The AdMonsters team is back for another week of intense courtroom drama in the Google vs. DOJ trial. We’re now deep into week three, and let me tell you, the plot has thickened faster than a bowl of your grandma’s gumbo.

Week 3 Overview

If you’ve been keeping up with the trial, you know we’ve already had heavy hitters taking the stand, spilling the tea on Google’s iron grip over the ad tech ecosystem. But this week? It’s all about the tangled mess of “ad tech spaghetti.” Google came out swinging in its defense, but rather than clearing things up, they managed to tangle themselves up even more. It’s like watching someone try to detangle a pair of headphones — they’re only making it worse.

Check out the AdMonsters Team breaking down the highlights of week 3 of the DOJ vs Google trial in the video below and you can also catch their weekly updates on YouTube.

Key Testimonies

Andrew Byrd jumped into a few polarizing testimonies, particularly from witnesses like Mark Israel. Israel defended Google, claiming regulators focused too narrowly on open web display advertising. He waved off the allegations like, “Look over there! TikTok! Facebook! Amazon!” — and suggested that competition from social media platforms and e-commerce sites like Facebook, TikTok, and Amazon was being overlooked.  He was saying just anything to divert attention from the real issue.

His argument that Google’s share of the online ad market had dropped from 15% to 10% over a decade due to a shift toward mobile and app-based advertising was… let’s just say, an interesting flex. Critics like Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads quickly noted that this defense overlooked the publishers’ plight, focusing too heavily on advertisers.

Publisher Concerns

Andrew further elaborated on testimonies from Kenneth Bloom from BuzzFeed, who, despite some nervous energy, praised Google’s ad display business. The over-reliance on Google’s tools is real, and it’s leaving publishers in a tight spot. There’s a clear tension—while some publishers benefit from Google’s ad tech, it’s a double-edged sword.

A viral LinkedIn post from Ariel hit the nail on the head: publisher revenue losses weren’t fully addressed in Israel’s defense, leaving his argument feeling like Swiss cheese — full of holes.

Eyewitness Accounts

To make matters worse, Yakira talked about when a Google project manager called a prominent ad tech journalist “stupid.” Talk about drama. These actions only underscore the growing tension and contradictions in the testimonies that have been the hallmark of this trial.

Internal Google Emails

One of the most damning pieces of evidence has been internal Google emails, which disclosed strategic advantages gained through acquisitions like DoubleClick. The DOJ used these documents to argue that Google’s market power resulted from deliberate actions to stifle competition, not just from good business practices. Oh no, say it isn’t so. Say it wasn’t a well-orchestrated game of Monopoly with Google holding all the prime real estate.

Judge’s Stance

Judge Brinkema isn’t letting anyone slide either. She’s been giving some Google employees the side-eye, openly questioning their credibility. You know things are getting shaky when the judge looks at you like Hmm emoji. This added yet another layer of drama to the proceedings, leaving Google’s defense team scrambling to keep their narrative intact.

The Complexity of Ad Tech

To wrap up the week, it’s clear the ad tech ecosystem isn’t just complex—it’s like the ultimate Choose Your Own Adventure novel. And guess what? Google isn’t just a chapter; they’re the whole darn book. Their fingers are in every part of the ad tech supply chain, from publishers to ad buyers, and everything in between.

Transparency Issues

Of course, transparency (or the lack thereof) is an elephant in the room. Key testimonies are happening behind closed doors and some trial documents are sealed. It’s giving major “black box” vibes. The public and the industry are left speculating about what’s really at stake.

Implications for the Future

So, there you have it. Week three’s tangled mess of spaghetti — that none of us would want to eat — unveiled a web of power plays and serious courtroom drama. We’ve got Google’s defense team spinning its wheels while the DOJ tightens the net around Google’s ad empire.

At its heart, this trial isn’t just about Google; it’s setting the stage for the entire ad tech industry. You can bet competitors like The Trade Desk are watching this soap opera unfold, taking notes on what not to do. Will this end with a Google split-up, or will they find a way to wriggle out of this like Houdini? Only time will tell.

Got thoughts on the trial? Head over to our Slack community polls and spill the tea. 

The post Google vs DOJ Trial Week 3: Ad Tech Spaghetti and Courtroom Drama appeared first on AdMonsters.

With testimonies revealing Google’s deep grip on ad tech, we unpacked how this could reshape the industry and finally give publishers their due. Watch the full breakdown and get the highlights of the trial here.

Hey Monsters! We’re back with our coverage of week two of Google on Trial, and let’s just say it’s heating up like a summer block party.

This week, we peeled back more layers of Google’s ad tech dominance — revealing how publishers, once sidelined, finally have their grievances heard in court. If week one was the appetizer, week two served the main course, and the DOJ wasn’t holding back.

Catch the full video recap below…

Publishers: “Just Give Me My Money”

Last week’s testimony made it clear — publishers have been getting the short end of the stick. With Google controlling AdX, the biggest pool of premium advertisers, publishers don’t have much leverage. Even though there’s plenty of demand, publishers aren’t cashing in like they should. Between Google’s 20% cut and their alleged sneaky peeks at competitor bids during the First Look days, it’s no wonder publishers felt like they were being squeezed.

It’s like publishers were throwing the biggest club night, but Google controlled the guest list and took a big chunk of the door charge, leaving publishers with barely enough to cover the bar.

Even U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema bluntly asked: Does Google’s ad tech actually benefit publishers? Spoiler alert: according to the DOJ’s witness, if Google wasn’t meddling in the auction process publishers could’ve walked away with a lot more.

Unified Pricing Rules: A Straitjacket for Publishers

Next up, came the Unified Pricing Rules (UPR). Google sold it as a win for efficiency and innovation, but publishers tell a different story. Matthew Wheatland from The Daily Mail testified that UPR caused a dip in revenue per impression, leaving publishers gasping for air.

Sure, there was an uptick in overall revenue when UPR rolled out, but Wheatland pointed out that this likely came from a surge in web traffic, not from Google’s pricing rules. Without that traffic boost, the hit would’ve been much worse. He also noted that if The Daily Mail tried to move away from Google’s ad server, they’d be staring down a 28% revenue loss. That’s what happens when you’re locked in Google’s ecosystem.

Defense Buzzwords & Bingo Cards: Google’s Shield

Google’s defense team has relied on buzzwords like “brand safety” and “inventory quality” to paint themselves as the good guys.

Our friend Arielle Garcia over at Check My Ads spiced things up with her “Defense Buzzword Bingo,” turning this corporate showdown into a game — literally. But behind all the buzzword smoke, the truth is much harsher. Google’s “innovation” isn’t really about pushing the industry forward — it’s about maintaining an iron grip on ad tech.

Key Testimonies: Behind the Curtain of Ad Tech Monopoly

The courtroom spotlight shone on some big Google players last week. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan stepped in to explain the inner workings of Google’s ad tech strategy, tracing it back to the DoubleClick acquisition. According to Mohan, this acquisition was meant to drive innovation, making life easier for publishers and advertisers.  Sounds great, right? But the DOJ didn’t buy it. They pointed out that Google’s shopping spree — including acquisitions like DoubleClick and Admeld — was more about wiping out the competition than building better tools.

Mohan tried to defend Google’s habit of “parking” acquired companies, saying it was about letting them run independently while syncing up their tech. He swore Google’s rise came from “product innovation and services,” but the government painted a different picture — one where Google’s integrated ad stack turned rivals into roadkill.

Then we had Nirmal Jayaram, Senior Director of Engineering at Google, in the hot seat. Jayaram did his best to downplay internal documents showing how Google allegedly used AWBid to snatch up publishers from competitors. His testimony was jam-packed with buzzwords like “latency” and “brand safety,” contradicting earlier evidence about Google’s strategy. There was a big gap between what internal emails said and what was claimed in court. Classic Big Tech spin, if you ask us.

Publishers Finally Seen: The Trial’s Turning Point?

For the first time, publishers are stepping out of Google’s shadow, with their frustrations about ad tech monopolization being aired for everyone to see. As our brother from another mother, AdExchanger’s Anthony Vargas called it — publishers are feeling seen. The years of discontent, the quiet side-eye at conferences, the “let’s call up our Google rep” complaints? They’re now front and center. And it’s about time.

Global Implications: What Happens Next?

This trial isn’t just a U.S. thing. The ripple effects are being felt worldwide, from the U.S. courtroom to the EU, where regulators are watching with popcorn in hand. Sure, Google scored a small win in Europe last week, dodging a $1.66 billion antitrust fine. But don’t let them pop the champagne just yet — the global fight against Big Tech dominance is far from over.

Stay tuned as Andrew Byrd, Yakira Young, and Lynne d Johnson return to dive deep into week three of Google on Trial.

The post Google on Trial: Unpacking Week Two of the DOJ’s Case and What It Means for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

New platforms, data-driven targeting strategies, and cutting-edge measurement solutions are the lifeblood of the ad tech industry. However, as credit remains tight, payment terms from major advertisers have gotten longer — especially thanks to the growing SPO trend and more intermediaries going directly.

Unfortunately, longer payment cycles are becoming more common, threatening to stifle momentum and create additional cash constraints for companies powering the next era of ad tech.

Keurig Dr Pepper’s Controversial Move: A 360-Day Payment Term Shockwave

The most notable example came from Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP).

In 2023, the beverage giant requested extended payment terms (up to 360 days) from its agencies. The 360-day terms required agencies to wait up to a year to receive full payment, but they also offered low-cost financing so they could access funds sooner. Suppliers could self-fund the requirement or participate in KDP’s Supply Chain Financing Program with Prime Revenue (a capital solution).

As is usually the case, the closer to the advertiser a company is in the supply chain, the longer the payment terms. However, this was an unheard-of proposition in the advertising ecosystem. So much so that these terms were highlighted and passed around within the industry, gathering backlash from thought leaders and the media about the potential negative consequences and concern about the precedent it would set.

Theoretically, the extended payment terms could have created a significant ripple effect throughout the ad tech ecosystem – and it was an eye-opening moment for many.

Downstream Effects: Vendors and Agencies Struggle with Extended Payment Terms

When a brand like KDP demands longer payment terms, the burden falls on the vendor and inevitably trickles downstream to their supply partners. The vendor must pay upfront for ad space, media buys, and the technology fees associated with running the campaign.

Then, they extend terms to their vendors, albeit not usually commensurate with their terms, and raise rates or margins to offset the newly added costs they’ll incur. This upfront cost creates a severe cash flow strain for vendors and agencies, especially smaller or independent shops with limited access to capital compared to their larger competitors.

"The lack of liquidity makes them more dependent on cash flow and less likely to take risks they otherwise would have, severely limiting their growth potential and ultimately stifling momentum at a critical time."

With cash tied up and waiting for client payment, supply partners have less to invest in areas critical for long-term success. This is referred to as opportunity cost, or the cost of choosing one option over an alternative that may have a better yield. When resources are limited, this becomes a much more pressing quandary, and opportunities for growth, innovation, and other initiatives take a back seat.

Companies may be forced to make hard decisions, like making payroll or taking on new business. The lack of liquidity makes them more dependent on cash flow and less likely to take risks they otherwise would have, severely limiting their growth potential and ultimately stifling momentum at a critical time. 

Reality Check: Liquidity Challenges in Ad Tech

In some form or another, payments have long been a central concern within media and advertising. In many ways, payment trends serve as an industry barometer, often highlighting the broader health of the market. Demand partner payments, or lack thereof, have shaped ad tech throughout history, spurring hot-button topics like downstream transparency and sequential liability.

"Risk rises as liquidity falls. Terms get longer, offsets get bigger, and companies go under."

While these topics are pertinent, they are tangential to the cornerstone issue of liquidity. Of course, no amount of capital will save us from bad actors, gross negligence, or abhorrent mismanagement. However, that is more of a question of the human condition rather than a treatable industry diagnosis.

While the above risks will be philosophized for eternity, their inverse correlation to liquidity remains relevant. Risk rises as liquidity falls. Terms get longer, offsets get bigger, and companies go under.

Navigating the Liquidity Squeeze: Financing Options for Survival and Growth

Making matters worse is the self-perpetuating nature of a tightening credit environment. As risk rises, lenders and investors become more averse, seeking safer options to deploy their capital. This, in turn, ultimately exacerbates and compounds the issue. At worst, some companies are no longer eligible for their funding.

At best, their funding gets more expensive, and their terms become even more restrictive.

While there is no catch-all answer, alternative financing solutions can help. Downstream partners can leverage solutions to access flexible capital on demand, bringing certainty to their cash flow and enabling them to grow on their terms. However, be aware that not all revenue-based financing options are alike. Industry knowledge and flexibility are frequently overlooked when reviewing capital partners, so pay close attention to penalties, covenants, and recourse. 

If nothing else, it is essential to determine how complicated their funding process is and, ultimately, if they will grow with you.

The post The Cash Crunch Conundrum: How Extended Payment Terms Stall Ad Tech Innovation appeared first on AdMonsters.

Hey there, Monsters, ready to turbocharge your digital media strategies? We’ve got something special just for you. For the first time, AdMonsters is releasing a detailed summary of our Ops 2024 Conference, held on June 3-4. This is your golden ticket to the industry’s latest and greatest insights.

Why should you download this summary? Because it’s packed with wisdom from top industry leaders across five dynamic tracks: Data & Identity, Future Ops, Revenue & Product, TV/Video/CTV, and Content/Commerce/Media. Whether you’re looking to harness the power of generative AI, navigate privacy regulations, or explore new revenue streams in the CTV landscape, this summary has it all.

Don’t miss out on the chance to elevate your digital game. Get your hands on the AdMonsters Ops 2024 Summary now and stay ahead of the curve.

Enter your info to download your copy below!

The post Dive into the Future of Digital Media with the Ops 2024 Event Summary appeared first on AdMonsters.

There’s been a lot of name-calling when it comes to Colossus SSP lately, they’ve been called a witch practicing black magic, and a big man strutting around on campus, among other names. A recent Adalytics report prompted the name-calling, but as the dust settles, some ask: Is the pile-on deserved?

Adalytics claimed that Colossus mis-declares user IDs in the bid requests it sends to The Trade Desk to make its inventory appear more valuable than it actually is. Stung by the accusation of fraud, Colossus’s parent company, Direct Digital Holdings (DDH) filed a defamation lawsuit against Adalytics (ergo the “big man strutting” comment).

Many pundits took Adalytics at its word. For them, the smoking gun was the fact that of the 16 SSPs that send bid requests to The Trade Desk only Colossus’s are problematic per the Adalytics report.

But new testing and analysis by independent cybersecurity and ad fraud researcher, Dr. Augustine Fou, suggests that Adalytics may have been too quick in asserting Colossus intentionally mis-declares user IDs. According to his data, Colossus is not the only SSP experiencing user ID mismatches.

Been There Done That

In a LinkedIn post titled, Can Intent Be Deduced? Yes and No. Read On, Dr. Fou describes tests he conducted between multiple SSPs and The Trade Desk to assess the degree to which ID mismatches occur.

Interestingly, the first sections of his article are a trip down memory lane, reminiscing about previous instances where Adalytics accused companies of foul play when in reality they may have been experiencing the type of technical snafus that arise when multiple players are involved in a transaction.

First up, Dr. Fou refers to a 2022 Adalytics blog post that said, “Gannett Media, the largest U.S. newspaper publisher as measured by total daily circulation and purveyor of USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, The Indianapolis Star, and several hundred other local news sites, was observed using custom Javascript that appeared to mis-declare what pages and domains are submitted into header bidding ad auctions.” The Adalytics’ post highlighted that domain spoofing is a serious issue and implies that Gannett media was pulling a fast one to boost revenues.

But in tests Dr. Fou found that the mis-declarations went both ways, noting that bid requests from national newspapers, including USA Today, were classified as local publications and likely to earn lower CPMs in the market.

Dr. Fou concludes: “The fact that misdeclarations occurred in both directions suggests this may indeed have been an error, rather than malicious, intentional fraud.”

Intentional Fraud or Synching Stale Cookies?

This brings us to his analysis of Adalytics’ accusation that Colossus has been acting in bad faith.  Dr. Fou takes issue with several aspects of the Adalytics’ report, beginning with the data sample it used to make its claims. He writes, “The data used by the [Adalytics] report was disclosed to be a ‘convenience sample’ of approximately 25 human volunteers that installed the Adalytics browser extension in their Chrome browser.” So not exactly a robust testing scenario.

Dr. Fou also points out that Colossus doesn’t have a direct connection to The Trade Desk so the SSP connects through BidSwitch. That means Colossus matches its ID to the BidSwitch ID, which then matches to The Trade Desk ID (TDID). It’s kind of a game of telephone.

“BidSwitch does get direct cookie syncs from Trade Desk. But it is unclear how soon they update their match tables with the new TDID,” Dr. Fou explains. He continues: “NO SSP can read the TDID in browser store, so it is impossible for an SSP to read a TDID/cookie and replace it with a higher value one in the 50 milliseconds between the bid request and the bid response.” In other words, it’s simply impossible, Dr. Fou suggests, for Colossus to do the bait-and-switch implied in Adalytic’s report.

Dr. Fou also directly challenges the claim that Colossus is the only SSP to exhibit ID mismatches with TDID. He writes, “Mismatches were observed in ALL cases, and ALL SSPs. Experimental results showed that the accuracy of the match tables depend on how aggressively the SSP syncs cookies and updates the match tables.”

He reiterated that point in a follow-up LinkedIn article posted on Sunday, “If cookie mismatches indicate fraud, then all SSPs are committing fraud. All SSPs are NOT committing fraud, and all SSPs HAVE cookie mismatches.”  

Now let’s return to the small sample size of the Adalytics’ report. Had Adalytics used data from 50 or 100 human volunteers, they may have observed mismatches among the other SSPs.

Dr. Fou vs. Other Pundits

Okay, so now it’s Dr. Fou’s word against other pundits, some, such as Pesach Lattin and Ari Paparo, have been quite vocal. Lattin has penned at least five articles on the Colossus scandal, and Paparo wrote a lengthy piece titled A Colossal Mess. Who should one believe?

In one of Pesach Lattin’s articles, he says that when it comes to ad tech data, Dr. Fou has some serious creds, way more than Paparo. Paparo, he says, is better at selling ideas, writing, “But let’s not forget, while Paparo is a fantastic guy with a knack for selling ice to an Eskimo, he’s not exactly the Sherlock Holmes of ad tech intricacies.”

(While we’re on the topic of not forgetting, let’s also not forget the word “Eskimo” is a colonial term imposed on the Inuit and Yupik peoples, one that Native Alaskans find offensive.)

For his part, Paparo says in a comment to Dr. Fou’s LinkedIn article that he was the first to say that this whole debacle could be the result of a technical issue. And in truth, his article offers seven distinct scenarios that could explain the ID mismatches, only one of which is intentional fraud.

So in the end it may turn out that Colossus’ mis-declarations result from one of its partners synching with user IDs that are a tad bit stale.  And here’s the thing: Issues happen all the time in campaigns, and they’re resolved the most efficiently when they’re raised directly with the parties involved so that they can understand what happened and why. That kind of cooperative troubleshooting actually benefits the entire industry. For instance, if ID mismatches occur when match tables aren’t updated frequently enough, that’s a learning that benefits everyone. 

Israel Mirsky, Chief Strategy & Marketing Officer of Wesana said in a LinkedIn post that in this instance, it’s worth soliciting input from other players in the ecosystem, as Dr. Fou’s research indicates “some pretty serious allegations being made about the overall quality and integrity of cookie matching across the programmatic ecosystem.”

Edit Update: An earlier version of this story stated that Dr. Fou concluded that Adalytics has no real proof of intentionality that Forbes was committing fraud by transacting mis-declared inventory on a subdomain – www3.forbes. Dr. Fou states: “So while the 2022 Gannett case seemed to be unintentional, the 2024 Forbes case seemed to be intentional, due to the 3 additional observations.”

The post Is the Colossus SSP Pile On Deserved? appeared first on AdMonsters.

In digital advertising’s evolving landscape, sustainability is often seen as a necessary yet challenging goal. Emry Downinghall, SVP of Programmatic Revenue & Strategy at Unwind Media, is at the forefront of this transformation.

Unwind Media is pioneering strategies that not only lessen the publisher’s environmental impact but also enhance their bottom line. In this exclusive Q&A, Downinghall shares insights into the innovative approaches that have enabled Unwind Media to balance economic performance with ecological responsibility, providing valuable lessons for the industry.

Let’s explore how these strategies are reshaping the future of sustainable media.

Lynne d Johnson: At the Green Media Summit, your panel explored how publishers can reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing revenue. From Unwind Media’s perspective, how do you balance these two sometimes conflicting goals, and what has been the most challenging aspect of aligning sustainability with business objectives?

Emry Downinghall: The most challenging aspect was convincing business leaders that this was possible and something worth prioritizing on our roadmap.

For publishers, the idea of reducing emissions without negatively impacting business performance does feel like a conflict. Historically the open exchange has mostly rewarded more (partners, bid requests, ads on page) with more (bid density, impressions, revenue), all of which require more energy and generate more emissions, and our initial perspective was no exception. 

However, my primary focus was improving our open exchange efficiency while also improving KPIs that matter to advertisers like viewability and CTR. It just turns out that a great way to improve your attractiveness in the open market coincides with reducing emissions.

LdJ: Unwind Media has implemented innovative traffic-shaping strategies like “no ads if idle” and “smart request.” Can you elaborate on how these tactics contribute to sustainability and potentially enhance user experience and ad viewability? What have been the measurable impacts on your ad operations and revenue?

ED: First, let’s define what these things are as simply as possible. It’s two, pretty straightforward features we integrated into our ad wrapper that require a small amount of code to monitor and manage bid requests and auctions. 

‘Smart Request’ stops calling SSPs that have failed to clear our dynamic price floor for X-number of auctions over Y-period, by user session and ad unit. ‘No Ads If Idle’ stops the programmatic auction if we detect the user is idle on-page for more than 60 seconds.

The sustainability benefits of these programs are centered around making a publisher’s programmatic auction more efficient. If you’re making fewer ad requests, you’re using less energy and becoming more sustainable. 

Smart Request leads to fewer total requests to SSPs resulting in a lowered carbon footprint, while also improving the performance and cost efficiency of the publisher to the SSP. Put simply, you’re a more attractive pipe to your partners because you send them more of what they want and less of what they don’t want. No Ads If Idle is a commonsense approach that reduces requests while improving viewability, CTR and attention scores.

We measured no negative revenue impact from these tests and cut total ad requests to SSPs by more than 50% while also improving desktop viewability by over 14%.

LdJ: When it comes to media sustainability, how do you view the division of responsibility between publishers and advertisers? Should there be a shared approach, and how can both sides collaborate more effectively to amplify their impact?

ED: I think meaningful change will come from a combination of education (what this is, why it matters) and business-focused outcomes.

I haven’t spoken to a publisher that isn’t supportive of becoming more sustainable. They just want to better understand what this means for their business and how it can realistically tie into their goals.

ShareThrough’s Green Media Summit was an example of cross-industry education and shared best practices. Scope3’s carbon measurement tool is a good place to get a sense of where you stand vs. the rest of the industry and the IAB Tech Lab’s Sustainability Playbook is a great resource as well. 

LdJ: Looking forward, what emerging strategies do you see as key to further reducing the carbon footprint of digital advertising? 

ED: I’d like to see more clearly defined benefits for publishers that choose to make responsible decisions around things like ads-to-content ratio, bid request duplication, and ads.txt entries. 

Scope3’s GMP+ along with SSPs that curate “Green PMP” deals for publishers are two examples of ways to benefit directly from being more sustainable. Let’s make that approach more pervasive across the industry.

LdJ: For publishers looking to reduce their environmental impact without hurting their bottom line, what key lessons or practices from Unwind Media’s experience would you recommend they consider? 

ED: Focus on internal measurement first. If you can easily understand what’s happening at the bidstream level you’ll be more willing to test and more capable of determining outcomes with confidence.

Don’t try to do everything at once. This is an iterative process that we’ve been working on since July of 2022. At no point did we run two tests at the same time. 

Think of these changes as foundational improvements to your ad stack and don’t conflate them with short term yield tests.

Internally, take advantage of opportunities to tie outcomes to product goals around user experience. As you work towards being a more efficient publisher your user experience will also improve and you’ll be popular internally !

I’ll close with a list of 5 things we’ve done to become a more efficient and sustainable publisher.  If you’re able to test into any of these changes you will not only holistically improve your inventory profile but long term its value as well.

5 Ways to Become a More Efficient and Sustainable Publisher

The post Balancing Act: Unwind Media’s Journey to Sustainability appeared first on AdMonsters.

It’s the question on everyone’s mind: How can I navigate the cookieless landscape in a way that lets me provide relevant ads to consumers while protecting their privacy? As we collectively prepare for the true end of third-party cookies, it is clear that those who have a preemptive game plan in place to deal with the deprecation of cookies will have an advantage over their peers who do not. 

Several strategies are emerging, many of which prioritize users’ first-party data in exchange for something they find valuable, like access to exclusive content. Many are turning to contextual advertising and ID-based solutions to ensure their content reaches the right audience, but what if there could be a truly ID-less solution? 

We spoke with Anthony Flaccavento, General Manager Americas for Ogury, an ad tech company focused on privacy-safe targeting of personas rather than specific people, about how the company is tackling the cookieless problem. Flaccavento shared some thoughts about getting prepared to go cookieless (even if Google delays deprecation again), thriving without cookies, and what Ogury sees as the future of successful targeting. 

What Does the End of Third-Party Cookies Mean For Ad Tech?

Kacey Perinelli: Google began testing the end of third-party cookies on Chrome in early January. How has this change affected the industry for the first quarter?

Anthony Flaccavento: Despite several false starts, January marked a long-awaited milestone for third-party cookies, with Google beginning to implement default restrictions for 1% of Chrome users. The ripple effect of this momentous change has spread rapidly across the digital media ecosystem, as brands and agencies realize the window of opportunity to explore viable cookie alternatives is closing.

The projected 2024 timeline to complete the cookie deprecation for all users can still shift. But for those hoping for another postponement on Google’s part, whether cookies disappear from Chrome in 2024 or 2025 doesn’t matter: the privacy wave is unstoppable and began long before Google’s announcement. We’re talking about a decisive turning point in the protection of consumer privacy and a revolution that will reshuffle the cards for an entire sector that is generating growth and jobs. For a player like Ogury, this revolution was anticipated several years ago, to avoid being dependent on a decision like Google’s. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the market as a whole.

KP: The deprecation of third-party cookies marks “a decisive turning point in the protection of consumer privacy.” Can you tell us why?

AF: First of all, we have to recognize that without advertising, there would be no free Internet. Digital advertising is here to stay, and brands will continue to invest massively in it. However, the players operating in this market are facing unprecedented challenges. The end of third-party cookies represents a major technological hurdle, but it is the consequence of a fundamental movement to protect consumer privacy.

This movement started gaining traction in public opinion, particularly in Europe, with the GDPR. Indeed, at the time of its 2018 implementation, many consumers had no real knowledge of the way companies were using their personal data. But today, these same consumers have become increasingly sensitive to the subject. When given a clear choice, more and more users are refusing to give their consent for advertising purposes. This is exactly why we argue that the privacy wave is unstoppable, and is the result of a profound evolution that is both ethical and technological.

Achieving Success While Maintaining Privacy Is Possible

KP: What is your advice to ad tech professionals about thriving in a truly ID-less internet?

AF: In recent years, the industry has been navigating from one trend to the others, with a surge of interest for CTV and AI and fads like the metaverse and NFTs. So, it’s important to understand that this “post-cookie world” is not just another trend, but a groundswell. And it’s no longer possible to postpone this realization.

For advertisers, this means objectively evaluating their current solutions and understanding how to improve them through partners who didn’t wait for Google’s announcement to test and prove the effectiveness of their technologies. As for these technology providers, they urgently need to realize that continuing to use advertising identifiers is not sustainable.

KP: Who will be the winners in this new cookieless world?

AF: The digital advertising ecosystem can be divided into three buckets. First come the walled gardens/GAFAM and big retailers (Walmart, Target), who will continue to grow thanks to their access to first-party data. This explains the rise of Retail Media, which accounts for more than 20% of digital advertising worldwide.

Then, there are the traditional players, who continue to deliver campaigns based on cookies and advertising IDs. Despite preferring this short-term approach, they still represent a significant market share as cookies are still available on Chrome (remember, only 1% of users have switched to cookieless as of January 4) and in-app identifiers are still accessible, especially on Android. 

Last but not least comes a third category of players, who have understood that a new generation of technologies, respectful of users’ privacy and independent of cookies and IDs, is essential. Among them is Ogury, who didn’t wait for Google’s announcement or the CPPA to anticipate this shift and provide advertisers and agencies with advertising solutions grounded in privacy by targeting personas, not people.

The Future Is Cookieless 

KP: What alternatives do advertising professionals have to replace cookies and IDs? 

AF: Several types of technologies have been emerging in recent years, notably solutions based on shared IDs within micro-ecosystems. However, as we have seen, consumers are increasingly reluctant to give their consent for advertising purposes, and it’s unlikely that all industry players will be able to agree on a single standard in this area. 

Other solutions, such as contextual targeting, are respectful of privacy but extremely limited in terms of reach. Imagine you are browsing the cycling section of Yahoo Sports and you’re offered an ad for an electric bike. You’ll agree that this type of targeting is fairly basic and limited. An individual has many interests and doesn’t necessarily visit related sites: for example, you might be a fan of hiking or want to buy a new bike without visiting dedicated sites.

KP: Can you tell me more about personified advertising and how it can help achieve successful targeting in a cookieless landscape?

AF: Picture an international brand trying to target 200,000 potential consumers using the limited targeting methods we saw previously. Advertisers are understandably concerned about the disappearance of identifiers. However, there are technologies available to counter these limitations. This is what we have developed with personified advertising, which targets personas, rather than users’ identities, on the destinations where they consume content – instead of the individual users themselves. This unique data model, based on several proprietary data sources, including surveys distributed directly to consumers via a network of publisher partners, enables relevant targeting at scale without relying on advertising trackers such as cookies. This is something we have been doing for several years now, long before Google’s decision.
__

About Anthony Flaccavento

Anthony is a seasoned ad-tech and media executive who serves as General Manager, Americas for Ogury, the leader in advertising solutions fueled by exclusive data and grounded in privacy. A vital member of the Executive Committee, he reports directly to the CEO. He focuses on leading Ogury’s best-in-class sales organization, driving business across the Americas, and increasing value for its partners as it enters its next level of growth. Before joining Ogury, Anthony spent 11 years in various sales executive positions, most recently as Chief Revenue Officer at dynamic CTV and all-screen video solutions company Tremor Video (now Nexxen Nasdaq: NEXN). He also worked for high-profile consumer media brands such as entertainment company Complex Media and periodicals MAXIM Magazine and Athlon Media.

About Ogury

Ogury is a global adtech company that delivers Personified Advertising solutions grounded in privacy to brands, agencies and publishers by focusing on targeting personas, not people. They deliver relevant audiences at scale and on quality publisher inventory thanks to our exclusive data, which is meticulously collected and crafted from millions of self-declared customer surveys, enriched with billions of impactful data points, and refined by AI. This results in audience insights and performance not available through any other adtech platform. Founded in 2014, Ogury is a global organization with a diverse team of 500+ people across 17 countries

The post Can Targeting Truly Be ID-Free? Q&A with Anthony Flaccavento, General Manager Americas, Ogury appeared first on AdMonsters.

As Aditude integrates CPMStar’s assets and expertise, particularly its impressive reach of over 800 million monthly active users, this acquisition not only marks a significant expansion for the ad tech player but also signals a strategic shift in their approach to publisher monetization and advertiser relationships.

The union of Aditude’s ad ops technology prowess with CPMStar’s dominant position in the gaming world presents an intriguing blend of capabilities and market opportunities.

Occurring in the wake of Aditude’s $15M Series A funding in 2023, the move is a telling sign of the company’s ambition and strategic direction. In a candid conversation, Josh Schenker, Chief Financial Officer and Head of Corporate Development at Aditude, shares insights on this acquisition, its impact on Aditude’s trajectory, and the future of ad tech.

Lynne d Johnson: Josh, it’s evident Aditude is making significant moves in the ad tech world. Can you shed light on the recent acquisition of CPMStar?

Josh Schenker: Absolutely! The acquisition of CPMStar, finalized in the past few weeks, came together over the last few months. This move allows us to diversify and enhance the Aditude ecosystem, especially our ad ops technology business, and adds direct sales capabilities along with an owned and operated bidder. This marks a strategic shift from our traditional focus on ad ops technology.

LdJ: With the ad industry’s shift due to the demise of the third-party cookie, how crucial is direct sales to Aditude’s strategy?

JS: Even before the cookie concerns, direct sales have always been vital for us and providing more value to our customers. With programmatic advertising, achieving a near-100% fill rate is efficient, but direct campaigns tend to outperform programmatic in terms of yield. The cookie changes make direct sales increasingly important, helping connect advertisers with specific audiences.

LdJ: How did Aditude and CPMStar determine you were a good match for each other? 

JS: Following our Series A funding in August, we had a strategy to make some key moves with strategic acquistions. CPMStar emerged as an exciting prospect around late Q3 or early Q4. After initial conversations, we delved deeper around November or December, culminating in a few month process involving due diligence and legal aspects.

LdJ: Integrating CPMStar’s team with Aditude – what’s the game plan here and how does it look for Aditude’s future?

JS: We’ve onboarded eight team members from CPMStar, including six in sales, adding a new dimension to Aditude. The integration of two of their engineers helps us both in merging CPMStar’s technology and in enhancing what we’ve built at Aditude. Their direct sales experience, which we previously lacked, will be invaluable.

LdJ: Gaming is a distinct focus for CPMStar. How does this sector resonate with Aditude’s vision?

JS: While we’ve been successful with gaming clients, our interest isn’t limited to gaming. CPMStar provides a foundation in gaming, which we plan to leverage and expand into other verticals where Aditude has strong footholds, like lifestyle/entertainment, sports, and news.

LdJ: In terms of Aditude’s growth strategy, are more mergers and acquisitions on the horizon?

JS: Our M&A strategy is two-fold: to deepen our expertise in existing areas and to explore new products and services for publishers. We’re looking to build a comprehensive suite for publisher monetization and will be opportunistic in adding pieces to enhance our offerings. You’ll have to stay tuned for what’s next at Aditude!

LdJ: As digital media and ad tech evolve, how does Aditude plan to differentiate itself?

JS: Our focus is on providing end-to-end solutions and flexibility, offering publishers a menu of options tailored to their specific needs. Whether it’s our wrapper technology, flooring product, or full-demand management, we can adapt to different preferences and enhance publishers’ monetization strategies in various ways and also cater to diverse publisher needs.

The post Aditude Amplifies Publisher Monetization with CPMStar Acquisition appeared first on AdMonsters.

Big changes are happening in the ad tech industry. The rollout of Google Privacy Sandbox has been contentious at best, what with the CMA’s various concerns, the Movement for an Open Web calling out the Sandbox for failing to serve as a third-party cookie replacement, and the IAB’s report citing the industry’s lack of readiness due to implementation challenges driven by limitations in achieving key advertising objectives.

Even without the raising of all these red flags, the advertising ecosystem must still find other ways to target consumers in a privacy-safe way. There will be no one solution, and to be successful at capturing users going forward, publishers will need to use a mix of solutions, including alternative IDs (alt IDs). 

Adaptation to privacy regulations will be crucial to the industry’s success going forward. In the days of third-party cookies running amok, publishers could receive optimal functionality without actively participating in the back end. Now the dynamics are changing, presenting publishers with an infrastructure challenge.

The good news is that alt IDs replicate a seamless experience for all parties in the ecosystem and offer the industry one common language to rely on.

The problem? We are all using different alt IDs. 

What Does it Mean to be Alt ID Agnostic?

As of the last time we counted, there are as many as 100 different alt ID solutions available, so how can a publisher choose which to use? Many aren’t choosing at all or are choosing them all by throwing their hat into every available bucket – this is what we mean by alt-ID agnostic. 

“At lockr, we view this as publishers entering this new era and not knowing who to turn to,” shares Keith Petri, Founder and CEO of lockr. Investing in each different alt ID requires data, he says, and the demand side hasn’t picked a clear winner and likely won’t. “As a result of this, the next four quarters for integrations for publishers looks like a LUMAscape of ID solutions,” he says.

The biggest problem, according to Petri, is that the plethora of alt ID options leads to a paradox of choice, where people either become unable to make any choice at all, or they decide to invest in many alt IDs, which leads to bid stuffing and increases data leakage. 

The biggest problem, according to Petri, is that the plethora of alt ID options leads to a paradox of choice, where people either become unable to make any choice at all, or they decide to invest in many alt IDs, which leads to bid stuffing and increases data leakage. 

There are solutions to help mitigate this problem, such as lockr’s Alternative Identity Manager (AIM), a self-service identity solution that allows publishers to test identity solutions, Customer Data Platforms (CDPs), and clean rooms simultaneously.

With AIM you can test alt IDs in real time, toggling each one on or off to see the results each alt ID is getting for consent, registration, or number of IDs created. This can help publishers see how each alt ID is working. 

Ray Kingman, CEO and founder of Semcasting says the most important thing right now in trying to solve the alt ID problem is not to recreate the cookie problem.

He notes that alt IDs don’t identify a person by any information that pinpoints who they are, they simply communicate that a user is unique, which protects user privacy. “You don’t want a universal ID that is specific to one user that is redistributed to third parties, that is what created the problem in the first place,” Kingman adds.

The goal, according to Kingman, should be to ensure we are being good stewards of our customers and the data that has been entrusted to us. Semcasting does this by being alt ID agnostic differently – its data and identity solutions are designed to be able to accept almost any ID.

“The issue with being alt ID agnostic is that it bifurcates the industry so the open internet is no longer open. Our solution to that was to be a meta ID, meaning it doesn’t matter what you throw at us.”

Being Alt ID Agnostic is Detrimental to Publishers

Publishers are being inundated with multiple alt ID choices and many are finding it hard to navigate which alt IDs are the best for their business. Conflicting feedback from advertisers coupled with the lack of available metrics about what is working makes it difficult to decide which IDs to prioritize. 

Additionally, says Petri, “The prevalence of players claiming to be ‘identity agnostic’ has further complicated matters, leaving publishers without clear guidance on how to navigate the evolving landscape of digital advertising. As a result, publishers risk missing out on revenue opportunities and facing operational inefficiencies due to the lack of alignment with advertiser preferences and the inability to accurately measure advertising impact.” 

There are too many hurdles preventing publishers from being able to dip their toes into the alt ID space rather than fully committing to a course of action. According to Petri, these include: 

1. Initial integration requires full commitment: Publishers can’t test alt IDs incrementally; they must invest upfront in integration without the luxury of a lighter test integration.
2. Difficulty in measuring impact: Without the removal of third-party cookies and the ability to replicate bid requests with different alt IDs, assessing effectiveness is next to impossible.
3. Time constraints and competing priorities: Publishers struggle to evaluate and integrate alt IDs within limited timeframes, exacerbated by delays in cookie deprecation and competing priorities.
4. Risk of signaling inferiority: Adopting multiple alt IDs suggests that each serves unique needs, preventing the signaling of one as inferior, but complicating the integration process.

Forging a Path Forward in a Cookieless World

Looking to the future, solutions that prioritize first-party data will almost certainly win the day. Change is difficult for anyone, but it is important to remember ad tech thrives with change. The trap is in trying to make the new solutions behave the same as the old. 

Keeping in mind the tendency to lean into new ways that replicate legacy programs, Petri shares, “Privacy Sandbox, despite facing skepticism, presents an opportunity to embrace a new, less defined approach, fostering a more user-focused internet while acknowledging its constraints and potential for innovation.”

The past included a sea of universal IDs that weren’t universal at all, but were created as exclusive spaces for the big players to use, Kingman says.

The past included a sea of universal IDs that weren’t universal at all, but were created as exclusive spaces for the big players to use, Kingman says.

Going forward, he notes, “Instead of building these walled gardens that do nothing but bifurcate the industry into those who have and those who have not, we need to make the ID space fluid.

Keeping it fluid makes it unable to be abused in a lot of ways because as you’re tracking somebody the fear is that your IDs get redistributed in a manner that you don’t intend on but can’t control. It becomes open season for those with less stringent regulatory compliance requirements.”

We must build trust and relationships with users via transparency, says Petri, and focus on authenticated users because consent-based data is usable data. “Publishers should communicate clearly with readers about the benefits of authentication, fostering trust and enabling sustainable revenue models. By embracing strategic and creative approaches to authentication, publishers can navigate the evolving landscape successfully and unlock new growth opportunities,” he shares. 

Using first-party data ensures you are reaching more users, adds Kingman. In terms of numbers, he notes third-party data may reach 30% of your subscribers, but first-party data reaches more like 80% thanks to the additional touchpoints it provides. 

Leading the Charge: What are the Next Steps?

Petri notes publishers have a pivotal role to play in the effective implementation of alt IDs. In addition to building trust, they also need to collaborate with alt ID providers to communicate audience data to ensure continued efficiency in audience targeting. 

“Publishers also have an opportunity to address the historical data leakage caused by third-party cookies. Implementing strategies such as utilizing Customer Data Platforms (CDPs) to curate audience-driven buys or leveraging industry-leading data clean rooms for direct matches with advertiser audiences can help mitigate these risks and foster stronger, more secure partnerships throughout the ecosystem,” Petri says. 

On the buy side, Kingman says the industry should do what it does best – test. Rather than get stuck in a solution that doesn’t work to its full potential, testing can ensure you know what kind of results to expect. He predicts the solution will likely include using more than one ID.

The post What are the Best Practices for Using Alternative IDs? appeared first on AdMonsters.

“2024 is shaping up to be a crazy year for the advertising industry. Who knows what will come out of cookie deprecation and greater focus on generative AI.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director, Advertising Technology, Fortune.

2023 was a trying year for the programmatic supply chain, at least from a PR point of view.

It began with Bloomberg News saying it had enough of the open markets and to improve its user experience it would eliminate the channel entirely. Then Digiday published a series of articles, saying open programmatic markets are in a tough spot as the “lowest quality” publishers flooded the auctions. Publishers who continued to rely on them saw a decline in CPMs.  

But the real bashing came in June when the ANA released its Programmatic Supply Chain Transparency Study, claiming that inventory from MFA sites comprised 21% of the open markets.  

Transparency, a perennial issue for the open markets, continued to be a concern, and publishers sought to form direct relationships with SSPs to create a better, more privacy-centric, seamless user experience. 

But despite the challenges, the open markets are still a vital lifeline for publishers that can’t afford to maintain a dedicated sales force, and its revenue is still predicted to grow.

What will the next 12 months look like for the programmatic supply chain? To find out, we asked 4 experts about the issues — good and bad — that the sector will face. They are:

• Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director, Advertising Technology, Fortune
• Justin Wohl, Chief Revenue Officer at Snopes.com and TVTropes.org
• Scott Messer, Principal & Founder, Messer Media 
• Chao Liao, SVP, Insider Advertising

Let’s dig in.

MFA Conversations Continue in 2024

Trend #1: Made For Advertising sites (MFAs) will continue to spark conversations, particularly around how trading desks spend advertiser’s budgets. Despite efforts in the second half of 2023, there is still a lot of confusion around what an MFA site is and whether they’re inherently bad. In 2024, both the buy-side and sell-side will need to work at articulating what they like and don’t like about MFA sites.

“MFA is the newest catchphrase in the industry. Sites stacked with ad slots have been around since the beginning of programmatic. All it goes to show is that more effort is needed by trading desks to ensure they are landing on reputable properties. There is nothing automatic about programmatic, and throwing your entire spend into the open markets to achieve scale isn’t going to cut it.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley

“In the 2023 MFA analysis and discussion, I never quite heard enough about the actual content itself, on the MFA sites, just the methods of traffic acquisition and the inventory representation to the buy-side. For further MFA scrutiny and cleanup, I implore the industry to start looking at the difference between buying traffic to sponsored/branded content, for example, versus misleading clickbait MFA.” — Justin Wohl

“There will certainly be more discourse, and more people (not me) complaining that Made For Advertising is a misnomer. Yes SSPs will continue to tout their MFA-free supply and DSPs will announce their ability to anti-target MFAs, but that’s just a lot of smoke and sledgehammers.  MFA is such a complex issue, that I think the Industry will only be able to trim the most egregious edges of MFA.  I encourage buyers to define precisely what they want to avoid, without using the amorphous term of MFA.” — Scott Messer

More Industry Consolidation on the Horizon

Trend #2: Industry consolidation in 2024 seems inevitable, driven by ongoing concerns about inventory quality, the deprecation of third-party cookies, and a demand for greater transparency.

“We’ll continue to see consolidation because it takes money to build the technology needed to be more transparent. Smaller shops are putting themselves on the sales block in order to raise money to continue to innovate.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley 

“Surely [consolidation] will be the case with the cookie-alternative providers, the identity vendors who have been jockeying for superiority since 2020. TTD’s UID2 and LiveRamp’s RampID hold the most promise.” — Justin Wohl

Digital Advertising Will Survive Cookie Deprecation

Trend #3: Despite the fret, the digital advertising ecosystem will survive the deprecation of third-party cookies. What will change is rather than one approach (i.e. cookies) to targeting and measurement, many will be deployed. Google will benefit (naturally), as will Amazon TAM in certain scenarios. Meanwhile, publishers may spend 2024 reorganizing their partnerships and shifting some advertising-related processes to server-side environments for better results.

“I venture to say that the advertising industry is one of those industries that is too big to fail. No one has consolidated around a replacement solution. Agencies are continuing as status quo and publishers are working to find individual solutions that will work for their data environments.  Although Google has hypothetically drawn a line in the sand, they are doing it in a way that will allow them to pull back if the results are not acceptable.  We won’t crash and burn.” — Terry Guyton-Bradley 

“Walled gardens will get stronger and money will depart the open web overall. Cookie deprecation will have its own slow-death effects in many areas, but solutions like Protected Audiences API (PAAPI) are poised to make tectonic shifts that will reshape supply chain topography entirely.” — Scott Messer

“The current distribution of buyers that publishers are familiar with is going to change with third-party cookie loss in Chrome, and the introduction of the Protected Audience API audience. I fully expect Google’s own Ad Exchange to be the emergent winner in Chrome, with AdX taking a much larger share (50%+) of inventory, in that browser, in 2024.” 

“If other SSPs don’t take their demand elsewhere, and start winning larger volumes than they did in 2023 in Safari and Firefox, I expect publishers will begin to lighten their prebid participants, or move more client-side bidders that aren’t driving meaningful contribution into server-only environments like prebid server and/or Amazon TAM.” — Justin Wohl

Programmatic Transaction Models Are Expanding

Trend #4: Programmatic transaction models are expanding, as The Trade Desk’s Open Path illustrates. This transformation is driven by dissatisfaction with the traditional programmatic exchange. As a result, buyers and sellers are looking for new ways to transact. 

“There are three trends that are closely related. The first is the SSPs going directly to buyers, the second is DSPs going directly to publishers, like The Trade Desk and Open Path. The third is publishers offering completely self-serve access to their inventory. We can look at these as three separate trends, but really, they’re tied together. What we’re seeing is that certain sectors of the industry are not happy with the game of programmatic exchange or the current types of setup with programmatic transactions. So they’re trying to create new ways to transact by cutting out intermediaries that may not be adding value.” — Chao Liao

Curated Marketplaces Equal Brand Suitability

Trend #5: With heightened concern over inventory quality, curated marketplaces will be seen as a strategy for ensuring brand suitability. But it’s not a panacea as the Programmatic Media Supply Chain Transparency Study makes clear. While 19% of ad spend in the open markets goes to MFA inventory, private marketplaces aren’t far behind at 15%. PMPs still have an element of “buyers beware” that will need to be addressed in 2024.

“Curation is certainly a major theme of 2024, but we won’t see any standards emerge here. Sellers can do a better job providing meaningful curation and measurement, but it’s unreasonable to think that there will be any standards for PMPs developed.” — Scott Messer

Sustainability as a Differentiator

Trend #6: More brands will start to ask about sustainability and the carbon footprint of campaigns in their RFIs in 2024, and the prevalence of MFA inventory will complicate those discussions. According to research by Ebiquity and Scope3, MFA sites generate around 26% more carbon waste than non-MFA sites due to the constant refreshing of ads, and numerous connections to various SSPs and resellers. 

“MFA sites are maximizing ad requests per page view as well as arbitraging traffic and cookies, which generate a lot of carbon. Brands that have set a goal of improving sustainability will be very keen to avoid them as a low-hanging fruit. I don’t necessarily see it as solely the SSP’s job to streamline the supply chain. This needs to be done in collaboration between the sell side and buy side.” — Chao Liao 

SSPs Reduce Scope1, 2, and 3 Emissions

Trend #7: More SSPs will follow OpenX’s lead by looking at their internal operations to see where they can reduce their Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions. 

“This year, people will ask, what does sustainability mean for me as an operator, and how do I improve my operations in terms of efficiency and sustainability? I think a lot of SSPs will look at OpenX as an example in the different ways they improved their sustainability and bottom line.” — Chao Liao

Final Words of Advice

“My advice is for publishers to heed the Ghost of Cookies Past.  Publishers must keep an eye on when and how to switch their deterministic identifiers into private marketplaces. For the past two years, publishers opened the floodgates of IDs in the bid stream, which was great for adoption and testing but is now a growing threat to the balance of seller power. Publishers cannot allow vendors to commoditize deterministic identifiers. These are coveted components of the digital supply chain–and ID owners should be rightly compensated for their investments and relationship with readers.” — Scott Messer

The post What Will the Next 12 Months Look Like for the Programmatic Supply Chain? appeared first on AdMonsters.