage multiple SSPs to re-auction the ad inventory, aiming to increase the likelihood of being selected by DSPs. While this strategy may seem rational for publishers seeking higher demand, the more SSPs involved, the harder it is to trace each dollar of ad spend. 

“When it comes to rebroadcasting supply chains, four out of every ten bid requests are duplicative options that take multiple fees and expose problems in the supply chain. Today 40% of the midstream is multi-hop resale.” Chris said when illustrating rebroadcasting. In terms of direct paths and monetizing sites and apps the median across the full web, mobile app and CTV supply is 16. 

“The average total impression is presented 16 times through direct supply chains, 41% of bidding requests are rebroadcasted and 59% are direct supply chains. With each impression made available 16 times through direct supply chains, plus another 14 times through rebroadcasted supply chains there is a 30x auction duplication.”

Yet, despite the congestion and duplication, this structure is seen as a necessary evil to maximize monetization potential, raising questions about whether the duplication ultimately serves or hinders the industry’s long-term growth. While it’s a way for publishers to ensure their inventory gets more eyeballs, this duplication creates inefficiencies that the entire industry must grapple with, inflating bid streams and increasing the overall cost of ad placements. 

In simpler terms, rebroadcast paths mean that bid requests go through multiple hops before they reach a potential buyer. “DSPs who do not take advantage of rebroadcasting opportunities will go out of business,” Chris pointed out. The industry is evolving, and those who don’t evolve with it — whether they’re buyers, sellers, or intermediaries — could be left in the dust.

A Look to the Future: Will Duplication Save the Day?

Chris closed by exploring whether auction duplication is an efficient solution to bidstream congestion or a stopgap for masking deeper issues. On one hand, duplication is a great opportunity for publishers, providing them multiple chances to get their inventory seen, thus maximizing potential revenue. On the other hand, it adds layers of complexity that make the supply chain inefficient and opaque, driving up costs for everyone involved.

“Understanding the programmatic supply chain is no longer optional for stakeholders in the ad tech space. It requires the operational mindset of an insider — someone willing to get their hands dirty in the technical details of how inventory is auctioned, sold, and bought. You have to deepen the dependencies to really understand how money moves in the supply chain,” Chris said.

The ad tech ecosystem is changing rapidly, and bidstream congestion is but one symptom of the evolution. Whether auction duplication can effectively mitigate congestion or add more fuel to the fire is still a debate. But for those in the trenches of ad tech, understanding these dynamics is essential to navigating the future — and making sure they come out on top.

Industry leaders must innovate and adopt new practices to mitigate the detrimental effects of bidstream congestion. Auction duplication, while currently the norm, requires reevaluation.

Publishers and advertisers need to explore ways to streamline the bidding process, perhaps by improving the transparency and efficiency of SSP-DSP interactions or implementing more advanced targeting algorithms to reduce unnecessary bid requests.

The post Bidstream Congestion: Cracking the Ad Tech Supply Chain Code appeared first on AdMonsters.

The open web is on life support, or so they say. But is it really dying, or are we just not giving it the oxygen it needs to survive? 

That was the big message during Programmatic IO’s session, “The Future of the Open Internet Is…?” featuring industry minds Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer, Group Black; Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor, Marketecture Media; and Ben Hovaness, Chief Media Officer, OMD, with AdExchanger’s Allison Schiff moderating.

And if we’re honest, the conversation revealed a hard truth: the open web’s struggles go beyond the cookies crumbling — the question is: Are publishers ready to hustle for their piece of the pie?

So, What Exactly Do We Mean by the Open Web These Days?

Let’s cut through the noise — everyone’s got their own take on what the “open web” even means anymore. Is it about accessibility, privacy, innovation, or free speech? It depends on who you ask. 

Some say it’s the accessible, ad-friendly corner of the internet, free from the constraints of walled gardens. The last bastion of free, accessible content that isn’t fenced off behind a paywall or login screen. The digital playground where ads can be bought programmatically without a giant tech overlord controlling every move.

But, sadly, the truth is the open web’s territory is shrinking fast, with Google, Meta, and other walled gardens gobbling up a good 80% of ad spend. 

How did we get here? It’s easy to point fingers at Big Tech, but let’s talk about the industry’s own missteps that got us here.

The Blame Game: Did We Let the Open Web Slip Away?

“The industry is partially to blame,” said Khan, laying out how publishers lost resources as ad dollars poured into walled gardens. And he’s not wrong.

The ad tech ecosystem poured money into the platforms and watched them grow, thinking it was all just market dynamics at play. Meanwhile, independent publishers lost their funding, their communities, and, eventually, their place in the game. Publishers didn’t just roll over one day and lose; they were out-resourced, outspent, and ultimately outperformed in the battle for consumer attention. 

“Independent publishers lost their ability to sustain in the marketplace. That’s why we’re seeing the decline,” he added. It wasn’t like consumers suddenly stopped caring about quality content. Publishers couldn’t maintain what they built because ad dollars flowed elsewhere. Publishers ultimately handed the power over to the walled gardens.

“The big miss on the media side was that they let go of their distribution,” said Paparo. Publishers got too comfortable, relying on third-party tech and platforms for distribution, only to realize they became too dependent on these gatekeepers. For example, news publishers, in particular, put too much faith in platforms and aggregators like Google News.

Now they’re playing catch-up, scrambling to recapture those direct consumer relationships they should’ve built from the start — trying to regain what they gave up: their audience, data, and autonomy.

Signal Loss Ain’t the Only Problem Here

But, we can’t ignore the hard reality of signal loss draining value from the ecosystem. “If you suck signal out of an ecosystem, you reduce its value,” explained Hovaness.

Apple’s cookie crackdown in Safari sent shockwaves through the industry, leading to a split in ad pricing between Safari and Chrome, with Chrome’s value only shooting up simply because it still relied on third-party cookies.

Now, with Google flirting with its own version of App Tracking Transparency in Chrome, the industry is bracing for an even bigger hit. It’s the stuff that still gives publishers sleepless nights. But here’s where the conversation often hits a wall: What now? 

Sure, contextual is part of the solution, but let’s keep it 100 — it’s not a magic bullet. As Khan noted, consumers want more than just context. They crave hyper-personalized, relevant content, and right now, the algorithms in walled gardens are fumbling that bag too. 

The missing piece? True multi-touch attribution across platforms. As Khan put it, “We need to leverage technology in a different way, one that doesn’t create a new set of winners while leaving everyone else starving.”

Programmatic advertising might be good at identifying who you are, but it’s failing at figuring out when you’re actually ready to engage. This is where the open web has a shot to differentiate itself, but it’ll take more than business-as-usual tactics.

The Creator Economy: A Blueprint for Publishers?

Here’s where we can flip the script a bit. It’s not just about surviving the ad wars against walled gardens. It’s about publishers learning to think more like creators to reclaim their power. 

The creator economy is booming — worth $250 billion in 2023 and climbing. This economy is out here thriving, projected to double to nearly $480 billion by 2027. Why? Because creators aren’t waiting for consumers to come to them — they’re meeting their audience where they are. Newsletters, podcasts, social — you name it, they’re on it. Consumers are looking to creators for content that feels real, honest, and transparent

Paparo’s excitement around tools like Substack, beehiiv, and Ghost is spot-on. Even WordPress offers tools allowing creators to monetize through commerce and ad placements. This is also where companies like Group Black, Raptive, and MediaVine are ahead of the game, helping content creators secure and optimize ad revenue.

And you know what? Publishers need to pay attention. 

Some are. Think of Architectural Digest’s AD PRO members-only community for design professionals. Or how about Vox and SB Nation launching Top Secret Base, featuring exclusive content for subscribers on Patreon?

We can even look at publishers like Ranker, leveraging first-party data and building community-driven engagement to realize a 4x boost in revenue. That’s not magic; that’s strategy.

It’s time for publishers to rethink revenue streams, diversify content formats, harness first-party data to build meaningful relationships and stop expecting users to just stumble back to their websites out of habit. Meet them on social, in their inboxes, or through niche community hubs — whatever it takes. It’s time to carve out a new space

What’s most important is that you own that relationship with your audience.

The Path Forward: Reinvent or Get Left Behind

Now, let’s be clear: the open web isn’t going to resurrect magically. We shouldn’t try to turn back the clock lamenting the loss of signals or blame the platforms for hoarding ad spend. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about redefining the open web for what it can be.

The future of the open web isn’t in wistful “what ifs.” It’s in publishers getting their hands dirty, owning their distribution, and thinking beyond traditional models. It means building the tech stack to capture first-party data, finding new ways to engage, and creating a user experience that doesn’t just compete — it sets the standard.

So when the panel wrapped up with words like “bright,” “diverse” and “changing” to describe the open web’s future, I couldn’t help but add my own: resilient. But these words only mean something if publishers take action. The open web will survive. But it won’t be because we sat around and complained. It’ll be because we hustled, adapted, and fought for it.

The post The Open Internet’s Future: On Life Support or Ready for a Glow-Up? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Are advertisers afraid of the news? That’s the question Jana Meron, VP of Revenue Operations and Data at The Washington Post, asked at Programmatic IO. 

For many brands, the answer seems to be a resounding “yes,” especially during politically charged election cycles. But Meron had a different take. She argued that this fear-driven approach is outdated and costs advertisers big opportunities.

Just a few months earlier, she spoke to publishers at AdMonsters Publisher Forum in Boston, focusing on how publishers can balance brand safety with revenue using smarter, more nuanced solutions that respect journalistic integrity. 

Both advertisers and publishers should rethink what it means to be “brand safe” in the fast-evolving news world. So what lessons did we learn from Meron about why it’s high time to move beyond fear? 

A Tale of Two Audiences: Advertisers and Publishers
At Programmatic IO, Meron talked directly to advertisers, addressing their fears of placing ads near news content, especially political coverage. Armed with data, she made a compelling case for why this fear is misguided. 

For instance, she revealed that ads next to political and opinion pieces on The Washington Post see a 55% higher click-through rate than other parts of the site. That’s right—people are paying attention, and these are the valuable, engaged audiences that brands dream of reaching.

At AdMonsters Publisher Forum, Meron spoke to publishers about how they can proactively address brand safety concerns without sacrificing high-quality news content. She explained how The Washington Post uses AI and machine learning to analyze context, sentiment, and risk level of news content — creating a nuanced taxonomy allowing advertisers to set their omfort levels.

This move away from the old “sledgehammer” approach, towards a data-driven strategy, opens up more ad inventory without sacrificing journalistic integrity.

Why Are Advertisers Still Afraid?

Let’s get into the numbers. According to the 2024 Madison and Wall Ad Spend Forecast, 83% of US marketing executives expressed concern about advertising during elections. In fact, some advertisers blocked more than 40% of WaPo’s inventory this year to avoid “risky” content. This, Meron argues, is a shortsighted move.

The Washington Post reaches 10.9 million election-specific readers, 43% of whom are retail investors and many are decision-makers. These news consumers — particularly those engaging with political content — are some of the most valuable readers out there. These aren’t casual readers; they’re engaged, informed, and don’t mind ads.

The Brand Safety Double Standard

So, what’s the problem? Meron says it’s the old-school brand safety rules treating all news content the same way. The brand safety tools that once acted as a necessary shield against fraudulent or harmful content have morphed into blunt instruments, blocking swathes of legitimate news inventory.

The fear is that ads appearing next to controversial topics will hurt the brand’s image. But Meron pointed out that these worries don’t hold up. Most news consumers understand that ads don’t endorse the story next to them. In fact, they often see brands in news as more trustworthy.

Meron calls for a smarter approach. Instead of broad keyword blocklists, we need tech that can differentiate between high, medium, and low-risk content. The Washington Post uses AI to do just that, unlocking 15-25% more ad reach for advertisers. It’s proof that you don’t need to sacrifice quality for safety.

Tech Has the Answers—If We Use It Right

What’s the big takeaway from both of Meron’s talks? The tech is here to help us handle brand safety better. AI and machine learning can understand the context of news, including sentiment and bias. That means we can stop treating all news as risky and start making more informed choices.

“The fear that news is too risky is understandable but doesn’t make sense,” she said at Programmatic IO, emphasizing that modern tech can identify sentiment, bias, and context in ways that past tools could not.

At AdMonsters Publisher Forum, she pushed publishers to educate advertisers on this new reality. “It’s not the year of mobile or whatever,” she said. “It’s time to actually do something.” Publishers can use these tools to show advertisers that news content isn’t something to fear — it’s an opportunity.

Facing the Fear: Time to Rethink Brand Safety

It’s time for both advertisers and publishers to face facts and stop letting fear dictate brand safety strategies. Meron made it clear: advertisers are missing out by avoiding news content. Ads next to quality journalism have higher engagement and reach valuable audiences. Meanwhile, publishers should embrace advanced tools to offer nuanced brand safety solutions that align with their content’s integrity.

News Is Good News for Your Business

Brand safety in 2024 doesn’t mean avoiding news and risk entirely — it’s about understanding, navigating, and harnessing it to capture highly engaged, valuable audiences. And, publishers, for their part, must continue to advocate for smarter, more nuanced brand safety measures that respect the integrity of news.

The tools and strategies are there; it’s time for the industry to use them. The audience is waiting. As Meron said, “News is good news for your business.” The sooner we face the facts and acknowledge that, the better off the entire ad tech ecosystem will be.

The post Rethinking Brand Safety: Lessons from Jana Meron on News Advertising in 2024 appeared first on AdMonsters.

In the world of digital media, Generative AI sparks both excitement and concern. This is especially true among publishers and independent content creators.

Last week, creators took a stand in New York City with the launch of Raptive’s ‘Keep It Real’ campaign, an advocacy effort designed to raise awareness about the impact of AI on their livelihoods.

As I sat in the room, listening to stories from food bloggers, designers, and country music aficionados, I couldn’t help but draw parallels between their challenges and the ones publishers face.

Digital media and advertising is grappling with a shifting landscape where AI threatens to commodify human creativity and diminish revenue streams. And if creators are rallying together to protect their work, shouldn’t publishers do the same?

Setting the Stage: The Creator’s Call to Action

ABC News anchor Linsey Davis was the surprise host of the day, opening the event by celebrating creators’ work as the “heart and soul of the internet.” Her words resonated throughout, highlighting the core message: creators — and, by extension, publishers — are the lifeblood of the web, facing challenges that deserve urgent attention.

But creators’ work is now threatened by the rise of generative AI, which scrapes content to deliver quick answers, often at the expense of the nuanced stories they bring to life.

Creators vs. AI: Navigating the SEO Shake-Up

The ‘Keep It Real’ campaign centers on a simple but powerful message: AI should innovate responsibly without exploiting the creators who pour their hearts into their work. Creators shared how generative AI scrapes and repurposes their work without consent or compensation. This issue hits home for publishers who have spent years building quality content to engage audiences.

Scott Messer‘s analysis of the latest SEO challenges for publishers sheds light on how Google’s introduction of AI-generated summaries and features like Search Generative Experience (SGE) alters search engine results pages (SERPs). This shift pushes traditional organic results further down the page, impacting CTRs for top organic positions. For creators, this means that even high-quality, nuanced content risks being overshadowed by generic AI outputs, threatening their visibility and revenue.

Kaitlin Leung of The Woks of Life illustrates the value of discoverable, human-created content: “We slowly but surely started to attract people who were so thankful and grateful to have found us because they were also looking for a similar platform to be able to learn about their heritage more, and cook recipes that kind of were always the domain of their parents or their grandparents or their aunts or their uncles.”

However, with AI-driven search results potentially limiting such discoveries, creators like Kaitlin worry that these meaningful connections between content creators and their audiences may become increasingly rare. It’s clear that AI poses threats, but some publishers are exploring ways to unlock AI opportunities that can preserve revenue and drive growth.

The Economic Impact of AI on Creators

Like creators, publishers rely on nuanced, human-generated content to attract audiences, which opens up the gates to advertising dollars. But with generative AI serving up bland, one-size-fits-all information, creators and publishers risk losing their unique voice — and, ultimately, their revenue.

Michael Sanchez, CEO of Raptive, puts this threat into stark perspective: “Let’s put this in human terms for Raptive creators, this is their livelihood. They do this full-time. It is the primary way they feed their families. There are 1000s of creators across Raptive who earn their living from their content and make less than $100,000 per year for one family, if they lose half of their traffic due to AI replacing their content, they lose half of their income.”

Today, 15% of every dollar advertisers spend on the open web goes through a Raptive site, earning creators over $2.5 billion in revenue. So a 50% reduction in traffic would impact individual creators’ revenue and threaten the broader creator economy, which supports millions of jobs.

Building Communities and Connections

Lindsay and Bjork Ostrom of Pinch of Yum said it best: The internet should continue to be a place where independent voices can thrive. It’s a sentiment publishers know all too well.

Echoing this idea, Tieghan Gerard of Half Baked Harvest, emphasized the importance of community building. “The time I spend on social media is the time I spend interacting with my community and building that community, making that community strong, and making those people feel heard. It’s so important. Nobody feels heard anymore, and we have the power to do that.”

The Role of Advertisers: Supporting Human-Generated Content

The ‘Keep It Real’ campaign calls on advertisers to invest in human-generated content that drives real results and engages audiences on a deeper level. As AI-generated content starts flooding the web, advertisers might be tempted to pour money into platforms that offer quick wins and endless streams of generic content. However, this approach undermines the authenticity that both creators and publishers bring to the table.

Marketers should consider how their media plans and spending align with the campaign’s message. How can the industry ensure that advertising dollars support high-quality, human-centric content?

This could mean reassessing where programmatic buys are directed or prioritizing direct partnerships with publishers who maintain human touchpoints in their content.

Publishers It’s Time to Innovate Responsibly

In creators’ rally for responsible innovation, they want it to be known —  they’re not anti-AI; they’re pro-ethical AI. They want to be part of the conversation, advocating for systems that value their contributions.

Publishers, too, must find ways to leverage AI responsibly while supporting the creator economy, ensuring that both creators and publishers can thrive. That might mean adopting practices that respect the human element of content creation or finding ways to collaborate with creators on shared initiatives that promote authentic, valuable storytelling.

Ad Tech and the Human Connection

Programmatically, ad tech builds a bridge between advertisers and the content that audiences consume. This connector role directly impacts the future of human-generated content online.

It’s time to explore how ad tech can support responsible AI practices that don’t undercut the human connections at the heart of the digital ecosystem.

It’s time to ask: How can ad tech support an internet where independent voices can thrive? It may involve prioritizing ad placements on websites that invest in human-generated stories or encouraging advertisers to value quality over quantity in their content partnerships.

What the Ad Tech Industry Can Do to Keep It Real

• Collaboration: Just as creators are banding together to advocate for their rights, publishers need to engage in collective action. Working with industry bodies to push for fair practices in AI use is a start.
• Support Quality Content: Encourage advertisers to align their spending with websites that offer the depth, nuance, and authenticity AI can’t replicate.
• Advocate for Fair Practices: Push for more transparency in AI’s use of content, ensuring that creators and publishers are fairly compensated when their work is used to train AI models.

The Path Forward: Keeping the Internet Human

At the event, creators emphasized that the fight for fair AI use is only beginning. As they advocate for their rights and the protection of their livelihoods, the entire ad tech ecosystem has a stake in this conversation, especially publishers.

By standing together and championing authentic, human-driven content, you can ensure that the internet remains a place where creativity and community thrive. The road ahead calls for collaboration, innovation, and a shared commitment to keeping it real.

The post Creators vs. AI: Can Keeping It Real Save the Internet? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Technology is evolving faster than we can blink and it’s becoming clear that it’s time creativity and control were reclaimed. As monopolies and walled gardens dominate and limit access, the balance between innovation and content creation is more crucial than ever. In a rapidly changing ecosystem,  publishers are exploring strategies to navigate an open internet increasingly challenged by distribution obstacles and signal loss.

Once a beacon of free and open access, the open web faces an identity crisis. Media companies that once thrived on direct consumer connection are struggling with the rise of walled gardens. Marketers, for their part, acknowledge their role in building these silos as they increasingly funnel media budgets into tech giants. Reclaiming control of data, creative strategies, and audience engagement is critical to preserving the future for both sides.

Publishers should not look at these shifts as threats but as opportunities to develop new strategies that align with consumer behavior and market demands. 

From the rise of social-driven search and FAST channels to Google’s ongoing antitrust trial, ProgIO spoke to many of the challenges facing publishers today. As the industry continues to push for transparency, fairness, and a more open ecosystem, the path forward depends on innovating while maintaining trust with consumers and each other. 

Here are our top takeaways from Day 1.

Breaking Free: How Marketers Can Reclaim Creativity in a Tech-Driven World

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, talking about convergence at programmatic IO. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Eoin Townsend, Chief Product Officer at Cadent, walked us through industry shifts driven by audience, inventory, optimality, and privacy. He says, “The technology we have today is not the technology we’ll have tomorrow.”

Let him tell it: marketers need more control to move away from monopolies and hone in on new technologies to transform their roles in the industry. Eoin emphasized that marketers spend too much time on tech rather than creative marketing. We are evolving from scale, automation, and walled gardens to a new phase focused on integration, alignment, and collaboration. 

More highlights from his talk:

• Let AI automate the hard stuff.
• Take advantage of multi-faceted solutions that integrate third-party data and work across walled gardens.
• Adopt new technology and legal frameworks to ensure compliance and consumer trust.

Eoin’s main argument is: “Let marketers be marketers” free them from technological constraints!

The Future of the Open Internet Is?

Allison Schiff, Managing Editor at AdExchanger, Ben Hovaness, CMO at OMD, Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black, and Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor of Marketecture Media discuss the future of the open internet. Photo by Donna Alberico.

What is the open web? The term has gotten lost in the mix, and AdExchanger’s Allison Schiff ensured the panelists revealed the definition from their perspectives early in the session. According to Ari Paparo, CEO & Contributor at Marketecture Media, if you can access a website for free and buy ads freely, it is part of the open web. 

Media companies are losing distribution channels and struggle to connect directly with consumers. What are the biggest challenges of the open web? Walled gardens and signal challenges. Can marketers blame consumers for this mess? Not exactly. Marketers helped create the walled gardens by continuing to invest in and work with them.

“The open internet lost the resources to create the content and do a lot of things that it did to keep the communities it had built,” revealed Cavel Khan, Chief Growth Officer at Group Black. “That’s why we are all seeing the decline over the last three years. Big publishers are going out of business or restructuring.”

More key points from this session:

• The cloudiness around Chrome’s plan for cookies makes it difficult for publishers to determine the best strategy to combat signal loss. 
• Publishers have great tools like WordPress, Beehiiv, and Ghost, along with podcasting, as new solutions for reaching people and monetizing those connections. 
• When asked what the future of the open internet was, the panelists responded bright, sleek, diverse, and changing. 

TikTok, The Latest to Step In the Search Game

AdExchanger’s Executive Editor Sarah Sluis sits down with Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok, to talk about the platform entering the search business. Photo by Donna Alberico.

TikTok is the app beating Google as the number one search engine. With data showing significant search activity on the app, we’re learning that rich, social media-driven search results are key for connecting with consumers and influencing their discovery and purchase intent. It’s no surprise the company is investing in bringing advertising to search. 

“There are two key data points that triggered this for us. One is that independent research proves that 55% of people get their search results from social media and video,” said Blake Chandlee, President of Global Business Solutions at TikTok. “It was just a very good box of rich examples. An example might be if you’re planning to travel to Singapore when you visit a traditional search engine, you’d find links to guide you through that process. On the other hand, you go on to TikTok or some other platforms where you’ll get really rich videos of people like you going through the same decision-making with their experience. It’s a very different experience in the back end of this.”

Ads have been part of TikTok’s monetization model for a while now, but the TikTok shop shook up the game when it came to fruition last year. Live-streaming allows creators to earn money by getting “tipped” from their audience, while the TikTok shop facilitates seamless transitions within the app. TikTok’s investment in logistics and the closed-loop shopping experience allows it to fully capitalize on the commerce generated by creators.

More interesting insights:

• The social media company’s motto: “Don’t make ads, make TikTok’s” works.
• TikTok caters to its users’ diverse interests, allowing brands to connect with highly engaged audiences.
• Ensuring that ads are native is key; don’t oversaturate because ad fatigue can be real.
• TikTok stands out because it is independent and doesn’t rely on partnerships or external links for e-commerce.

Why The Trade Desk is Winning According to Wall Street

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director of Wolfe Research shared her predictions for the industry from an investor’s perspective. Photo by Donna Alberico.

With the ongoing regulatory scrutiny of Google and the pending cookie deprecation, scale and first-party data are both emerging as leaders in the industry.

Shweta Khajuria, Managing Director at Wolfe Research, dove deeply into The Trade Desk’s success. Partnering with agencies leads to higher retention rates. Product innovations like CTV and UID2 have kept The Trade Desk at the top of the industry. Also, their independence and omnichannel approach allow them to maintain objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest. 

“Trade Desk saw the potential of bidded programmatic and connected TV before most others in the industry,” said Shweta. “As a result, with the head start that they saw, they saw a step change in their growth rates and trajectory.”

Shweta also predicts that Google will spin off one of its ad tech businesses, which could level the playing field. 

Shweta’s other predictions:

• The Trade Desk’s Open Path and Magnite’s clear line anticipate the convergence of the demand and supply sides.
• Efficiency gains will be necessary, and pricing pressures might arise as DSPs and SSPs merge.
• Larger publishers may develop their yield management systems, leading to supply-side consolidation.
• The demand side might gain an upper hand due to its proximity to ad budgets.

Google on Trial: The Battle for Fairness, Transparency, and the Future

Allison Schiff talked to Claire Atkin, Co-founder & CEO of Check My Ads and Jason Kint CEO of Digital Content Next about the ongoing DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Google’s monopolistic practices have heavily hindered the publishing industry, and we are all standing on our toes, waiting to see the outcome of this decision. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, explained how Google is extracting value that should go to newsrooms and entertainment companies. 

Jason talked about “dynamic revenue sharing,’ where Google manipulates bid prices to maintain its margins, often behind publishers’ backs. With a press box seat at the trial in Virginia, he says Google’s defense strategy is to confuse the market and redefine it to include more competition, like TikTok or TV. Isn’t this what we’ve all been thinking? Isn’t this a weak defense?

It was great seeing Claire Atkin again doing her best: exposing the real. According to Claire, Google plays a huge role in monetizing misinformation and lacking transparency. Smaller businesses suffer since they don’t receive funds or adequate support from Google when campaign issues arise. Claire argues for log-level data transparency and know-your-customer laws to ensure fair practices. 

Other important highlights:

• Judge Leonie Brinkema is skeptical of Google due to evidence purging, which impacts the credibility of Google’s witnesses. 
• The trial is part of a broader antitrust movement against major tech companies, and breaking them up could lead to more opportunities and fairness in the industry. 
• Both speakers hope to see a future where advertisers can better track and verify their ad placements, leading to more accountability and fewer fraudulent practices.

FAST is Moving Fast

Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions talks the future of FAST at AdExchanger’s Programmatic IO Day 1. Photo by Donna Alberico.

Several factors are contributing to the rise of FAST, such as subscription fatigue and evolving audience behavior. On a daily basis, consumers are shifting their mindset from avoiding ads to accepting them if they come with free content. 

“We see that 53% of our consumers are spending at least 2 hours a day in FAST, and the average time of the session is 73 minutes,” said Katie Barrett, Head of Strategic Sales at LG Ad Solutions. “Eighty-seven percent of FAST users have free streaming channels they watch regularly. This shows high levels of habitual viewing. Eighty-one percent believe that FAST streaming channels offer high-quality content. This is important because this perception of fast being low quality is being challenged here.”

Contrary to popular belief that FAST viewers are less engaged or loyal, Katie argues they are developing strong followings due to curated content. The stereotype that FAST viewers are solely budget-conscious is false, as the data shows a diverse and affluent audience.

Other Factors of FAST:

• The median income of FAST users is $85,000, with an average of $110,000, and 43% earning over $100,000 annually. 
• FAST is popular among family units, with a high percentage of users owning homes, being married, and having children, underlining its family-friendly nature.
• FAST is a valuable platform for brands aiming to reach key demographics.

On the Horizon: A New Era for Publishers and Marketers

Publishers and marketers are standing on the brink of significant change. With walled gardens tightening their grip and signal loss challenging traditional methods, publishers are redefining their approach to audience engagement, while marketers are pushing for more autonomy in how they reach and connect with consumers. 

From publishers exploring innovative content distribution methods to marketers reclaiming creative control, the next chapter is about pushing beyond the familiar and embracing new opportunities. 

The journey doesn’t stop here. Day 2 included more revelations and strategies, so stay tuned for our Programmatic IO Day 2 wrap-up on Monday. We’ll dig deeper into the discussions, highlighting key takeaways and what lies ahead for publishers and marketers in this fast-moving space. 

The post PROGIO Day 1: The Next Chapter for the Open Internet, Google vs. DOJ Face-Off, and More appeared first on AdMonsters.

In the past, ethnicity was simply another audience segment you could pull off the shelf, ready for your campaign. If you wanted to target African Americans, Hispanics, or any other ethnic group, the data was there, and available to use. Fast forward to today, and the landscape has changed dramatically. Ethnicity, alongside many other categories, has been reclassified as Sensitive Personal Information (SPI). What does this mean for marketers? A lot. And if you’re not paying attention, it could be catastrophic for your campaigns and your brand.

The Shift from Assumed to Explicit Consent

The days of assumed opt-ins — think cookie banners — are over. Today’s privacy landscape increasingly demands explicit opt-in. The difference is significant, yet many players in the agency world and data market still fail to understand this distinction. If you’re using SPI data, you need explicit user consent, period. This isn’t just about collecting consent; you must also ensure the user can opt-out.

Furthermore, data consent must be used in the context in which it was collected. You can’t collect explicit consent in one place and then sell or trade that data for use elsewhere. Yet, this is the problem many platforms face today. Why? Because they lack direct interaction with consumers.

The Problem with ‘Headless’ Platforms

Headless platforms are like data warehouses — they store information but lack a consumer-facing interface to collect or manage consent. Over the last two decades, data management platforms (DMPs), supply-side platforms (SSPs), demand-side platforms (DSPs), and similar services have played pivotal roles in media and advertising. However, these platforms often operate without direct consumer interaction, meaning they can’t collect opt-ins or manage opt-outs. By definition, SPI data should not be processed by these platforms — yet no one seems to be addressing this issue.

Some platforms have started removing these categories altogether in an attempt to self-regulate. However, this approach is inconsistent and insufficient. It also leaves a gaping hole in the market for the Fortune 500 companies that rely on this data to market efficiently.

A Market at Odds

Consider this: over 40% of the U.S. population identifies as part of a minority group. Yet the very data needed to market to these groups is rapidly becoming unavailable or unreliable. The conundrum? There’s never been a greater appetite to market to different ethnicities, but the tools to do so have never been weaker.

Bad actors are partly to blame. Predatory marketing practices, such as targeting low-income multicultural groups with unfair lending products, violated the Fair Lending Act. This is why categories like household income and ethnicity are no longer available on platforms like Meta.

What Can Marketers Do?

1. Stay on Top of Privacy Policies: With privacy regulations in constant flux, it can be overwhelming. My advice? Focus on following the opt-in. Wherever new requirements for explicit opt-ins emerge, you can be sure that marketing to those groups without this consent will expose you to liability.
2. Choose Partners with a ‘Head’: A key way to ensure compliance is by selecting data partners with a user interface. If a platform has no direct relationship with the consumer, it can’t collect or manage explicit consent. No head, no consent—simple as that. Don’t be fooled by the “privacy-first” jargon that’s become all too common in marketing.
3. DE&I Is Not an Exemption from Compliance: Many brands are pushing their DE&I initiatives by directing ad spend to minority-owned organizations, which is commendable. However, if those same brands aren’t checking whether the data used in those campaigns is opt-in compliant, they’re inadvertently fast-tracking their liability. A DE&I SSP should be able to manage both opt-in and opt-out consent to protect the brand.
4. Treat SPI Like Health Data: Sensitive Personal Information is much like healthcare data. Most of us understand that when marketing in the healthcare space, compliance with HIPAA is mandatory. The same principle should apply to SPI. Treating SPI data with the same level of care ensures that your marketing strategies meet the explicit consent requirements.

Exclusion Isn’t a Strategy

Too often, I’ve had conversations with brands and agencies that end with them saying, “We’re excluding this (SPI) category for now.” This approach is not a long-term solution. Exclusion is a cop-out, and more importantly, it’s intellectually bankrupt. Ignoring multicultural audiences due to data compliance challenges is not a strategy — it’s a missed opportunity. Any self-respecting brand that thinks excluding 40% of their audience is a good idea should ask themselves: what’s the alternative? A campaign so vanilla it appeals to no one? Brands should demand more from their agencies and teams if this is their approach.

Since early 2023, over 17 states have enacted privacy laws that address consumer inclusion around ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and union membership. This trend is not reversing. It’s vital for brands and agencies to overcome inertia and adopt new strategies and tactics. Progressive brands must take the lead, holding their agencies and partners accountable. There is enormous opportunity here for those willing to lead from the front.

The post Navigating the New Rules of Marketing to Multicultural Audiences appeared first on AdMonsters.

We were all at the edge of our seats last week as the entire industry tuned in each day of the DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. 

The ad tech world is on high alert, gripping the industry with every twist and turn. To help make sense of it all, the AdMonsters editors dive deep into the first week of the trial in our premiere episode of ‘Google on Trial.’ This is more than just a courtroom drama—it’s a potential turning point for publishers, advertisers, and digital media.

In this episode, Lynne, Andrew, and I unpack key moments, testimonies, and implications that could reshape how we think about Google’s role in ad tech. We explore everything from data brokerage and market manipulation to publishers’ challenging negotiations with Google. The discussion even touches on global regulatory impacts, secretive maneuvers by Google, and how small players might be the most affected.

Curious to hear the full breakdown? Watch the video and join us in dissecting this critical moment for the industry.

Lynne’s Takeaways:

Data Brokerage and Market Manipulation – Lynne references an AdMonsters article by Adam Heimlich, arguing that Google’s true power lies in its massive data trove and how it uses it to broker ad placements. Google’s dominance is not just about having better tech but leveraging data to manipulate the ad marketplace in its favor.

Global Regulatory Impact – The trial could have global implications. She mentions fines imposed on Google and Apple in Europe and the UK’s CMA pushing for more transparency in ad tech. This trial could be part of a larger global reckoning against tech giants like Google and Apple, or “GApple.”

Stephanie Layser’s Testimony – Lynne highlights former NewsCorp exec Stephanie Layser’s testimony about publishers feeling held hostage by Google’s dominance. The lack of transparency and the difficulty of finding alternative demand sources means that publishers are stuck with Google, despite the potential for higher costs and complications if they switch away.

Yakira’s Takeaways:

Negotiating with Google Was Never Easy – Yakira emphasizes Goodway Group’s Jay Friedman’s testimony, noting that negotiating with Google is almost impossible due to its dominance. Friedman compared the alternative options to Google’s services as choosing between high-end and budget hotels, underscoring the unrealistic nature of switching away from Google without suffering revenue losses.

Header Bidding Was ‘Not the Answer – Header bidding was supposed to provide an alternative to Google’s dominance, but it actually made things worse for some publishers. Gannett’s attempt to switch to header bidding led to a 15-20% increase in CPMs, illustrating the difficulty of finding viable alternatives to Google’s ad services.

Why Is Google Being So Secretive? – Google’s attempts to exclude certain testimonies and make the switch from a jury to a bench trial by paying the government $2 million. This move highlights Google’s extensive power and raises questions about their transparency and motives in the trial.

Andrew’s Takeaways: 

The Small Player’s Reliance on Google – Small businesses and publishers see Google’s ad tech as a cost-effective and streamlined solution. Breaking up Google’s ad business could complicate ad management and increase costs, negatively impacting their ability to advertise and grow.

Check My Ads’s Two Cents – Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads argues that Google’s monopolistic practices stifle competition and transparency in the ad tech space. The trial could lead to structural changes and more global regulation, and reignite discussions on legislative measures like the America Act for digital media transparency.

What’s Next?

The trial has highlighted the complexity of breaking up major tech monopolies, the potential ripple effects on small businesses and publishers, and the intricate balance between legislative oversight and market self-regulation.

Stay tuned for weekly updates and deep dives as we continue to unpack this monumental trial. We will bring you the latest developments and expert analyses on what it all means for the future of digital media and ad tech.

Bye everyone, and see you next week!

The post Inside the DOJ’s Big Tech Showdown: AdMonsters Breaks Down Week 1 of Google’s High-Stakes Trial appeared first on AdMonsters.

As the US vs Google ad tech trial unfolds, Chalice’s Adam Heimlich explores how Google used data to dominate display advertising, manipulate auctions, and crush competition. Discover the hidden tactics behind its market power and what it means for the future of digital advertising.

Since a broker is an intermediary, and the basis of audience targeting is data, there should be no doubt Google is an enormous data broker — maybe the biggest of all time. That’s the big takeaway from Week 1 of US vs Google, the ad tech case currently in session in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Google’s Doubleclick & Admeld Takeover

Instead of selling consumer data to ad tech companies, Google opted to dedicate its brokerage to the service of Google advertisers. By 2007, these were demanding more cheap clicks than Google search could drive.

In glaring contrast with what an honest broker would do, Google decided to acquire Doubleclick and Admeld, assume the role of a trusted sell-side broker helping publishers monetize, and then use buy-side data against those publishers.

Cream Skimming and Auction Manipulation

Google monopolized the market for intermediary auction software by replacing fair and open auctions with auctions manipulated through Google’s secret use case for consumer data: cream skimming.

It’s relatively easy to predict conversions if you know what nearly everybody has been searching for online lately. But Google wasn’t satisfied with simply bidding to place, say, Proactiv ads in front of people they knew were worried about pimples. Google felt it necessary to place relevant ads without ever paying above market rate on behalf of Proactiv or any other advertiser. Overbidding is a natural consequence of winning a lot of auctions, which is why sellers like them. There’s no way to know what bid price you have to beat to win. Usually!

Secret Projects: Bernanke, Jedi, and Poirot

Acting as a dishonest broker with unique auction privileges, Google implemented a series of secret tactics to place ads in front of future purchasers for prices lower — sometimes much lower — than those placements were worth.

These include First Look, Last Look, Project Bernanke, Project Jedi, and Project Poirot. (It says a lot that only the DOJ was able to uncover these conducts, despite intense publisher scrutiny and dozens if not hundreds of ex-Google employees knowing about them. The amount of power required to keep a secret so big for so many years is immense.) Though auction manipulation is rightly the focus of the federal case, advertising professionals should note it’s data that drove the outsize profits Google reaped from digital display.

Data Power vs. Market Power

There’s nothing illegal about having the most data or using it to win continuously in search. There’s also nothing illegal about selling data, though reputable data brokerages somehow came to be regarded as less ethical than Google (I wonder how that happened). Where Google crossed a line was in exporting its data advantage from search to display.

Cream skimming radically altered what had been thriving competitions for buy- and sell-side ad tech. US law looks askance at market winners crossing into adjacent markets for an excellent reason: success in this sort of “monopoly maintenance” closes off markets from what they need to grow properly. Without a route to success through competition, markets see less investment, a slower pace of innovation, and lower value at every price. This is what happened to display.

The Downfall of Display Advertising

The trial includes a great deal of evidence on CPMs: which way they changed, at which times, and by how much. We who worked in digital display over the last decade can recall what we saw: deteriorating quality, persistent fraud, opacity on fees even when transparency was promised, constant reputational and corporate risk, and routine non-disclosure of even the basic facts about what we purchased or sold. There has been a great deal of finger-pointing at allegedly bad actors, though not enough at the biggest one. Finally, we can be grateful to have reached a moment of accountability, and an opportunity to reset.

A Market in Need of a Reset

Google thrived while the market suffered because it used its data advantage to cherry-pick display opportunities of high value to search advertisers. Besides lowering the overall value of display and rewarding corrupt players, Google’s bias tilted the display market toward direct response advertising, which values last actions over persuasion and sentiment lift. This has been extremely costly to brands, whose use cases for advertising were simply not served by the dominant technology. Also victimized were quality publishers, as monetization was (and still is) determined almost entirely by decision algorithms that ignore quality signals such as ad-to-content ratio, refresh rate, and share of returning readers. No one knows as well as we do what drove the devolution of news toward clickbait.

If Google’s data had been left within its search walled garden or brought to an open market for display advertising, that market would not nearly be so ruined. Google’s case unravels if you doubt that winning an arms race in data should grant a company the right to dominate in AI. If the data world champions hoard what they know about us, and only use it to fuel their own predictions, they will kill competition in many markets. It will be better for America if the world’s biggest data collectors, with their detailed digital dossiers on us all, are forced to be honest brokers.

The post Google Is a Data Broker appeared first on AdMonsters.