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.

“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.

Integrated within Google Ad Manager, publishers have two distinct ways to access AdX that cater to their various needs and requirements through the Google Certified Publishing Partner (GCPP) program: Platform Partners and Monetization Partners.

Platform Partners 

At their core, Platform Partners offer publishers access to Google Ad Manager 360 (AM360) and its full suite of direct sales and programmatic ad-serving capabilities, including AdX.

An exclusive group, Google has only certified nine Platform Partners across the globe. As a leading North American Platform Partner, Outsourced Ad Ops (OAO; www.adops.com) enhances and expands this core offering with a wide range of additional services, support, and technologies. With 20 years of extensive technical expertise and access to the latest resources, training, and support from Google, OAO provides specialized assistance to publishers using Google’s ad technologies to maximize ad revenue:

• Ad server setup and integrations
• AdX and demand setup, management, and optimizations
• Campaign and inventory management
• Reporting
• Troubleshooting
• Ad stack and operations development

Accessing AdX through AM360 with a Platform Partner is ideal for publishers that aim to take a holistic approach to direct sales, ad serving, and programmatic monetization, with guidance and support from a trusted Google partner like OAO. 

Monetization Partners

With a narrower focus, Monetization Partners, around 70 partners globally, provide publishers with access to AdX and other advertiser demand through a connection to the Partner’s AM360 and AdX network. Publishers dedicate some or all of their inventory to be monetized exclusively by the partner in their network. 

Leaning on its experience of its full-stack offering, OAO, which is also a Monetization Partner, is uniquely positioned to offer AdX and other monetization as a stand-alone service:

• AdX setup and management
• Revenue optimization
• Access to dozens of top-performing and unique demand partners, ad networks, and a broad range of advertisers and agencies
• Focus on relevant, high-quality demand
• Top-tier support from a services-first Partner

Working with a Monetization Partner is a great way for publishers to leverage AdX and other monetization paths while minimizing internal resource allocation. 

Your Partner

Whether you’re interested in utilizing AdX as part of a full-stack solution or a more focused monetization effort, Google Partners can lead the way as a Platform Partner or Monetization Partner.  If you’d like to learn more from OAO to help evaluate your best path forward, reach out here. 

About OAO

OAO is a U.S.-based, full-service ad operations agency and Google Certified Publishing Partner (GCPP), built by seasoned ad operations professionals and guided by our mission of being the premier ad operations services and solutions provider for digital publishers.

OAO prides itself on providing high-touch, white-glove ad operations services, solutions, and support ranging from standard campaign management and reporting to platform integrations, software solutions, migrations, monetization services, and much more. We can be counted on to act as your full-service ad ops team or serve as a complement to your in-house team, filling in any existing skill gaps.

When working with OAO, publishers can expect to have the support of an ad ops team that is composed of industry experts who continually stay apprised of current trends, emerging technologies, and best practices. We are constantly expanding on our offerings, evaluating new technology, and developing new skills to provide our clients with the highest possible level of service and support.

Learn more about OAO:

• Contact Us
• Services
• White Papers  

Recent AdMonsters <> OAO content:

• Navigating the [Not so] Great Layoff:  
• Joining Forces with a Google Partner Simplifies Processes & Increases Publisher Success  
• Newsletter Advertising: How to Succeed and Common Hurdles to Clear  

The post Accessing Google Ad Exchange Has Never Been Easier appeared first on AdMonsters.

However, managing ad operations can not only be time-consuming and costly, but it can also be a very complicated process, particularly for those who are not well versed in the nuances of the ad ops world, especially with navigating the ins and outs of Google Ad Manager. 

The solution? Turning to a Google Certified Publishing Partner like OAO — a full-service, digital ad operations agency that focuses on publisher-side ad operations — for guidance and access to exclusive services. 

As one of the largest and most popular ad servers and programmatic platforms in the industry, Google Ad Manager 360 is the preferred choice for most publishers to grow their business, from increasing ad revenue to creating a comprehensive ad strategy that allows them to focus on what they do best and leave the rest to the experts.

Google Certified Publishing Partners such as OAO can provide high-quality ad ops services, products, and support at multiple levels, tailored to each company’s size and individual needs, all geared toward increasing that publisher’s revenue and streamlining their operations, using the most innovative solutions Google has to offer. 

Working Well with Google’s AM360 

Google’s AM360 is a multi-faceted ad server that helps publishers generate revenue by assisting in managing the assets and delivery of sold campaigns while also tracking and reporting on the results. The AM360 platform runs the gamut, allowing publishers to advertise across display, mobile app, video, gaming, newsletter, CTV, and programmatic channels with ease. 

This platform is indeed one of the oldest in our industry, and according to Advertiser Perceptions’ SSP report for the second half of 2021, Google is the most used and preferred supply-side platform among publishers surveyed. In fact, 73% of those surveyed said they use Google Ad Manager.

Not only is AM360 one of the best publisher ad servers available, but it is also a prerequisite to gaining access to Google Ad Exchange (AdX), which is designed to programmatically connect advertisers with high-quality publisher inventory.

Most publishers do not meet the requirements to access AM360 and AdX on their own and must select a partner company to work with in order to gain access. As an authorized Google Certified Publishing Partner (GCPP), OAO is approved to do just that. 

AdX functions as a platform where buyers and sellers transact using real-time bidding. Publishers and advertisers prefer working with AdX because it is held to the highest industry standards for inventory and network ad quality. AdX is also the industry leader in uniting many different Demand Side Platforms (DSP) into its exchange, which fosters increased demand and higher CPMs for inventory.

Finding Success Through Partnering with OAO & Google

Choosing the right partner is a critical component for ensuring long-term success in the digital space. First and foremost, partnering with a GCPP such as OAO gives a publisher access to a vast amount of ad ops knowledge, skills, expertise, guidance, security, and capacity. These partners have been carefully vetted by Google, have passed Google’s product certification exams, and have proven track records for helping their publishing partners thrive. 

Beyond that, in these uncertain times having an ad ops partner in place helps publishers navigate and tackle anything that comes their way. For instance, decreased team size or high turnover. For more detail on why this is important, this recent article about “The Great Resignation” from OAO further explains this concept.

Fully based in the United States and now in its 20th year of business, OAO offers its publishing partners a wealth of experience and expertise. As a GCPP, OAO has been authorized to resell both AM360 and its predecessor, DART, since 2006. Since the GCPP program was conceived in 2015, OAO has continued to meet the high standards Google has set in place, cementing its legacy of being one of Google’s premier trusted partners.

While OAO is able to provide its customers with the traditional suite of ad ops products and services, such as campaign trafficking and management, platform implementations, monetization services, and AM360 support, it has also broadened its horizons to include custom solutions that leverage AM360’s API endpoints to seamlessly integrate with the ad server. These custom solutions are part of OAO’s AM360+ offering. 

“We’re constantly building and innovating at OAO, a company founded by ad ops veterans and composed of ad ops professionals who are always delivering on what ad ops does best: Finding ways to solve problems, grow business, and, as our industry is always expanding and becoming more complex, work smarter not harder. We built our AM360+ product suite to help publishers get the most out of both AM360 and their ad operations teams,” said Craig Leshen, President of OAO.

How OAO’s AM360+ Boosts Profit

The AM360+ program offered by OAO includes OAO Email Ad Connector (EAC), OAO Alpha Video (AV), and iAdOps. These three custom solutions are key to driving engagement and simplifying processes, ultimately leading to increased revenue. 

OAO Email Ad Connector serves as a fundamental connection point allowing advertisers to get in front of target customers via email newsletters – a touchpoint that, according to Statista, 86% of U.S. advertisers spending at least $10k on digital advertising annually agree is a vital connection between a brand and consumers. In addition, 88% of these advertisers believe newsletters will increase in importance with the absence of third-party targetable data. 

EAC integrates seamlessly into the AM360 network and enables publishers to continue serving sponsorship, rotational, SOV, network, and house ads targeted to newsletters via AM360. OAO has added the ability to target first party audience data segments and enable both direct and programmatic monetization of unsold inventory through partnerships with select demand sources, all without the need or cost of managing an additional ad server.

To help drive incremental revenue, OAO Alpha Video integrates easily with AM360 and does not require publishers to incorporate additional platforms, to manage demand source relationships, or deal with intensive integrations. This custom add-on allows publishers to monetize unfulfilled video inventory, working with almost any type of video demand source, by simply trafficking a single creative tag in the AM360 ad server.

Finally, iAdOps is an efficiency tool that helps publishers navigate the most essential AM360 and third-party campaign data quickly and with a user-friendly interface. The primary goal of this tool is to foster efficiency by reducing the number of steps required to access, display, observe, and share key campaign and performance data, across different teams and stakeholders. 

The iAdOps platform enables publishers to easily monitor the health of their campaigns, track metrics, monitor discrepancies, identify unfilled impressions, check the performance of AdX and Open Bidding demand partners, and even access custom reports that OAO can develop on their behalf. 

Working with Google and OAO, a trusted Google Certified Publishing Partner, can truly help your business ascend to the next level. It is also important to remember that not all ad ops providers are created equal. Google’s GCPP stamp of approval is only granted to select ad operations providers who have been carefully vetted by Google and have a proven track record of helping publishers succeed.

Learn more about OAO and read its “Ad Serving Solutions” white paper here.

The post Joining Forces with a Google Partner Simplifies Processes & Increases Publisher Success appeared first on AdMonsters.

Dynamic Allocation is a function within DoubleClick for Publishers that basically allows AdX to compete with publishers’ direct sales teams—if AdX can fetch a higher bid than whatever your direct channels is getting, that’ll determine which ad gets served. That wasn’t terribly helpful to other exchanges and SSPs, who had to wait until direct deals were sold, too.

That’s where header bidding came in. You have Google operating an extremely broadly utilized ad exchange (AdX) and an extremely broadly utilized ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP). That arrangement puts Google at an obvious advantage. Plenty of people have called it a monopoly, and while that’s an arguable distinction, it’s at the very least a hegemony. Header bidding was an attempt to get around Google, a way for publishers to invite other partners to bid on their inventory before AdX, and to get a more accurate read on the true market value of their inventory.

Google wasn’t about to let the ensuing header craze simply pass by. That’s where EBDA entered, launching in beta in April 2016. With EBDA, publishers could invite other exchanges or SSPs they know and trust into Dynamic Allocation. Everyone gets to bid.

Initially, to publishers’ chagrin, Google still held onto last-look privileges in EBDA—the opportunity to scope out the highest bid and bid higher before sending a request to DFP. Back in March 2017, though, Google announced it was giving up “last look” in EBDA, creating a unified auction. The perception at the time was that the move toward a unified auction was a carrot to publishers and other demand partners wary of getting involved with EBDA.

But there’s still a great deal of hesitancy among publishers to get in on EBDA. As we said, it’s a server-side auction. The upside is that server-side solutions are fast, not prone to the latency publishers often see by dropping partner tags in the page header. The downside is that it server-side solutions give a lot of control to whoever manages the connection, and in the case of EBDA, there are widespread concerns that it’s a data black box. Publishers say they don’t know how AdX is actually bidding in EBDA, or how all bids are being managed in what’s supposed to be a unified auction.

There are also some concerns among ad tech vendors is that DSPs need to go through exchanges to bid in EBDA. That leads to tech vendors paying extra fees to other tech vendors just to get in on the EBDA action, putting those companies at an inherent disadvantage against AdX.

EBDA just launched in open beta last week. We’ll see whether publishers move to embrace it now, or whether they’ll demand more transparency from Google first.

AdMonsters Resources

Last Stand for Google’s “Last Look:” What’s Next?

What’s Ahead for the Header

Ad Ops Decoder: What Is Server-to-Server?

Gotta Stay on the Page: An Interview With Index Exchange’s Alex Gardner

New Vision for the Header: A Conversation With PulsePoint

Header Bidding’s Not Dead… Yet

The post What Is EBDA? appeared first on AdMonsters.

But now Google says it’ll be putting AdX bids into a unified auction with everyone else’s. Updated support documentation for its exchange bidding product reflects that change.

This might sound surprising to some. Yes, header bidding has been probably the hottest topic in ad tech over the past couple years—and rather than just being discussion point, it’s had substantial effects on publishers’ ability to earn revenue in programmatic. But Google remains practically unavoidable as the biggest player in the display market. You’d think they’ve got a ways to go before header might become an existential threat.

And yet, obviously Google wants in on the header game, and it’s not in the company’s nature to let a particular marketplace do its thing without creating a product for it. That’s why Google launched Exchange Bidding in Dynamic Allocation (EBDA). And if anyone has asked the question, “Why should we, as a publisher, sign on with EBDA, if we’ve been trying to work around AdX since header bidding started?”—then Google’s movement toward a unified auction seems to be an answer. It’s a carrot to pubs to speed along the adoption of EBDA.

There are other reasons why abandoning last-look might be smart strategy for Google. Publishers have been pushing back against Google’s last-look practice for a long time, and it stands to reason that it’s good business sense to change a practice that’s widely unpopular across an entire category of your business partners.

As for other demand-side partners, either those currently in EBDA or not—a unified auction looks like an added bonus for them, too. For existing EBDA demand partners, it demonstrates Google is willing to be transparent, and that they can place sufficient trust in EBDA to push steady, quality demand into it. For other demand sources that aren’t in EBDA, it’s a lure to bring them in.

So, is header bidding done?

Probably not. EBDA is a server-side auction, and all the issues in S2S remain—many of which still hinge on transparency. Demand partners often take pause at jumping into an S2S connection managed by someone else, especially when that “someone else” is a competitor. In managing the server-side connection, Google ultimately decides what data goes into EBDA. There are issues in S2S related to ID-syncing between buy and sell sides, and from publisher to publisher. Google might find an advantage for itself in those ID issues, not just because it’s managing the server-side connection, but because of its unparalleled scale. So, EBDA still comes out looking something like a black box, unified auction or no.

Google’s move away from last-look is a timely gesture to publishers and other demand sources—but it’s more than just a gesture. Really, they’ve made their own product more appealing, and it appears they’ve made it so it’s less likely to screw over pubs and partners. But Google is not caving to header bidding, and they’re also not about to kill it.

The post Last Stand for Google’s “Last Look:” What’s Next? appeared first on AdMonsters.