While in Boston, we didn’t just indulge in delicious lobster with garlic butter (which was as amazing as it sounds); we also dived deep into the pressing issues facing our industry.  The timing was perfect, as news dropped about X suing GARM, Unilever, CVS, and others — fueling plenty of conversations during Tuesday breaks.

Our publisher forums are always valuable, but this one hit differently. The focus was clear: everyone was determined to crack the code to retain more revenue. This time around, attendees were in rare agreement, openly discussing their biggest challenges as publishers. The great main-stage presentations and breakout sessions all revolved around one core question:

What is the future of revenue? Three key themes emerged: data, transparency, and diversifying ad revenue across diverse publishers. Let’s explore each of these critical areas in more detail.

Unlocking the Treasure Trove: How Data is the Golden Key to Future Revenue for Publishers

I’d be rich if I got paid for how often data came up in conversations. But it’s no surprise—it’s at the forefront of every publisher’s mind. The conference started with a bang when Claire Atkin, CEO of Check My Ads, took the stage. She kept it real, to say the least, ruffling some vendor feathers, but hey, we’re here to expose the truth. 

Atkin emphasized that the ad tech industry must embrace a new era of accountability and transparency. To empower advertisers and ensure purveyors of disinformation don’t hijack their brand messaging, she advocates for hourly log-level data and “know your customer” requirements.

Jeff Goldstein, Head of Programmatic at Future, shared how they rely heavily on their first-party data platform, Aperture, to collect and unify data signals from their 200+ owned and operated properties. This data is key for audience segmentation and building media products. Goldstein and his team collect data signals that give advertisers better insights and help create more precise targeting products. These signals include brand, model, and category information from the content, which helps Future understand how audiences behave, consume, and shop.

During the Deal Curation session, Scott Messer explained how these curations create a less leaky data-sharing environment. This is crucial, considering how data often leaks somewhere in that black box called the ecosystem.

Rick Welch, who works on advertising partnerships at Western Union, shared how they use their audience data to sell media and create cohesive, multi-touch packages for advertisers. And yes, when we say Western Union, we mean Western Union, the publisher, as they have thousands of owned and operated screens strategically lighting up retail spaces and locations worldwide. Their digital out-of-home network is making waves, proving they’re not just money movers but also a force in the digital advertising game.

Transparency and Collaboration: The Dynamic Duo Powering the Future of Publisher Revenue

Data and transparency were neck and neck in Boston, given how often attendees discussed both. This brings us back to that black box in ad tech — everyone is doing something, but no one knows what anyone else is actually up to. Publishers may know the pipes that generate their revenue, but what happens inside the ad tech ecosystem often remains a black box—how bids are made, who’s bidding, and where the money goes. Brands don’t have full visibility into agency strategies and tactics, while agencies may lack insight into the brand’s internal goals and data.

This has to change, and fast. The only way forward is through collaboration and establishing more transparency. In other words, talk to each other. It’s really that simple even a caveman can do it, jk.

I recall at least four sessions that directly addressed transparency. Jana Meron discussed it in her keynote, and John Shelby, Director of National Programmatic Sales at Zoom Media, Gym-TV, also brought it up in his Ops to Sales workshop. Attendees further explored this topic in the media quality session featuring Addy Atienza, VP of Programmatic Revenue and Streaming Operations at Trusted Media Brands, and Roxanne Allen, Head of Ad Ops at Dotdashmeredith. Finally, Atkin and Goldstein shared valuable insights on transparency during their keynotes. Goldstein also talked about how important it is to partner with advertisers to share sales data, which is vital for validating the effectiveness of high-intent segments. This collaboration explicitly boosts campaign ROI and refines audience targeting.

Meron shared some compelling stats on brand safety and made a strong case for the ongoing relevance of quality news. She stressed that brand safety and news SHOULD NOT be mutually exclusive, and advertisers should feel confident placing ads next to election content. Consumers with high political interests are highly engaged and could be lucrative.

She also emphasized that everyone needs to communicate to enhance brand safety across the board; publishers can no longer be left out of the conversation. Atienza and Allen echoed this sentiment, highlighting the lack of transparency, the challenges in getting verification vendors to address misclassifications, and discrepancies in reporting. They also pointed out how publishers are excluded from brand safety conversations, with agencies often defaulting to broad, non-contextual blocking measures.

The main theme of Shelby’s Ops to Sales workshop was clear: “Communicate, communicate, communicate, educate, educate, educate.” The key takeaway was the need for greater transparency, both internally between ad ops and sales teams and also with clients.

As I mentioned earlier, Atkin also reinforced the need for advertisers to be more transparent and controlled and suggested new strategies.

Spreading the Love: Why Championing Diverse Publishers is the Secret to Industry Growth

Messer’s Deal Curation session stood out for its focus on multicultural publishers. He invited Armando Aguilar, VP of Programmatic Operations at Mirror Digital, and Alex Haluska, Senior Director of Revenue Operations at MyCode, to discuss these publishers’ challenges. Despite representing 40% of the population, multicultural publishers receive only 6% of media budgets—a glaring disparity. 

Promises of increased ad spending on minority-owned and small niche publishers have not materialized. Instead, agencies bottlenecking the budgets, with most diverted to large platforms like Facebook and Google, bypassing diverse publishers altogether. 

Both speakers urged agencies to innovate and be accountable for their spending practices. They also encouraged publishers to engage directly with brands to circumvent agency bottlenecks. Once again, speakers emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in distributing ad dollars. 

The Premium Publisher Shift session began with a powerful visual:  a slide highlighting the disparity between the US Black population (15%) and the ad spend on Black-owned media (2%) to emphasize the issue. Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director of Ad Tech at Fortune, led the discussion alongside Michael Bendell, an ad tech consultant from Ebony, and DeVon Johnson, founder of BlueLife Media and co-founder of BOMESI.

Each panelist offered a unique perspective on how to address this issue. One proposed solution to simplify ad buying was for platforms to aggregate minority-owned media buys. They also discussed the need to dismantle systemic barriers in the advertising industry that prevent minority-owned publishers from thriving independently. 

Advertisers should differentiate their spending on Black audiences from their spending on minority-owned publications, recognizing that these groups have distinct experiences and needs. As an industry, we must find ways to support unique publishers— whether they’re diverse, niche, small — if we want to see real growth. 

Embracing Data, Transparency, and Diversity: The Path Forward for Publisher Revenue

At PubForum Boston, it became clear that the future of publisher revenue hinges on three critical pillars: data, transparency, and support for diverse publishers. The discussions were not just about recognizing these elements—they were about taking actionable steps to make them central to our core strategies.

Data isn’t just a tool; it’s the foundation of future publisher revenue. Transparency and collaboration are no longer optional — they’re essential for defining success. And when it comes to diverse publishers, we need to actively uplift and invest in them, as they are vital to the ecosystem’s growth.

Looking ahead, these themes will clearly shape our strategies, push us to think differently and drive us to work more closely together. The future of revenue is bright, but only if we embrace these lessons, act with urgency, and follow through on our commitments made at forums like this one.

If you missed Lynne and myself chatting about these themes, check it out on AdMonsters LinkedIn

The post PubForum Boston: Three Emerging Themes Redefining Revenue’s Future appeared first on AdMonsters.

Navigating these complex challenges is essential for maintaining trust with consumers and brands.

Unique publishers (diverse, small, and niche) must navigate these complex waters to maintain their competitive edge in an industry where data privacy and transparency are under intense scrutiny. According to Jamie Barnard, CEO of Compliant, “The ad tech ecosystem was never built for privacy,” making it especially challenging to retrofit existing systems.

These smaller players are vulnerable, with privacy concerns mounting and regulations becoming stricter. They may not attract the same advertising spend as larger entities. Still, compliance with privacy laws is critical—not only for legal reasons but also for preserving their relationships with advertisers.

During our conversation with Jamie Barnard aboard a yacht in Cannes—over cheese and pepperoni—we discussed how brands and agencies can support unique publishers in navigating compliance challenges. He stressed the importance of adapting to the rapidly changing landscape. “Those who fail to adapt will find themselves in precarious positions,” Bernard warned. By approaching compliance as a collaborative effort between publishers, brands, and consumers, these publishers can create bespoke advertising experiences while upholding essential privacy principles.

Why Building Strong Compliance Models Matters More Than Ever 

Developing robust compliance models is no longer optional for unique publishers, it’s essential.  These models should go beyond merely responding to current regulations. They should be proactive frameworks anticipating future changes. Flexibility and adaptability are key to ensuring these publishers can withstand the inevitable shifts in the regulatory environment.

Creating a culture of compliance involves more than simply adhering to rules. It requires a deep understanding of privacy and data protection. This is particularly crucial given the widespread use of third-party tracking and data leakage — practices increasingly under scrutiny. As awareness of these issues grows, larger brands and consumers demand higher transparency and accountability from their partners.

“In our industry, where trust is everything, compliance is the foundation,” Bernard said. “When we approach compliance as not just a checklist, but a genuine commitment to our audience’s well-being, we unlock the potential for deeper connections and long-lasting loyalty.”

Publishers must go beyond compliance to educate their teams and stakeholders on this importance. By cultivating a culture of awareness and diligence, they can embed compliance into every facet of their operations. This shift will mitigate risks and bolster the publisher’s reputation in an industry where consumer trust is increasingly paramount.

Ad Tech’s Role in Adapting to Regulatory Changes

The ad tech industry’s transformation is largely driven by the need to comply with evolving privacy laws. While these changes may seem reactive, they present new opportunities for innovation in both technology and operational practices. With Google’s new 3PC consent framework, smaller publishers have a huge role in reshaping the industry standards moving forward. 

Smaller publishers should leverage technology as a compliance tool to take advantage of this shift. For example, artificial intelligence and machine learning can monitor data practices, identify potential compliance issues, and automate consent management processes. These technological advancements not only streamline operations but also enhance the precision and effectiveness of compliance efforts.

 As regulatory demands evolve, ongoing education and experimentation are crucial. Publishers should stay informed about the latest trends and changes, adapting their strategies as necessary. Abrupt changes brought about by decisions like Google’s back-and-forth dance with turning off third-party cookies, serve as a stark reminder of how quickly things can shift. 

Continuous learning should be embedded in the organizational culture, positioning compliance as not just a set of rules but as a dynamic practice driving industry evolution. With the U.S. regulatory environment beginning to catch up with the EU’s more stringent standards, the pressure to adapt has never been greater. As Bernard pointed out, education, transparency, and consumer empowerment must be top priorities for publishers moving forward.

The post The Ad Tech Ecosystem was Never Built for Privacy appeared first on AdMonsters.

At the beginning of the year, we covered Compliant’s US Publisher Compliance Index which revealed that 90% of US Publishers share consumer data without consent. 

Privacy compliance is becoming increasingly critical. A successful business must understand the dynamics of data regulation, privacy laws, and brand integrity. 

To follow up on the coverage of this study, I chatted with Compliant CEO Jamie Barnard to delve into the intricacies of compliance within the digital media industry. We talked about the rugged privacy compliance terrain in the US, the challenges faced by advertisers and publishers, and the innovative solutions shaping the future of data privacy and brand protection.

Andrew Byrd: In the study, you emphasize the importance of consistently measuring compliance in media. How do you see this happening overall in the industry? Where is it working, and where does it need improvement?

Jamie Barnard: When we examine the open web specifically, it serves as a valuable baseline for understanding. Approximately $90 billion is allocated annually towards the open web and digital media. Major global brands typically engage with 100 to 150,000 publisher sites worldwide. On average, a campaign targets around 44,000 publishers. 

Our research has assessed the data compliance of about 90% of the open web outside of China based on media spend. The remaining 10% yields diminishing returns because many sites generate only a fraction of ad impressions. For instance, in a 44,000 Publisher campaign, 86% of ad impressions concentrate on just 3,000 sites, leaving the other 41,000 publishers with less than 15% combined impressions. 

Shockingly, 85% of impressions land on sites failing to meet baseline compliance standards, highlighting the internet’s original design prioritizing functionality over privacy. Retrofitting emerging privacy regulations onto this framework proves challenging. We’ve realized we’re in an unsustainable environment requiring change, but we must implement solutions without stalling progress. 

We’re at a critical juncture as we face the cookieless future, characterized by impending privacy regulations. Effective media strategies must align with a new privacy, consent, and identity era. While we still need to prepare for this transition, it parallels the period before GDPR’s enforcement, where readiness evolved gradually. The industry is awakening to the necessity of adapting to this new reality.

AB: What legal obligations do publishers have concerning third-party vendors and tools that collect and share data from their sites? Do we have enough robust laws in the U.S. specifically to address these concerns?

JB: Regardless of location, site owners are responsible for ensuring that third-party tools or vendors collecting and sharing data comply with relevant regulations. Given the volume of work involved, achieving this due diligence is daunting. However, transparency tools can provide insight into the ecosystem and facilitate the establishment of a well-structured vendor network.  

For publishers, Data compliance has become integral to responsible media frameworks, as it ensures brand safety and mitigates privacy risks within the digital supply chain. Blindly placing ads without assessing publishers’ compliance poses significant risks, ranging from benign neglect to severe privacy breaches orchestrated by unscrupulous data brokers. 

Additionally, regulators are contemplating incorporating more technology to keep pace with industry changes. Despite the US being somewhat behind, this situation is transient. Comparing the level of fines in Europe provides a clear indication of the direction the US might take. GDPR fines in Europe surged from 300,000 euros in June 2021 to 4.2 billion euros in June 2023, a remarkable 14,000-fold increase in just 24 months. This trajectory suggests that US state regulators may intensify enforcement efforts, imposing substantial fines for compliance failures.

AB: The study highlights the Publisher Compliance Index (PCI) as contributing to a new brand integrity standard in digital media. Could you explain how the PCI achieves this and its significance for advertisers and publishers?

JB: Earlier, I mentioned that we’ve extensively assessed the data compliance of publishers worldwide. Regardless of your brand’s market, if you’re running an ad campaign, we can provide insights into its compliance at various levels: campaign, publisher, and individual impression. Our PCI serves as a compliance score. We conduct thorough web interrogations using machine learning to scrutinize each publisher’s URL, gaining transparency into vendors, tools, beacons, pixels, and cookies. 

This process allows us to discern consent management solutions, analytic tools, data brokers, and more. We then overlaid over 30 privacy-related data points to gauge compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The initial score is perfect, but identifying compliance risks gradually diminishes it. 

Currently, scores range from zero to five, reflecting the severity and frequency of identified risks. This score empowers you to analyze past, present, and future media buys, enabling adjustments for improved compliance alongside metrics like viewability, brand safety, and sustainability. Enhancing compliance without compromising brand performance is essential for industry progress.

AB: The U.S. Publisher Compliance Index 2023 Report highlights a significant gap in PCI scores between North American and European publishers. Can you provide insights into the average PCI scores and what they reveal about compliance with privacy laws in these regions?

JB: After examining Europe and the US, I was surprised that the privacy regulation gap isn’t as wide as expected. In Europe, opting in is the norm, meaning data is only shared if explicitly allowed. In contrast, the US operates on an opt-out basis, assuming consent unless denied. 

While Europe offers various lawful bases for data processing, consent remains vital, especially in advertising and marketing. Conversely, the US generally allows data sharing unless refused. There’s a growing recognition, especially led by California, that a consent-based approach is the future. The shift won’t be immediate, but all will likely adopt a consent model over time, though it requires significant restructuring.

AB: Your study said that 90% of US publishers share data without securing consent. What advice would you give to US publishers about privacy compliance? 

JB: Compliance isn’t about constraints anymore; it’s crucial for the future of media and effectiveness. Companies with high compliance standards make quicker decisions, better leverage data, and buy media more effectively, avoiding wasted resources on non-compliant sites. Recognizing compliance as a value driver rather than a limitation is key. Progressive brands and media agencies leading in compliance are outperforming competitors thanks to the quality and clarity of their data, enabling swift decision-making.

The post The Future of US Privacy Compliance: A Q&A With Jamie Barnard, CEO of Compliant appeared first on AdMonsters.

How often have you been in this scenario: Your sales team receives an RFI for a campaign, and everyone is under pressure to complete the deal. But there’s a pending due diligence form that’s not quite complete. Do you go forward with the deal? Cut-and-paste answers from past privacy questionnaires? Walk away from the deal?

To the IAB, none of these options are ideal. In a perfect world, all players in the ecosystem can submit accurate and complete answers with a push of a button, which is just one of the many reasons the IAB announced the IAB Diligence Platform last week at its Annual Leadership Meeting. Powered by comprehensive questions designed to answer state regulations and a vendor compliance hub created by SafeGuard Privacy, the platform seeks to standardize, modernize, and improve privacy diligence practices for the digital advertising industry.

To learn more about how the IAB Diligence Platform can benefit AdOps teams and the industry, we sat down with Michael Hahn, EVP and General Counsel, IAB, and Richy Glassberg, co-founder and CEO of SafeGuard Privacy.

Susie Stulz: The industry has been adapting to privacy regulations for five years or more. Why launch a new platform now?

Michael Hahn: Digital advertising is quickly becoming a regulated industry under state privacy laws. These laws expect more from us than they ever have. This is particularly true regarding the diligence of one’s counterparties. 

For instance, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has rulemaking authority and the power to enforce the CCPA (as does the California Attorney General’s Office concerning enforcement). This coming March, a critical CPPA regulation goes into effect. Namely, whether you conduct diligence on your partners with whom you disclose personal information will become a material factor in determining whether you will be liable for their wrongdoing.  

Historically, privacy diligence around a counterparty was ultimately embedded in the contract. Publishers worked with parties they assumed to be trustworthy, and agreements were in place that included representations and warranties that the partner complied with the applicable law and an indemnification obligation if something went wrong. Perhaps the publisher sent out a questionnaire about privacy practices. 

But new privacy laws require us to do more than that. Publishers, SSPs, DSPs, marketers, and their agencies now have increasing responsibility for what their partners do with their shared data.

SS: How does the IAB Diligence Platform address that new reality?

MH: The goal of the IAB Diligence Platform is to help all players in the industry achieve more effective and efficient diligence between partners. To do this, we have a multiple-pronged process.

First, we created standardized questions for partners to answer. Some of these questions are tied to the specific tech services that are leveraged (SSPs, DSPs, etc.), while others, developed by SafeGuard privacy, are tied to each state privacy law. 

The other significant prong is the vendor compliance hub, built on the SafeGuard Privacy Compliance Vendor Hub. This is a SaaS-based tool that allows platform users to share the compliance questionnaires upon request with IAB members and non-members who opt to use the IAB Diligence Platform.

SS: So if I, as a publisher, answer these questions, whenever I receive an RFI with privacy questions, I can share the answers through the vendor compliance hub.

Richy Glassberg: Yes, the goal is to make it very easy. Going further, let’s say you’ve shared your answers with the account team of a specific media agency. Those answers are also available to other account teams within the same agency. Your AdOps team doesn’t need involvement because the answers are available automatically to the agency.

SS: How are AdOps teams answering these questions currently?

RG: Historically, it’s been a manual process that is far from standard, by which I mean the questions themselves aren’t even standard. 

Typically, the AdOPs team works with an internal GC, internal privacy leader, or an outside law firm, who will write what they consider good, but rather broad, answers. Keep in mind that the RFIs themselves often contain broad questions. Then, it’s up to the AdOps team members to apply those answers to the RFIs they receive as best as they can. 

All questions and answers vary from RFI to RFI and company to company. Some companies use an industry framework or select questions from multiple frameworks. The challenge is that those responses aren’t always tied to specific State laws or appropriate to the use case.

Now consider that a publisher can receive 50 RFIs a month, and a platform can receive 2,000, none of which have the same privacy questions. That’s tremendous friction for the AdOps teams, who must respond. 

The goal is to eliminate that friction by standardizing the questions, covering the entirety of the laws, and providing questions purpose-built for the appropriate vertical, whether that’s an SSP, DSP, media agency, data provider, or publisher.

SS: So the idea is, if you’re a user of the IAB Diligence Platform, your internal lawyer or law firm answers these questions once, and as the RFPs come in, rather than answer each separately, pulling answers from past RFIs, you share the completed questionnaire?

RG: That’s the vision. The platform’s benefit is that users can answer the questions once and share them as many times as needed.

Ultimately, we’d like to get to a point where we have as many IAB members as possible adopt the platform. The more that do, the more the AdOps teams can reduce their workloads because sharing the answers — providing accurate and complete information on how the publisher complies with every State regulation and the appropriate IAB vertical — is pressing one button.

MH: Right now, the AdOps teams often use a cut-and-paste process that needs more in-depth questions and answers. This is not a criticism; it’s just a reality that needs to change. 

As we’ve discussed, we need more effective questions, specific to the vertical and jurisdiction. We also want more efficiency, which we want to achieve through a network-based approach.

As Richy said, if the lawyer fills it out once, they can focus on the intricacies of the questions rather than answer generic questions dozens and dozens of times.

SS: Presumably, it also makes it easier for publishers and other ad tech players to understand what their partners are doing with their data.

MH: Absolutely. You have all these pixels on your site if you’re a publisher. You have partners who receive your users’ PII data in the bidstream, and you want to know what they’re doing with that data. 

For publishers, this is one of the most compelling reasons to use the platform. You have a vast network of companies who have access to your data. The idea is that you can go to the platform and push a button, which then sends to a partner a set of questions that are designed for the specific services the partner provides so that you can understand how the partner processes your PII data and complies with the privacy regulations in each jurisdiction.

Right now, people ask very generic questions. But if you’re a publisher, you want to know what your SSP partner is doing when they receive your Global Privacy Platform (GPP) signal, what information it’s adding to its identity graph, what data it’s using for measurement purposes, and so on.

It’s important to realize that the laws expect you to do more to understand what your partners are doing with the data you send them in the course of doing business together.

SS: Are the questions and answers on the platform auditable?

RG: Yes, the platform has comprehensive, secure auditing capabilities based on the event trail, which is tracked by answering questions and adding supporting comments and documents.

Any publisher that uses the platform can engage a third-party auditor or reviewer to review and verify their assessments. Today, for instance, the SafeGuard Privacy platform supports the COPPA Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) assessment conducted by BBB CARU, and children’s focused publishers that are part of that program can be confident that they will stand up to a CARU audit. That’s the benefit of the platform; it lets publishers feel confident about the assessments completed by counterparties who also use it.

MH: In addition to doing due diligence on your counterparties, publishers can follow up based on what you’ve learned doing that diligence, which is something that is built into these privacy laws, as reflected in the audit requirements.

SS: Any parting thoughts for our readers in the changing regulatory landscape?

RG: Michael’s point at the beginning of this discussion bears repeating. We are in an increasingly regulated industry, and those regulations have teeth. There are real consequences to falling out of compliance, and doing business with a counterparty you haven’t vetted properly is a risk not worth taking. 

This industry needs diligence, standardization, and interoperability, and the IAB Diligence platform delivers just that. It will drive efficiency and help ensure that all parts of the ecosystem, IAB Members and non-IAB members, can meet their obligations under the law. This is an industry solution.

The post IAB Introduces a Diligence Platform To Help Modernize Privacy Compliance appeared first on AdMonsters.

As privacy ethics continue to take center stage, data compliance is crucial for every ad tech stakeholder to monitor risk and maintain brand integrity. With 71% of North American consumers citing data mishandling as a reason to stop interacting with businesses, publishers, and advertisers must align to meet data compliance standards. This will help to retain consumer trust and ensure ad spending flows toward privacy-enforced segments of the media supply chain. 

Data compliance is a legal necessity for publishers, so they must remain current on measuring compliance practices. The ‘U.S. Publisher Compliance Index – 2023 Report’ utilizes Compliant’s proprietary Publisher Compliance Index (PCI) to reveal insights into data compliance risks within U.S. publisher inventory. 

We are in a year of privacy testing and experimentation in 2024, but we can still try to get on our compliance p’s and q’s while we wait for federal regulations.

While America has a long way to go, we can still learn plenty from the privacy experts over in the E.U. Here, Compliance outlines what to look out for in the U.S. Publishers Compliance Index: 

Publishers Are Responsible for How Third-Parties Collect Consumer Data

Brands now bear responsibility beyond their own data processing, as recent decisions by U.S. and European regulators underscore that advertisers and publishers are answerable for third-party vendors and tools collecting and sharing data from their sites. Failure to demonstrate compliance with data protection requirements for all such data flows poses a legal risk. 

The FTC mandates that advertisers monitor data flows to third parties transmitted through web beacons, pixels, or other tracking technologies. Making privacy promises to consumers without ensuring alignment with third-party data practices is illegal. In essence, brands are warned not to make privacy commitments that their practices do not uphold. 

But how are the U.S. Publishers holding up?

In short, there’s a lot of room for improvement. To measure these standards, Compliance set up a PCI scoring and benchmarking methodology that assesses the regulatory risk profile of publisher websites. 

The Great American Compliance Gap

Developed in collaboration with industry experts, the PCI serves as a global metric for media data compliance, employing risk-calibrated sensitivity scores and comparative ratings to generate a compliance score for each URL on a scale of 0-5. Where the current score stands, a considerable compliance gap exists between the U.S. and the E.U. 

North American publishers have an average PCI score of just 0.7, significantly lower than the European average of 3.7 in 2022. The study cites that European publishers are more proactive in complying with privacy laws than their U.S. counterparts. This is understandable, though, because U.S. privacy law is very fragmented. There is still no federal data privacy law in the U.S. 

While only 20% of U.S. publishers have a Consent Management Platform (CMP), a concerning 91% of them are transmitting data before obtaining consent, leading to legal consequences, as seen with Sephora’s $1.2 million fine under CCPA. In Europe, GDPR mandates advertisers and publishers to secure consent before collecting and sharing personal data, resulting in higher compliance. Currently, only 20% of U.S. publisher websites have a CMP, in contrast to 92% of E.U. publishers. Experts suggest that the U.S. follow Europe’s lead in prioritizing data compliance as consumer concerns rise. 

The Dangers of Data Leakage

Digital advertising, especially real-time bidding, involves rapid data sharing among numerous companies using pixels, tags, and tracking tech.

Concerningly, many cookies and tags are introduced without website owners’ permission, leading to “piggybacking,” where one tag introduces others, causing data leakage and broken consent chains. Some US publisher sites have up to 475 piggybacked tags, with an average of 82.

Compliant’s reasearch shows that data flows through more than seven levels of tags on average within each publisher site, reaching up to 17 levels in extreme cases. The data compliance tech company emphasizes the urgency for all stakeholders in the media supply chain to assess their data compliance.

Publishers require transparency and measurement to ensure vendors and tools comply with data protection, avoiding risks to advertisers’ data and reputations. Just as there are viewability and brand safety standards, the industry should adopt a high-quality standard for data compliance.

The post 90% of U.S. Publishers Are Dropping the Ball on Data Compliance appeared first on AdMonsters.