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.