Monday, July 21, 2025
All
Home Blog Page 15

The Art of Responding to an FTC CID

By
Richard B. Newman
-
0
The FTC Building

Leading FTC Investigation and Enforcement Defense Lawyer Discusses How Marketers Can Best Position Themselves if They Become the Subject of an FTC (or other regulatory) Civil Investigative Demand or Subpoena

A Federal Trade Commission Civil Investigative Demand is an administrative subpoena utilized by the Federal Trade Commission (and other regulatory agencies, such as a state Attorney General) to obtain documentary materials and other information about an investigation into the respondent’s and/or a third-party’s business, conduct, practices and management of any person, partnership or corporation engaged in or whose business affects commerce.

The nature substance of the initial response – including ensuring that the FTC CID attorney through whom the response is made has intricate knowledge of how digital-based advertising and marketing businesses (and/or other substantive investigational subject matter) work – is of vital importance in order to guide respondents through high-stakes and sensitive FTC investigations. As is maintaining credibility and acting in a respectful, professional manner at all stages of the investigative process.

Below are some defense strategies designed to, without limitation, thoroughly evaluate the purpose and narrow scope of the investigation, secure valuable rights, minimize liability exposure and burden on day-to-day business operations, bolster written advocacy submissions, avoid progression to FTC enforcement proceedings (administrative or judicial) and otherwise achieve an optimal resolution.

What Should You do First After You Receive an FTC Civil Investigative Demand?

The Federal Trade Commission has broad powers to investigate unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The FTC’s investigation and compulsory process powers are set forth in §§ 6, 9 and 20 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 46, 49 and 57b-1. The FTC Rules of Practice are published in the Code of Federal Regulations and set forth procedures governing inquiries, investigations and compulsory processes.

The FTC issues CIDs for the benefit of consumers in order to obtain information from companies and individuals that the agency suspects may have violated consumer protection laws in such a way as to substantially impact consumers. The FTC also frequently issues CIDs to those that are not the targets of investigation, but that may possess material information regarding third parties that the FTC is investigating.

A CID is like a subpoena in that it is a legally enforceable document that seeks documents, tangible things and physical objects, or other information related to an FTC investigation. A CID can also be used to obtain verbal testimony from a witness, and to file written reports or answer to questions.

While FTC CIDs should be taken seriously because they are compulsory in nature, respondents should strive to understand how the FTC works, the agency’s policies and decision-making processes, how to satisfy related legal regulatory obligations and how to avoid the initiation of an FTC enforcement lawsuit.

Stay calm.

It is generally a good idea for respondents to resist the temptation to, themselves, attempt to discuss the investigation with FTC staff counsel or make direct requests to withdraw the CID. The agency does not place a great deal of merit in factual or legal assertions in such conversations with respondents, in any event.

Also, as touched-upon previously, receiving a CID does not necessarily mean that the respondent is a target. Recipients of compulsory process are not always the focus of FTC investigations, but instead can be mere third parties that possess documents or other information that relate to others who are, in fact, targets of FTC investigations.

Even if a respondent is the target of an FTC investigation, a CID is only the first step in the investigative process. Depending upon the facts, law, substantive response positioning, and documents and information provided in response to a CID, an experienced FTC CID attorney may be able to secure closure of the investigation without further action, including the initiation of enforcement proceedings. Or FTC staff counsel may approach a respondent about negotiating legal settlement.

With limited exceptions, such as an agency determination that public interest warrants it, or where necessary to advance the investigation or where the respondent has improperly disclosed the existence thereof, pre-complaint investigations – such as CIDs – are typically not public.

Review the FTC Civil Investigative Demand Carefully.

Consumer protection investigations can be led by one of the following Bureau of Consumer Protection division – Advertising Practices, Marketing Practices, Financial Practices, Data Privacy or Enforcement, or by a regional office. The BCP is tasked with stopping unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices by collecting complaints and conducting investigations, suing companies and people that break the law, developing rules to maintain a fair marketplace, and educating consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities.

Typically, CIDs provide respondents with notice of the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation(s) which is/are under investigation, as well as the provision of law applicable to such alleged violation(s). However, the FTC need not necessarily inform the respondent of a CID about any particular wrongful conduct, or whether the respondent is a “target,” “subject” or “witness.”

CIDs should also identify things such as the mandatory “meet and confer” schedule, the date upon which it was issued, FTC staff counsel, instructions and definitions (including, but not limited to, instructions to suspend any routine procedures for document production), the manner of required production, the applicable time period, the information sought, whether the investigation is confidential, document preservation obligations, information about petitions to limit or quash, and information about Certifications of Compliance and Regularly Conducted Activity.

Of course, the CID will also set forth the “Subject of the Investigation” and describe the nature of the conduct the FTC staff is investigating. The CID should also cite the Federal Trade Commission Act or other laws or rules/guidelines that the FTC believes may have been violated. For example, and without limitation, some CIDs set forth that the FTC is investigating whether a recipient has made or is making false or unsubstantiated representations about the health-related benefits and efficacy of certain products. While, other CIDs, for example, may explain that the purpose of the CID is to investigate whether a recipient has engaged or is engaging in deceptive acts or practices in connection with listings, descriptions, reviews, ratings, comparisons or endorsements of, or referrals to product/service providers. Or, whether a recipient has engaged or is engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices with respect to its privacy and data security practices.

Consult FTC practice counsel with deep subject matter and regulatory defense experience, an understanding of recent regulatory actions and related trends, an understanding of how the FTC is organized and where it derives its investigational power, good working relationships with FTC staff counsel and management, and the ability to persuasively educate FTC staff about cutting edge-industries. As a general matter, having held former positions within the FTC or other regulatory agencies will not have a material impact on the outcome, if any impact at all.

While legal defense strategies may differ from investigation-to-investigation, an early evaluation of options and considerations is key to efforts implemented to avoid hefty monetary penalties and bad publicity.

What Other Preliminary Issues Should a Recipient of an FTC CID Consider?

As a preliminary matter and in addition to the above, upon receiving a CID recipients may wish to consider working with counsel to evaluate potential liability exposure and related options, whether the investigation is covered by an insurance policy, whether the CID requests confidential or privileged information, whether the investigation may or should be disclosed to third-parties, whether and why responsive information may no longer be available, whether and why some requests will take longer to complete than others, the implementation of preventative compliance measures and policies, conducting an internal investigation, interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents, and consulting with experienced FTC defense counsel to formulate and prepare persuasive legal arguments and individual case strategies designed to convey to FTC staff counsel why a recommendation of enforcement is not justified.

In addition, recipients of CIDs often have a practice of periodically disposing of documents, including emails and digital chats. Receiving notice of compulsory process directly impacts such practices because destroying, altering, concealing or modifying documents and information can lead to charges of obstruction of justice, fines and in some cases, imprisonment.

Upon receiving a CID or otherwise learning of an FTC investigation respondents must immediately cease any routine procedures that would destroy documents that could reasonably relate to the investigation and must take steps to maintain and preserve documents and information that are relevant to the investigation. Experienced FTC defense counsel can assist with document hold notices and how to involve appropriate IT personnel.

What is the “Meet and Confer” Process?

FTC Rule 2.7 sets forth a mandatory “meet and confer” process. Unless an extension is granted, recipients of an FTC CID are required to “meet and confer” with FTC staff within fourteen (14) days after receipt of process, or prior to the deadline for filing a petition to quash, whichever is first.

The “meet and confer” is an FTC CID recipient’s opportunity to ask questions about, clarify, discuss and negotiate the CID, the nature of the investigation, whether the recipient is a target, the scope and related objections, proposed modifications, extensions and a proposed “rolling” production schedule, suggestions to reduce cost and burden, the utilization search terms, the manner in which the FTC prefers to have documents and information produced, electronically stored information, custodians and recordkeeping, and issues of privilege.

Prior to and during the parties’ formal “meet and confer,” an experienced FTC CID investigation lawyer may be able to make logical inferences and discern information that may not be readily apparent on the face of the CID (including the “Resolution”) or disclosed by FTC staff, such as the true purpose and focus of the investigation and whether the recipient is a target, even if the CID is unclear or FTC staff counsel is unwilling to provide an express indication. Digital marketers should consider selecting an FTC defense attorney that possesses experience making logical inferences and discerning information prior to and during the formal “meet and confer” process that may not be obvious on the face of the CID or if FTC staff counsel is unwilling to provide an express indication, such as the true purpose and focus of the investigation and whether the recipient is a target.

Timely, properly and deliberately approaching FTC staff via an experienced FTC defense lawyer to “meet and confer” is one of the most important and oftentimes unleveraged steps in the FTC investigational process. Extensions of time within which to comply and other modifications are often conditioned upon the ability to demonstrate progress towards compliance with the compulsory investigation process.

CIDs often initially seek information and documentation that are broader than reasonable or necessary. The FTC’s Rules of Practice contemplate some flexibility for FTC staff to make modifications to civil investigative demands. Experienced FTC investigation counsel may be able to minimize the expense and disruption to a recipient’s daily operations and protect long-term business objectives by conferring with FTC staff counsel in order to gain a relationship of trust, determine the scope of an FTC CID, and limiting the materials and information being sought.

In addition to the issues referenced herein above, FTC CID recipients should consider such things as developing legal arguments and strategies that encourage investigation closure, assessing whether the CID is “friendly” and whether there exist any stated “confidentiality” requirements, considering whether third-party contracts may be implicated and whether any such agreements contain disclosure notice and consent provisions, laying the groundwork for extension requests and modifications, educating the FTC about the recipient’s business and relevant facts, persuading FTC staff to narrow the scope of specified inquiries and document requests, assessing whether the FTC’s requests are objectionable, preserving applicable objections and privileges, and analyzing the benefits and risks of filing a motion to limit or quash.

CIDs typically impose short deadlines and the first steps taken by recipients of an FTC CID are critical, both short and long term. The failure of a recipient to secure reasonable extensions of time and to properly preserve objections can result in a waiver.

In order to deliberately position the investigation and response, and to maximize the chances for a positive result, it is important for CID recipients to promptly consult with FTC CID defense counsel that understands FTC practice and the challenges faced by digital advertisers. Government-plaintiff subject-matter focused counsel with deep experience guiding clients through high-stakes and sensitive FTC investigations may be best suited to get the most of out early meetings with FTC staff in order to enhance the chances for extensions, secure helpful modifications, and influence ultimate resolution.

What is the Difference Between a “Witness,” “Subject” and “Target” of a CID?

If the FTC comes calling, one of the first questions that gets asked is, “Am I a target or is someone else being investigated?” During the “meet and confer process,” the FTC may volunteer this information. Often, however, the FTC does not yet know for certain, and the agency is not required to disclose where the recipient of a CID actually or potentially fits within an investigation.

Not everyone that receives a CID is necessarily suspected of wrongdoing.

At one end of the spectrum is a recipient that is classified as a “target.” When the FTC considers a recipient a target, that means that the agency believes that the person or entity has violated the law and that an enforcement action may ultimately be initiated.

At the other end of the spectrum is a “witness.” A third-party witness may possess information that the FTC considers important to its investigation. A “subject” is a person or entity in the gray area between a witness and a target. To the FTC, a subject is a person or entity that may or may not be the subject or a future investigation or enforcement action. In other words, the FTC does not yet know what position it will ultimately take as to a subject until it has completed its due diligence. An initial classification can change based upon information obtained by the FTC.

The foregoing illustrates the importance of who a respondent engages to defend its interests because how a respondent is classified may determine the manner of interaction with FTC staff and the ability of respondents to make informed, reasoned decisions.

Standards Governing Objections to an FTC CID?

As referenced above, FTC investigations oftentimes seek information and documentation in a manner that appear to be more of a fishing expedition than a narrowly tailored request. As further set forth above, assessing whether one or more requests are objectionable (e.g., relevance, undue burden, vague, overly broad, and/or seek confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information) and preserving applicable objections is a crucial part of the investigation response process.

Despite the importance of objections, many less experienced FTC investigation defense attorneys that do not concentrate on advertising law matters fail to utilize them timely or properly.

Consider relevance. The purpose of an FTC investigation is to learn whether there is reason to believe that the law has been or is being violated and, if so, to ascertain whether the issuance of a complaint would be in the public interest. In this context, the standard for relevance of administrative compulsory process is broader than in a formal adjudication. A CID request need not be limited to that information necessary to prove specific charges. To the contrary, it may call for documents and information that are relevant “to the investigation” – a threshold that may be broadly defined by the FTC.

Naturally, receiving a CID inherently places a burden on the respondent. However, an undue burden may the basis for a reasonable objection in the event that the request “threatens to unduly disrupt or seriously hinder” normal business operations. For example, with respect to //voluminous records searches and substantial costs associated therewith. The standard is a high one and the respondent’s argument must be reasonably established.

A CID is impermissibly vague where it lacks reasonable specificity or is too indefinite to enable a responding party to comply. A CID is overbroad where it is “out of proportion to the ends sought” and “of such a sweeping nature and so unrelated to the matter properly under inquiry as to exceed the investigatory power.”

Objections based upon the confidentiality or secret nature of the information being sought are often based, at least in part, upon an assessment of whether the information sought is reasonably relevant to the subject matter of the investigation and whether disclosure would cause economic or competitive harm. Generally speaking, the treatment of information as confidential will depend on either the purpose for which it is obtained or the manner in which it is used.

Objections based upon privilege, work product protection, statutory exemption or any similar claim must be asserted no later than the “return date: indicated on the CID. A respondent must submit a detailed log of the items withheld that identifies the basis for withholding the material and meets all applicable statutory requirements. The failure to provide information sufficient to support a claim of protected status may result in denial of the claim.

Saavy FTC practice counsel may also consider, as applicable, bolstered arguments that non-compliance with one or more requests would not in any way undermine the investigation, unnecessary and abusive breadth, the lack of a reasonable need for the information and documentation requested, threatened disruption and serious hinderance of business operations, the lack of furthering the FTC’s legitimate inquiry into matters of public interest, an unreasonable diversion of personnel and financial resources, and/or one or more requests being outside the scope of the investigation and/or “Resultion.” Well crafted and supprted (by evidence) objections may also be utlized to negotiate and leverage extensions of time to responsd and product documentation, thus, easing the burden on a respondent while securing time to better assess the case from a legal and factual standpoint, and prepare persuasive legal arguments while minimizing risk exposure.

Properly crafted and timely asserted objections are a crucial component of the “meet and confer” process, as well as ongoing advocacy designed to protect a CID recipient’s business and legal interests.

Is an Investigation Confidential?

Those on the receiving end of FTC CIDs and compulsory process are understandably concerned about whether investigations themselves and proprietary information produced in response thereto are confidential. As a general rule and with limited exception, FTC CID investigations are not public, and the FTC does not inform consumers, competitors, private law firms or members of the press about them.

Information and documentation submitted to the FTC during an investigation are typically exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA). In fact, the FTC Act prohibits public disclosure of certain information, including, but not limited to, confidential trade secrets and commercial or financial information.

In June 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court expanded protection of “trade secrets and commercial or financial” information under a specific FOIA exemption. Previously, a governmental entity receiving a FOIA request had to demonstrate a “substantial competitive harm” to the disclosing business to invoke the exception and thereby avoid producing categories of documents. However, the Supreme Court recently rejected the “substantial competitive harm” standard and raised new issues related to what constitutes “confidential” information exempted from FOIA disclosure.

According to the Supreme Court, in order to be considered “confidential information,” the information must, amongst other things, be “customarily kept private, or at least closely held.” In other words, such information cannot be shared freely, and must be treated and maintained as private by its owner.

However, the FTC may share information received pursuant to compulsory process with federal or state law enforcement. The Federal Trade Commission also reserves the right to disclose the existence of an investigation as it deems necessary in furtherance thereof. The agency can also disclose the existence of an investigation and related materials if, for example, it initiates a lawsuit or adjudicative proceedings.

In addition to lessening the possibility of inadvertent dissemination, designating information as “confidential” and/or “trade secret” may ensure that the FTC provides prior notice before making any disclosure. Of course, the FTC can dispute the classification of information as confidential and/or trade secret.

It is imperative that CID respondents deliberately and thoughtfully consider what steps should be taken to keep information private. Such steps may include, without limitation, establishing written confidentiality policies, utilizing passwords and restricting access, utilizing deliberately drafted contract provisions, memorializing the FTC’s agreement to retain all submissions as confidential, requesting return of materials at the conclusion of the investigation, and considering that petitions to limit or quash, and related decisions are generally public.

Lastly, unless indicated otherwise by the FTC, respondents may not be under any obligation to keep the existence of an investigation confidential. However, in the event that a respondent discloses the investigation in a manner than results in significant publicity, the FTC can potentially decide to treat the investigation as being public.

What is a Motion to Limit or Quash?

In the event that traditional objections do not resolve scheduling or production issues with FTC staff, a respondent may raise objections to the specifications and provisions of a CID by filing a petition to limit or quash with the Secretary of the FTC. Absent and extension, if a respondent does not intend to comply with a CID, a petition to limit or quash may be filed within twenty (20) days after served with the CID, or if the return date is less than twenty (20) days after service, prior to the return date.

The FTC will not consider petitions to limit or quash absent a pre-filing meet and confer session and, absent extraordinary circumstances, will consider only issues raised during the meet and confer process. If a respondent plans to file a petition to limit or quash certain portions of a CID, it must still file a response to the other portions of the CID by the deadline.

CID respondents are required to include with any petition to limit or quash, all assertions of protected status or other factual and legal objections, including all arguments, affidavits and other supporting documentation. Petitions must also include a statement describing the circumstances and attendees at the conference with staff. The failure to include the required statement may result in a denial of the petition.

Additionally, the failure to exhaust available administrative remedies (e.g., filing a petition to limit or quash) can serve as a waiver of arguments asserted as a defense in a subsequent CID enforcement proceeding.

The FTC is required to rule on a petition to limit or quash within forty (40) days after it is filed. If the petition is denied, the FTC will specify new compliance terms and a return date.

Importantly, unless granted confidential treatment, petitions to limit or quash FTC CIDs become part of the public record, including rulings, orders and closing letters. Thus, CID recipients should consult with an FTC CID lawyer experienced with FTC practice when considering whether to file a petition to limit or quash.

Persuasive Advocacy and Arguments.

One of the most crucial aspects of any FTC investigation is the seizure of opportunities to dramatically increase the chances of investigation closure and formal enforcement action avoidance. Implementing winning strategies designed to achieve desired objectives can include, without limitation, persuasive advocacy, leveraging good facts and legal arguments, compiling supporting evidence and procuring witness testimony.

Depending upon the nature of the investigation, expert reports may also prove beneficial when seeking to secure investigation closure. The utilization of pro-defense judicial developments may also provide cutting-edge investigation resolution strategies.

Of course, respondents should also consider raising challenges to the scope of the FTC’s enforcement powers and remedial authority as a viable defense and settlement position.

Meeting with FTC personnel, including staff attorneys charged with conducting the investigation and management may, also provide CID respondents with an opportunity to present substantive legal and factual arguments in an informal setting.

Investigation Closure Without Enforcement.

When the facts are less than favorable, convincing FTC attorneys not to recommend an enforcement action is a skill.

FTC staff counsel are tasked with investigating facts and making recommendations to management about whether an enforcement action is warranted. FTC lawyers possess the discretion to recommend complete case closure without seeking any remedy if it appears that there was no consumer harm, there was no statutory or regulatory violation, and/or a lawsuit would not be in the public interest.

Knowledgeable FTC practice attorneys that advise advertisers and marketers in sensitive and complex regulatory matters can aggressively advocate that a formal consent agreement or enforcement is not necessary based upon, for example, business practice-related correction action and/or that the FTC would not prevail in the event it initiates enforcement action.

A legal advisor that possesses solid relationships with FTC staff that decide whether to recommend a case at all and senior agency enforcers, is a benefit to CID recipients.

Takeaway: There are many steps to take before, during and after learning that your business is the subject of an investigation. Taking the appropriate action ahead of time alongside a seasoned FTC defense practice attorney can mitigate or avoid negative publicity, legal implications, and, most importantly, hefty monetary fines.

Dave Morgan Talks Tech Under Fire: Ukraine’s Unyielding Innovation

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Embarking on a narrative journey through the heart of Ukraine’s tech scene amidst turmoil, Dave Morgan, Chairman of Simulmedia, offers an intimate glimpse into a world where resilience and innovation defy the encroaching shadows of conflict. His recounting paints a vivid tableau of challenges, triumphs, and the unbreakable spirit of Ukrainian tech professionals, as they navigate the complexities of maintaining global partnerships and fostering growth in the face of adversity.

Morgan articulates the core challenge facing Ukraine’s tech industry with poignant clarity: “The biggest challenges are to continue to maintain the support and trust of their clients and partners around the world.” This struggle, he notes, is compounded by the global corporate reflex to distance themselves from conflict zones, a stance that Ukrainian tech professionals tirelessly work to counter through their unwavering commitment to operational excellence and service continuity. “It’s very easy for large companies to suspend IT contracts and development contracts with people that are in the middle of a war… But the data belies that actually. They’ve done an amazing job keeping all of their infrastructure working,” Morgan emphasizes, showcasing the industry’s resilience.

The vibrancy of Ukraine’s startup ecosystem, even amidst the backdrop of war, is another testament to the indomitable spirit of its tech community. Morgan’s experience at IT Arena, a beacon for startups in the region, underscores this point. “There were amazing startups. There is a certain amount of capital in Ukraine for tech startups. There is quite a bit actually across Europe. So the fundings are happening,” he recalls, highlighting the sector’s ability to attract investment and innovate under pressure, particularly in the realms of defense and military technology.

Morgan also sheds light on the instrumental role of communication firms like CFC Big Ideas in supporting Ukraine’s strategic and resistance efforts. These organizations, by “volunteering a lot of their efforts and energy to the government,” exemplify the collaborative spirit driving the tech industry’s contribution to national defense and resilience. Such efforts, Morgan notes, are crucial in supporting the Ministry of Strategic Industries and bolstering the private sector, particularly in defense.

Reflecting on the broader lessons for the global tech community, Morgan points to the adaptability and resilience exemplified by Ukrainian tech firms, especially in the face of disaster. The transformation of tech hubs into logistical lifelines for employees and their families speaks volumes about the industry’s commitment to its people. “They were moving families around, they were setting up temporary housing, they were setting up commercial kitchens… And their capacity to adjust and become vibrant sort of support infrastructure for their employees in the middle of a war was shocking,” Morgan states, underlining the profound adaptability and resilience at play.

The conversation with Morgan also touches on the critical challenge of combating Russian disinformation, highlighting the paramount importance of critical thinking in this fight. “The best defense would actually be critical thinking and being able to actually question and try to interpret what we’re hearing and what we’re seeing,” Morgan suggests, pointing to the necessity of a discerning approach to information consumption and the vital role of technology in identifying and mitigating misinformation.

Amidst the technological and strategic narratives, Morgan shares personal stories that highlight the human spirit’s capacity to endure and adapt. Recounting his experience of a missile alert during a meeting, which led to an impromptu continuation in a bomb shelter, Morgan reveals the everyday realities of life and work in a conflict zone. “We pick our machines up, go downstairs into deep depths of like a parking garage… And we continue the meeting,” he recalls, painting a vivid picture of resilience and adaptation in the face of constant threat.

Looking to the future, Morgan expresses optimism for Ukraine’s tech industry, envisioning it as a burgeoning hub of innovation and growth in the post-conflict era. “Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania will become the fastest growing tech area in the world over the next 30 years,” he predicts, highlighting the strategic significance and untapped potential of the region in the global tech landscape. This vision of growth and recovery is rooted in a belief in Ukraine’s victory and the transformative power of technology and innovation to rebuild and revitalize a nation.

Through his insights, Morgan offers a comprehensive exploration of Ukraine’s tech industry amid conflict, weaving together themes of resilience, innovation, community, and the human spirit. His narrative serves as a powerful reminder of the tech industry’s capacity to not only drive economic progress but also uphold the values of democracy, collaboration, and human dignity in the face of adversity.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW ON YOUTUBE

Before Influencers Were Cool: The Andy Batkin Story of Digital Darwinism

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Navigating the tumultuous seas of digital marketing and ad tech requires not just a sturdy ship but a captain who can see through the fog of change with an almost prophetic clarity. Andy Batkin in a recent interview, make clear he is such a navigator, a pioneer who charted the course of digital media long before the term “influencer” entered our lexicon. His journey, marked by the creation and evolution of digital behemoths like Yahoo, offers not just a roadmap for success in the digital age but a testament to the power of resilience, foresight, and, yes, a sprinkle of serendipity.

In an industry often mesmerized by the latest trends and buzzwords, Batkin’s career serves as a reminder that true innovation is a marathon, not a sprint. From the early days of interactive telephone technology, through the era of floppy disks and CD-ROMs, to the dawn of the internet, Batkin didn’t just witness the digital revolution; he was one of its architects. “I actually had been using technology for advertising, marketing, and promotion since the early eighties,” Batkin reveals, his story unfolding like a tech time capsule, each artifact a milestone in the journey of digital media.

But Batkin’s narrative is more than a stroll down memory lane. It’s a blueprint for navigating the digital future. His early adoption of the internet for marketing, symbolized by the launch of a conference that would eventually focus solely on this new frontier, underscores a key principle of Batkin’s philosophy: Always be learning, always be adapting. “It was really more of educating, not only the brands and agencies… We didn’t even know what it was,” he admits, reflecting on the infancy of the internet with a candor that’s both refreshing and insightful.

Amid the cluttered landscape of Silicon Valley garages, one particular scene stands out as a seminal moment in the birth of the internet as we know it today. Andy Batkin, standing amidst “pizza boxes everywhere,” found himself in the very crucible where the digital age was being forged. This was not just any startup; this was Yahoo, a name that would soon become synonymous with the internet itself. Batkin’s recounting of the scene brings to life the chaotic creativity that characterized the tech boom of the ’90s. “That was the eureka moment,” he declares, emphasizing the profound realization that they were onto something monumental. This wasn’t merely a job or a project; it was the inception of a new era in digital advertising and online communication.

Batkin’s involvement with Yahoo marks a pivotal chapter in the annals of digital history. His collaboration with Jerry Yang and David Filo, the dynamic duo behind Yahoo, was not just a meeting of minds but a fusion of visionary foresight and entrepreneurial spirit. The garage, filled with the remnants of late-night brainstorming sessions and the energy of unbridled innovation, became the birthplace of a digital empire. Batkin, reflecting on those early days, notes the significance of their work together: “This wasn’t just a job; it was the birth of a new era.” The description of their workspace, cluttered yet full of potential, encapsulates the essence of Silicon Valley’s startup culture—where chaos breeds creativity and pizza boxes are just as likely to contain the seeds of the next big idea as any boardroom.

The story of Yahoo’s early days, as recounted by Batkin, transcends the typical narrative of tech startups. It’s a tale of how a seemingly ordinary setting can become the stage for extraordinary innovation. “Pizza boxes everywhere,” as Batkin recalls, weren’t just detritus; they were symbols of the relentless drive and hustle that defined the tech scene of the era. In this garage, amidst the mess and the mayhem, the fundamental business model of Yahoo was sketched out—a model that would later revolutionize digital advertising and set the standard for countless enterprises to follow. Batkin’s role in shaping this model was crucial, turning a moment of inspiration into a tangible strategy that would drive Yahoo to incredible heights.

Reflecting on this defining period, Batkin’s narrative captures the essence of Silicon Valley’s innovative spirit. The garage, a space of creative chaos, became the crucible for a groundbreaking venture. “That was the eureka moment,” Batkin emphasizes, marking not only a personal revelation but a pivotal turn in the digital landscape. This wasn’t merely the start of a new job but the dawn of an era that would forever change how we interact with the digital world. Through Batkin’s eyes, we see the humble beginnings of a giant, a reminder that great things often start in the most unassuming places.

Yet, for all the highs, Batkin’s journey also navigates through the valleys—the dot-com bubble burst being the most harrowing. “I literally had to walk in and fire about 38, 39 people in one day,” he recounts, the pain of that moment palpable even years later. It’s a stark reminder that innovation is not without its casualties, but also that resilience lies not in avoiding failure but in rising from it. Batkin’s response to this crisis, a blend of determination and adaptability, is a masterclass in leadership through adversity.

Beyond the successes and setbacks, Batkin’s career is a reflection of his ability to foresee the digital waves on the horizon. His early recognition of the internet’s potential, his strategic maneuvering through the dot-com collapse, and his ongoing commitment to sustainability in digital media are hallmarks of a visionary leader. But perhaps more importantly, Batkin’s story is a narrative about the human element in technology. “I think it’s important to fail,” he muses, a nod to the ethos that has powered his journey through the digital age.

As our digital odyssey with Batkin comes to a close, it’s evident that his legacy is not just in the companies he helped build or the innovations he brought to life. Andy Batkin’s true legacy is the lesson that in the ever-changing world of digital marketing and ad tech, resilience, foresight, and a willingness to embrace change are the true currencies of success. His journey, from the garages of Silicon Valley to the forefront of digital sustainability, is a beacon for all who navigate the digital seas. And as Batkin continues to chart the course towards a more sustainable digital future, his story remains a guiding star for those brave enough to follow in his wake. Because, in the end, the future of digital isn’t just about technology; it’s about the visionaries who dare to imagine what’s possible and have the resilience to make it happen.

WATCH HIS FULL INTERVIEW HERE

Much Ado About Data: The IAB and Google’s Privacy Performance

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

In the grand tapestry of digital advertising, Google’s Privacy Sandbox has emerged not as a mere thread but as a bold, controversial stroke, threatening to redraw boundaries and redefine norms.

Picture, if you will, a grand Shakespearean theatre where our modern-day drama unfolds, with the ad tech community cast in starring roles, navigating the complex plot twists of privacy and performance.

Ari Paparo, akin to the court jester, astutely observed the community’s passage through the stages of grief, transforming what could be a dry narrative into a relatable journey of denial, anger, and now, a tentative bargaining.

This saga, however, is no laughing matter; it’s a critical inflection point that could dictate the future of digital advertising.

Act I: The IAB Tech Lab’s Tome of Woes
In the realm of ad tech, where the clash of titans is less myth and more Monday, the IAB Tech Lab’s critique of Google’s Privacy Sandbox reads like a detailed script for an epic showdown. With the precision of a master watchmaker, they’ve dissected Google’s grand plan across a 106-page narrative, not just as a scholarly exercise, but as a spotlight on the Sandbox’s potential pitfalls. This document, steeped in the wisdom of digital sages, is less an indictment and more a probing inquiry into the future Google envisions.

Central to their narrative is the digital advertising world’s equivalent of squaring the circle: marrying the lofty ideals of consumer privacy with the gritty realities of online ads. The IAB Tech Lab’s examination reveals a stark landscape where, out of 44 advertising use cases scrutinized, only a few seem to survive the transition to the Sandbox. This revelation isn’t trivial; it’s a beacon, warning of a seismic shift in the very underpinnings of digital advertising as we know it.

Delving deeper, the IAB’s script paints a vivid picture of the ad tech ecosystem undergoing a transformation so radical it’s akin to retrofitting the bustling streets of New York City with Venetian canals. While picturesque, such a change demands a reimagining of the city’s lifeblood, from the vehicles that navigate its byways to the infrastructure that underpins its existence. The introduction of the Privacy Sandbox, with its promise of a privacy-first future, seems to ask for a similar leap of faith and adaptation from the ad tech community.

This isn’t just about tweaking the edges; it’s about redefining the core. The IAB Tech Lab’s tome serves as a clarion call to look beyond the surface sheen of privacy promises and consider the deep, structural shifts required to make such a vision viable. It’s a call to arms, or perhaps more aptly, a call to pens, urging a collective re-scripting of the digital ad playbook.

Act II: Google’s Counterplay
Google, akin to a seasoned playwright faced with a critical audience, mounts a vigorous defense of its Privacy Sandbox: This isn’t merely a retort scribbled in the margins of ad tech’s ledger; it’s a 28-page manifesto that seeks to correct the record, to clarify the misunderstood ambitions and intricate mechanics of its proposed future for online privacy and advertising.

Google’s narrative doesn’t just argue for a misunderstood initiative; it presents a vision, a reimagining of the digital ecosystem where privacy doesn’t just coexist with advertising but thrives alongside it. The tech behemoth finds itself in a position where it must untangle the web of misconceptions spun around the Privacy Sandbox, portraying it not as the harbinger of ad tech’s obsolescence but as the dawn of a new era.

The company posits that the IAB Tech Lab, in its diligent scrutiny, may have clung too tightly to the relics of the past—those ubiquitous third-party cookies—and in doing so, overlooked the lush forest of innovation that the Sandbox represents. Google asserts that the essence of advertising efficacy doesn’t have to be sacrificed on the altar of privacy. Instead, it introduces the notion that the URL in an ad request—a fundamental piece of the digital advertising puzzle—retains its role as a lighthouse, guiding the ships of brand safety through the foggy seas of data privacy concerns. This metaphorical lighthouse promises to pierce the gloom, offering a beacon for navigating the complexities of modern digital advertising without compromising on user privacy. This is akin to peering through the keyhole of a vast and ornate door.

Delving deeper into the heart of the discourse, Google unveils another layer of critique concerning technical misinterpretations. The tech giant suggests that the IAB Tech Lab, in its diligent quest for scrutiny, may have misread or oversimplified the complex mechanics and nuanced functionalities of the Privacy Sandbox’s offerings. This critique insinuates that the IAB’s analysis might have glossed over the intricate ballet of algorithms and protocols that underpin the Sandbox, reducing its rich tapestry to a more rudimentary sketch that fails to capture the initiative’s full scope and ambition.

But Google’s script for the future of digital advertising isn’t a monologue; it’s an invitation to a collective brainstorming session, a writers’ room where every voice is valued, and every idea merits consideration. This call for collaboration is not just an olive branch but a testament to the belief that the most robust solutions are forged in the crucible of diverse perspectives and expertise. Google extends a hand, urging the entire ad tech community to pick up their pens and join in authoring the subsequent chapters of the Privacy Sandbox narrative.

This appeal for collective action is underscored by the recognition that the Privacy Sandbox, in its current draft, is not a final act but a work in progress. It’s an acknowledgment that the path to harmonizing the demands of privacy with the imperatives of digital advertising is a journey best undertaken together. Google envisions a future where the ad tech community, united by a common purpose, crafts a Privacy Sandbox that not only addresses the immediate challenges but also anticipates the evolving landscape of online advertising and privacy.

By championing a collaborative approach, Google aims to transform the Privacy Sandbox from a contentious proposition into a shared mission. It’s a bold strategy, one that seeks to move beyond the adversarial, to find common ground in the shared goal of creating an internet that respects user privacy while sustaining the vibrant ecosystem of digital advertising. This is not just a negotiation; it’s an invitation to innovate, to dream up new mechanisms and methodologies that safeguard privacy without stifling the creative and economic vitality that digital advertising provides.

Act III: The Adworld’s Community’s Quandary
The broader ad tech community, meanwhile, watches from the wings, their expressions a mix of skepticism and cautious hope. The skepticism is well-founded; history is littered with the carcasses of well-intentioned initiatives that failed to gain traction. The caution? A reflection of an industry all too aware that its future hinges on finding a middle ground.

Voices like Ken Weiner’s articulate a skepticism born of experience, highlighting the complexity and unreadiness of the Privacy Sandbox. Others, like Dave Hills, cast a wary eye on Google’s motivations, suggesting that the Sandbox might serve more as a walled garden than a common ground.
Yet, amidst the chorus of skeptics, there’s a thread of hope. The notion that, perhaps, with enough dialogue and collaboration, a path forward can be found. A path that respects both the imperative of privacy and the necessities of digital advertising.

Epilogue: A Call to the Future
As we stand on the precipice of a new era in digital advertising, the unfolding narrative of the Privacy Sandbox commands the stage, spotlighting the intricate ballet of privacy, innovation, and the inexorable march of progress. This saga, far from a mere parochial squabble within the ad tech community, embodies the Herculean challenge of harmonizing the sometimes discordant melodies of user privacy and digital commerce. It’s a narrative ripe with potential, teetering between the brink of revolution and the chasm of discord, waiting for its final act to be penned.

In this digital amphitheater, where the stakes transcend mere corporate interests to touch the very essence of personal freedom and economic vitality, the question looms: Can the industry self-regulate, or is the hand of government intervention inevitable, perhaps even necessary? The spotlight turns towards entities like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose role could become pivotal in orchestrating a balance between the competing symphonies of privacy and progress.

My friend Jessica Rich, a former FTC official, once remarked on the necessity of early and direct input from both privacy and competition staff on all data protection matters, underscoring a holistic approach that does not naturally occur under the FTC’s current structure. Her insights illuminate the path forward, suggesting that the complex interplay of privacy, competition, and innovation in the digital ad space calls for a nuanced, coordinated regulatory approach. This raises a poignant question: Could the FTC, armed with a mandate to protect consumer privacy while fostering competition, serve as the conductor, ensuring the industry’s orchestra plays in harmony?

The narrative thus beckons for a dialogue that extends beyond the confines of the industry, inviting policymakers, regulators, and legislators to join the conversation. It’s a call for a regulatory framework that not only understands the technical underpinnings of digital advertising but appreciates the fundamental rights of consumers. Such a framework would not stifle innovation but would ensure it flourishes within boundaries that respect individual privacy.

As we gaze into the future, the prospect of FTC intervention looms not as a shadow but as a beacon of potential guidance. The commission, with its dual mandate, could pave the way for a digital advertising ecosystem that thrives on innovation while safeguarding privacy. This intervention, however, must be nuanced, avoiding the pitfalls of heavy-handed regulation that could stifle the very innovation it seeks to protect. It’s a delicate balance, one that requires a deep understanding of the industry’s intricacies and a commitment to the principles of fairness and privacy.

The denouement of this drama remains unwritten, leaving us at a crossroads filled with potential and peril. The paths forward are many, but the destination is clear: a future where digital advertising and privacy coexist, not as adversaries, but as allies in the quest for a more secure, innovative, and equitable digital world. The ad tech community, regulators, and privacy advocates must now wield their pens with wisdom and foresight, for the tapestry they weave will shape the digital age to come.

Now Pronounce You Retail and Tech: Walmart’s Proposal to Vizio

By
Adotat Staff
-
0

So, here we are, witnessing what could be the most unexpected crossover episode in corporate America: Walmart and Vizio, a match made in… well, a boardroom, but with implications as dramatic as any prime-time soap opera. Walmart, the behemoth of bargain shopping, is eyeing Vizio, the maestro of middle-market smart TVs, for a whopping $2 billion. It’s like watching a reality TV show where the billionaire next door decides they want to dominate not just the earth but the digital heavens too.

“Why?” you ask, as you munch on generic-brand popcorn bought from aisle 7. Because, folks, this saga isn’t about Walmart merely expanding its electronics aisle with another shiny gizmo. No, this is about dominion over the digital kingdom that lies within the innocuous black mirror mounted on your wall or resting on your TV stand. Walmart isn’t just looking to sell you another smart TV; they aim to metamorphose it into the clandestine chariot of their burgeoning advertising empire. Crafty, isn’t it?

Let’s zero in on Vizio’s SmartCast platform. This isn’t your garden-variety operating system. Oh no, it’s akin to a digital Midas, transforming every click, every pause, and every binge into advertising gold. While Vizio may play the bronze medalist in the sales race against titans like Samsung and LG, when it comes to the realm of data, it’s a veritable gold rush. With nearly 18 million active accounts under its belt, Vizio isn’t just playing the game; it’s redefining it. This digital dominion has seen its ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) bloat by a handsome 14% in just a quarter. In the byzantine world of retail and streaming, these figures are nothing short of a siren song, luring Walmart to the rocky shores of a $2 billion acquisition.

But wait, there’s more. This isn’t just about ad impressions or clicks; it’s about forging an unbreakable chain of interaction from screen to store. Imagine a world where your TV not only knows your viewing preferences but can predict your shopping habits, offering up ads so targeted, they’d make a CIA profiler nod in approval. In this brave new world, Vizio’s platform isn’t just a smart TV OS; it’s the gatekeeper to a kingdom where content and commerce converge with the subtlety of a sledgehammer in a silent movie.

And let’s talk scale. Vizio, with its nearly 18 million SmartCast accounts, isn’t just sitting on a goldmine; it’s sitting on a data-driven Death Star, with the power to influence the retail galaxy. Each of these accounts represents a household, a viewer, a consumer – a potential Walmart shopper. In the grand chessboard of retail and technology, Vizio’s platform is the queen, moving freely across the board, commanding attention, and driving revenue in ways that traditional retail can only dream of.

Furthermore, consider the symbiotic relationship between Vizio’s ad platform and Walmart’s ambitions. With Walmart Connect, the retail giant’s own advertising venture, already minting billions, folding Vizio’s capabilities into its arsenal would be like acquiring the Infinity Gauntlet of retail media – each stone a data point, each snap a targeted ad campaign. In 2023 alone, Walmart Connect’s revenue projection is a testament to the power of retail media, and with Vizio’s tech, those figures could soar to stratospheric heights, reshaping the landscape of advertising, retail, and entertainment.

Let’s not forget the delicious irony of Walmart, the king of physical retail, diving headfirst into the digital advertising fray, aiming to square off against the likes of Amazon and Google. It’s like watching your local high school football team decide they’re going to play in the Super Bowl. Except Walmart has the clout and the cash to actually pull it off.

Brian Wieser, a sage media and financial analyst, mused at MediaPost that this move could transform Walmart from a mere retailer into a juggernaut of performance-based media. It’s as if Walmart looked at its sprawling empire of goods from garden rakes to granola bars and thought, “What we really need to complete this picture is… a smart TV platform?”

But perhaps the most intriguing part of this saga is the insight into Walmart’s ambitions. Acquiring Vizio isn’t just about selling more TVs; it’s about reshaping Walmart’s identity in the digital age. They’re not content with being the place where America shops; they want to be the medium through which America watches, learns, and, crucially, buys.

In the grand scheme of things, this potential acquisition isn’t just a big deal; it’s a strategic masterstroke, painting a picture of a future where the lines between retail, technology, and entertainment aren’t just blurred; they’re obliterated. Walmart’s move to buy Vizio could very well be the opening salvo in a new battle for the soul of the American consumer, fought not in the aisles, but on the airwaves of our smart TVs.

So, as we await the final act of this drama, one thing’s for certain: the retail landscape is about to get a lot more interesting, and Walmart, in true empire-building fashion, might just be leading the charge with a smart TV remote in one hand and the future of advertising in the other. Stay tuned, folks. This show is just getting started.

Touchdowns and Letdowns: The Super Bowl’s Marketing Circus Comes to Town

By
Adotat Staff
-
0

In the high-octane, neon-drenched spectacle that is Super Bowl advertising, brands embark on a gladiatorial quest for the Holy Grail of marketing: a spot that doesn’t just sell products but becomes etched in the collective consciousness of society itself. It’s a yearly rite where titans of industry hurl millions at the screen, praying to the gods of commerce for virality, memorability, and, if the stars align, a dash of cultural relevance.

As we dissect this year’s contenders in the coliseum of consumerism, let’s revel in the chaos, the genius, and the sheer, unadulterated “what-the-heck-were-they-thinking?” moments that define Super Bowl Sunday’s ad breaks.

Epic Triumphs of the Marketing Pantheon

The Super Bowl commercial landscape is a battleground where only the strongest narratives survive. This year, some brands emerged as the Hercules of their era, achieving marketing immortality with a blend of storytelling prowess and strategic brilliance.

Dunkin’ and the Power of Boston Pride: Dunkin’ hit a home run with Ben Affleck behind the counter, serving up not just coffee but a slice of genuine Boston camaraderie. The ad’s brilliance lay in its authenticity; Affleck wasn’t just a celebrity endorsement but a symbol of hometown pride, creating a connection that felt both personal and profound.

CeraVe and the Unlikely Hero: In a twist nobody saw coming, Michael Cera became the face of CeraVe, leveraging his unique brand of awkward charm to sell skincare in an ad campaign that felt refreshingly original. Directed by comedy legends Tim and Eric, the commercial was a masterclass in using humor to cut through the noise, proving that sometimes, the most unexpected choices yield the greatest rewards.

State Farm’s Accent on Humor: State Farm played to the strengths of cultural icons Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito, using their distinctive accents and personas to craft an ad that was both humorous and heartwarming. The reunion of the “Twins” co-stars not only tapped into nostalgia but also showcased the brand’s message in a light-hearted, memorable way.

BMW’s Nod to Nostalgia: In a clever move, BMW enlisted Arnold Schwarzenegger and Salma Hayek to star in a “Zeus and Hera” themed ad, blending humor with a touch of the divine. The spot played off Schwarzenegger’s larger-than-life persona and Hayek’s elegance, delivering a message of retirement and relaxation that was both entertaining and relatable.

The Icarus Awards: Flying Too Close to the Sun

For every ad that soared, there were those that plummeted, wings aflame, into the abyss of public disdain. These cautionary tales serve as a reminder that the path to Super Bowl glory is fraught with danger.

The Temu Puzzle: In a baffling display of abstract marketing, Temu’s animated spot left viewers scratching their heads, wondering what they had just watched and why. It was a classic case of style over substance, proving that confusion is not an effective marketing strategy.

The RFK Jr. Gambit: In perhaps the most jarring pivot of the night, a political ad for RFK Jr. crashed the Super Bowl party, turning festive spirits into furrowed brows. It was a stark reminder that the Super Bowl is perhaps not the ideal venue for political machinations, especially when the audience is trying to escape the very realities such ads invoke.

The Middle Ground: Hits, Misses, and Maybes

In the shadowy realm between triumph and disaster, some ads left us pondering, debating, and, in some cases, rewinding to figure out what we just experienced.

Verizon’s Star Power: Featuring the indomitable Beyoncé, Verizon aimed for the stars but landed somewhere on the moon. The ad was a spectacle, certainly, but it raised the question: can even Beyoncé’s luminous presence salvage a narrative that feels more like a series of extravagant vignettes than a cohesive story?

The Return of the Clydesdales: Budweiser’s beloved horses made a triumphant return, a move that felt both safe and satisfying. Yet, in the context of Super Bowl LVIII’s ad lineup, the Clydesdales’ gallop, while beautiful, felt like a nostalgic trot down a well-worn path.

As the dust settles on another Super Bowl ad frenzy, we’re left with a tapestry of narratives that span the spectrum from genius to bewildering. This year’s offerings remind us that the Super Bowl ad arena is a microcosm of marketing at its most audacious and creative, a place where brands are not just selling products but vying for a spot in the cultural lexicon.

Whether through laughter, nostalgia, or sheer spectacle, these commercials invite us to witness the alchemy of advertising, where art meets commerce in an explosive display of creativity. And as we dissect, discuss, and dissect some more, one thing remains clear: we’ll be eagerly awaiting next year’s ad gladiators, ready to be entertained, surprised, and perhaps a little confused, all over again.

Nextdoor Knocks: How Heidi Andersen is Redefining the Neighborhood Ad Block

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Heidi Andersen. Let’s talk about her for a sec. She’s kinda like that friend who knows everyone in the neighborhood, but instead of just organizing block parties, she’s busy reshaping what it means to be a community in our oh-so-connected yet somehow lonely digital world. This isn’t your average tech exec story. After playing the field at the big leagues—Google, LinkedIn, you name it—Andersen has landed at Nextdoor, and she’s not just part of the furniture. As the CRO and CMO (because why settle for one title when you can rock two?), she’s steering this ship into uncharted waters, turning the idea of neighborly love and local biz into something you can scroll through on your phone.

 It’s not just about being neighborly; it’s about redefining the game with a blend of old-school charm and digital savvy. And under her watch? Nextdoor is all about breaking the mold and bringing people together, one neighborhood ping at a time.

“My journey in marketing was sparked by a fascination with storytelling and the transformative power of technology to connect people in impactful ways,” Andersen recalls, tracing her odyssey from the foundational days at Google’s Display Ads team to her current endeavor at Nextdoor. It’s this blend of narrative crafting and technological innovation that has defined her career and, now, the ethos of Nextdoor.

Nextdoor, under Andersen’s guidance, champions a unique model of hyperlocal community building and advertising, a stark contrast to the ubiquitous global platforms. Advertisers, in their quest for scale, often overlook the nuances of locale and community. Not on Andersen’s watch. “At Nextdoor, we know that when businesses – large and small – thrive, neighborhoods thrive,” she articulates, highlighting a philosophy that marries local engagement with economic prosperity.

This local-first approach is not just rhetoric; it’s built into the fabric of Nextdoor’s operations, particularly in how it caters to advertisers. The Nextdoor Ads Manager, a tool praised for its ability to hyper-target at a neighborhood level, is a testament to the platform’s commitment to relevance and impact. “Hyperlocal targeting is where Nextdoor truly shines,” Andersen explains, showcasing a keen understanding of the balance between global reach and local resonance.

But why saddle one individual with the roles of both CRO and CMO?  Heidi Andersen’s perspective sheds light on the innovative direction Nextdoor is taking. “Stepping into the combined role of CRO and CMO at Nextdoor has been an exciting new journey, blending two worlds that are often seen in silos,” she explains. This amalgamation of responsibilities, according to Andersen, is not a mere organizational experiment but a strategic maneuver designed to align Nextdoor’s revenue strategies directly with its marketing narratives.

The intent? To foster a seamless dialogue between what the platform aims to achieve in the marketplace and how it communicates its value to both users and advertisers. It’s a holistic approach that demands a dual focus on the bottom line and the brand’s ethos, ensuring they not only coexist but also complement and enhance one another.

Andersen’s orchestration of these dual roles is a testament to her belief in the symbiotic relationship between revenue generation and brand storytelling. “This role is like conducting an orchestra – ensuring every section plays in harmony while keeping an eye on the overall symphony,” she remarks. By wielding the baton that directs both the marketing and revenue strategies of Nextdoor, Andersen is uniquely positioned to ensure that every campaign, every advertisement, and every community initiative not only aims for immediate impact but also contributes to the long-term narrative of the brand. This strategic harmony is crucial in a landscape where disjointed messages and uncoordinated initiatives can lead to a cacophony rather than a symphony of brand engagement.

The challenges of navigating such a dual role are manifold, but Andersen approaches them with a mix of strategic foresight and operational agility. The seamless integration of revenue and marketing objectives under a single leadership umbrella allows for a more agile response to market dynamics, enabling Nextdoor to pivot as necessary without the friction that typically accompanies departmental silos. “The key lies in maintaining a delicate balance – ensuring that our marketing efforts not only resonate with our communities but also drive tangible business growth,” Andersen asserts. It’s a balancing act that requires a deep understanding of both the art and science of marketing, as well as the precision and pragmatism of revenue management.

Andersen’s innovative approach in melding the roles of CRO and CMO at Nextdoor may very well serve as a blueprint for modern leadership in the digital age. It underscores the importance of narrative in driving revenue and the critical role of revenue strategies in shaping the brand story. Under her guidance, Nextdoor is not just navigating the complexities of the digital marketplace but is also crafting a compelling narrative that resonates with neighborhoods across the globe. “It’s a role I’d recommend to help companies integrate their customer and business narratives,” she advises, highlighting the broader applicability of this model in fostering a unified, cohesive approach to business growth and brand development. In a digital ecosystem where dissonance can drown out even the most resonant of messages, Andersen’s strategy at Nextdoor harmonizes the narrative, ensuring that every note contributes to a greater melody of community and commerce.

Her vision for the advertising landscape is not just forward-thinking; it’s revolutionary. In her eyes, the evolution of local advertising is poised to transcend traditional boundaries, embedding itself into the very fabric of communities. This isn’t merely about ads being more geographically targeted or personalized to consumer preferences; it’s about transforming local businesses into central figures of their neighborhoods, integral to the daily lives and interactions of their customers. “The future of local advertising lies in deeper personalization and community integration,” Andersen elucidates. This statement isn’t just prophetic; it’s a clarion call to businesses and platforms alike to rethink how advertising interacts with community dynamics. Nextdoor, under Andersen’s guidance, is at the forefront of this paradigm shift, leveraging its unique position as a nexus of real-world neighborhood connections to pioneer a new era of advertising—one where engagement is not just measured by clicks, but by the strength and vitality of community ties.

Andersen’s anticipation of a shift towards businesses becoming integral parts of the neighborhood fabric speaks to a broader trend in consumer behavior: the desire for authenticity and meaningful connections. In a digital age characterized by fleeting interactions and superficial engagements, Andersen’s Nextdoor seeks to ground advertising in the realities and richness of local community life. Through this lens, advertising transcends its conventional role, becoming a tool for building relationships, fostering local economies, and enhancing communal bonds. “We envision a world where every ad isn’t just seen as a pitch, but as a potential catalyst for community engagement,” Andersen shares, highlighting her commitment to redefining the essence of what advertising can and should be. It’s a vision that not only promises to elevate the relevance of local advertising but also to imbue it with a sense of purpose and contribution to the communal good.

Moreover, Andersen’s strategy for Nextdoor encapsulates an understanding that the future of advertising must pivot on the axis of trust and authenticity. By embedding businesses within the community and focusing on personalized, meaningful interactions, Nextdoor aims to cultivate a space where advertising is not just tolerated but welcomed as a valuable part of the neighborhood ecosystem. This approach not only benefits businesses by fostering deeper connections with their local customers but also enhances the user experience by ensuring that advertisements are relevant, helpful, and, above all, trusted. “In the future, success in local advertising will be measured not just by sales, but by the strength of community relationships forged,” Andersen asserts. In this envisioned future, Nextdoor stands as a beacon for how platforms can nurture genuine connections between businesses and communities, heralding a new dawn for advertising that’s deeply rooted in personalization, trust, and community integration.

Yet, it’s not just about the technology or the innovative advertising model. Andersen’s narrative is one of perseverance, innovation, and a profound belief in the power of community. From Denmark to Silicon Valley and now Colorado, her journey mirrors the evolving landscape of digital marketing and the evergreen importance of local community. At the heart of this journey is a steadfast commitment to connecting people—not just in the digital ether, but in the streets they walk and the neighborhoods they call home.

Andersen’s story, punctuated with insights and visions for the future, is more than just a professional biography.

It’s a roadmap for aspiring leaders and a beacon for seasoned professionals, signaling the endless possibilities that lie at the intersection of technology, storytelling, and community. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, figures like Heidi Andersen remind us of the enduring value of the local, the personal, and the genuinely connected.

The Sound of Silence: Audio Advertising’s Answer to Hard-Hitting Questions about Fraud

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

In the grand, often garish carnival of digital marketing, audio advertising has swaggered onto the scene, promising to serenade us into submission—or at least into buying a subscription to meal kits or meditation apps. This isn’t your grandma’s radio spot; it’s supposed to be smarter, slicker, a symphony of selling in our streaming, binge-listening era. But here’s the rub: outside the gleaming halls of Spotify, the rest of the audio ad world often feels like it’s playing us a tune on a broken accordion. Yes, we’re looking at you, rest-of-the-industry, with your cacophony of claims and questionable effectiveness.

Let’s rewind to that ill-fated roundtable with industry “experts.” The moment we hinted at turning the conversation from a polite tea party into a no-holds-barred cage match of inquiry, our esteemed panelists ghosted faster than you can say “ad fraud.” Yes, three canceled only days before the roundtable, each claiming “conflicts” once they saw the questions.

It was like planning a dinner party where everyone RSVPs “yes” only to bail at the whisper of a menu featuring truth as the main course. Why the mass exodus? Were they afraid their harmonious narratives would unravel into a discordant mess under scrutiny? If you can’t answer simple questions from the press, what are you hiding?

Enter Spotify, strutting in with the confidence of a peacock in mating season. According to their VP, Lee Brown, ads on their platform are as unskippable as a summer hit—listeners are apparently more glued to their ads than conspiracy theorists to YouTube. And it’s not just Spotify singing this self-praising aria; reports are belting out a chorus about how consumers are actually engaging with digital audio ads, transforming them from mere background noise to catalysts of action. People are not just tolerating ads but acting on them, venturing as far as to make purchases—a marketer’s dream.

But as we’re serenaded by these success stories, a discordant note strikes with the mention of a $7.5 billion investment in US digital audio advertising. It’s like everyone suddenly decided to join the bandwagon without checking if there were enough instruments to go around. The stats sing a sweet tune: a significant chunk of listeners are engaging with ads, and a notable fraction is even making purchases. The plot thickens, however, with the revelation that host-read podcast ads are the MVPs of this game, hinting that authenticity and a personal touch might just be the secret sauce.

Yet, here’s where the opera turns operatic. Amidst the fanfare, a sinister undertone of fraud has been detected, lurking in the shadows like a phantom in the opera house. The discovery of the BeatSting scheme by DoubleVerify is akin to finding out the orchestra has been miming to a backing track. Millions of dollars have vanished into the ether, a stark reminder that for all its promise, the audio ad space is still the Wild West, complete with bandits and snake oil salesmen.

And oh, the plot thickens with the irony that while we wax lyrical about the potential of audio ads, a sizable portion of the industry is playing fast and loose with the truth. Integral Ad Science’s study crescendos into a climax, revealing a chasm between expectations and reality, with a majority of media experts tuning their violins in anticipation of fraud’s next solo.

But fear not, for there’s a glimmer of hope in this twisted symphony. The call for third-party verification rings out like a clarion call, a beacon of hope in the murky waters of audio advertising. The consensus is clear: bring in the referees, the umpires, the unbiased judges to ensure that this burgeoning market doesn’t devolve into anarchy but evolves into a well-orchestrated masterpiece.

As we stand at this crossroads, the way forward for audio advertising is illuminated by the spotlight of scrutiny. It’s time to cut through the cacophony, to sift the wheat from the chaff, and to ensure that when the curtain falls on this show, we’re left with an industry that’s not just sound in theory but virtuous in practice. Advertisers and platforms alike must now conduct their operations with the precision of a maestro, ensuring that their messages not only reach ears but resonate in hearts and minds.

In sum, this is our call to arms—or rather, to ears. The audio advertising landscape is ripe with potential, but it’s also fraught with pitfalls. As we navigate this sonic boom, let’s tune our strategies to the frequency of authenticity, relevancy, and accountability. Only then can we transform this industry from a cacophonous choir into a harmonious ensemble, capable of delivering performances that not only captivate but convert. So here’s to the future of audio advertising—a future that demands not just listeners, but listeners who are eager to hear what we’ve got to say.

Long Tail, Short Straw: The Myth of Niche Market Mastery

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Oh, the long tail. It was the darling concept of the digital age, a seductive siren song that promised riches beyond measure for those savvy enough to navigate its endless curve. Born from the hallowed halls of Wired magazine, the term became the secret handshake among the tech elite, a magical incantation that could supposedly transform digital dross into gold.

David Hornik saw it all. From his perch at August Capital, he watched as pitch after pitch paraded the now infamous long tail graph, each founder convinced they held the key to unlocking its treasures. By the time Chris Anderson’s book hit the shelves, the concept was gospel, an article of faith for the digital congregation.

But let’s cut through the hype and ask the hard questions. How many websites and apps do you truly engage with daily? If you’re like most, you’re not venturing far into the tail’s wilderness; instead, you stick to the familiar trails blazed by mainstream sites. This reality sticks a pin in the balloon of the long tail theory, particularly in the context of digital media and ad impressions.

It turns out, the long tail might have been a better hideout for ad fraud bots than a promised land of untapped market potential. Marketers, eager to believe they could reach unique, niche audiences scattered across millions of sites, were instead often reaching non-human traffic on sites that were about as populated as ghost towns.

Chris Anderson’s vision of a digital marketplace where niche products find their eager audience was compelling. It suggested a democratization of taste, a world where Tom Cruise doesn’t hog the spotlight. Yet, when we look closer, especially at data like that from movie rentals, we find the audience hasn’t strayed far from the blockbusters. The allure of the familiar seems to outweigh the excitement of discovery, hinting that the long tail might not be as powerful a force as once thought.

The programmatic ad buying frenzy, fueled by dreams of tapping into this vast expanse of niche sites, now appears more like a gold rush that never found its El Dorado. Deep dives into the data show a stark reality: a vast majority of these long tail websites don’t even carry ads. And those that do? They’re more likely to be hosting a bot convention than a human audience.

The implications for marketers are sobering. The dream of reaching an expansive, engaged audience through long tail sites is fading, revealing a landscape where ad dollars are better spent on the less glamorous, but far more effective, terrain of mainstream sites. The numbers don’t lie: despite the dreams of infinite choice and niche markets, humans gravitate towards what they know and trust.

So, where does this leave us? In a world still enchanted by the myth of the long tail, it’s time for a wake-up call. Marketers need to reevaluate where they’re investing their ad budgets, focusing more on quality and verifiable human engagement rather than the allure of vast, uncharted digital territories. The long tail theory, while a beautiful notion, seems to be more of a mirage, a tantalizing fiction that, upon closer inspection, dissolves into the harsh light of digital reality.

IAB Tech Lab Peeks Under Google’s Sandbox: Spoiler Alert, It’s Not All Playtime

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative has become the tech equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, at least according to the masterminds in ad tech, led by none other than Anthony Katsur, CEO of IAB Tech Lab. The industry is abuzz—or perhaps, a better word is befuddled—by the latest findings from the IAB Tech Lab’s Privacy Sandbox Taskforce. They’ve been digging through the digital weeds to understand how Google’s grand plan to replace the cookie crumbles under scrutiny. With a 45-day public comment period thrown into the mix, it’s like opening Pandora’s box, but instead of evils, it’s filled with technicalities and loopholes that could make even the savviest coder’s head spin. 

Katsur, in his infinite wisdom and slight exasperation, has been vocal about the seismic—oops, let’s say monumental—shift Google’s Privacy Sandbox proposes. “Embracing Google’s Privacy Sandbox is a… departure from the industry’s trajectory over the past 25 years,” Katsur laments. It’s as if Google decided to swap out the industry’s gasoline for rocket fuel, but forgot to mention that the engines can’t handle the new mix.
This isn’t just about swapping out a few parts; it’s akin to finding out your trusty old car now requires a fusion reactor to run, courtesy of Google’s forward-thinking. Katsur, in his critique, essentially accuses Google of playing automotive engineer with the ad industry’s machinery, introducing a fuel so advanced that it threatens to leave everyone stranded on the side of the information superhighway

The subtext of Katsur’s lament is a cocktail of bewilderment, frustration, and a dash of gallows humor about the whole affair. It’s as though he’s watching Google try to fit a square peg into a round hole, but the peg is made of some unidentifiable, Google-engineered material, and the hole, the ad industry’s foundational structure. Through his eyes, we see a tech giant fervently pushing for change, seemingly oblivious to the chaos in its wake. Katsur’s commentary, dripping with both wit and skepticism, serves as a reminder that the road to innovation is often paved with good intentions—and occasionally, a few misguided detours courtesy of those who claim to know the way.


Diving into the IAB Tech Lab’s report is like embarking on a psychedelic trip through the labyrinth of ad tech’s inner workings, only to find yourself wrapped in a technicolor dreamcoat of technical jargon that would make even Joseph’s head spin. For those who’ve not been glued to their screens, here’s the lowdown: Google, in a move that’s part eco-warrior, part Big Brother, aims to phase out the internet’s favorite tracking device, the third-party cookie, from its Chrome browser. In its place, they propose the Privacy Sandbox—a name that evokes images of a utopian digital playground, where user privacy frolics freely amongst targeted advertisements. The premise is noble: shield users from the prying eyes of the internet while still letting advertisers shoot their carefully aimed marketing arrows. But, as with all utopias, the reality is more complicated, veiled in a mist of “what-ifs” and “but-hows.”

The devil, as they say, is in the details, or, as it turns out in this digital saga, the glaring absence thereof. Google’s grand vision for the Privacy Sandbox is akin to promising a feast but only laying out the tablecloth. The tech giant has been somewhat coy, offering up a smorgasbord of APIs and technical frameworks that promise to keep user data in the user’s browser rather than in the hands of advertisers. Yet, this leaves everyone from publishers to advertisers scratching their heads, wondering how to prepare the feast with no ingredients in sight. The industry is accustomed to a certain level of invasiveness, akin to a sous-chef constantly peeping over their shoulder, but Google’s new recipe for privacy-first advertising has everyone guessing the measurements and second-guessing the outcomes.

Katsur points out the glaring gaps in Google’s grand plan. Essential metrics for ads? Temporarily supported, then whisked away to a world of aggregated reporting where bid loss analysis becomes a mythical concept. Brand safety? It’s like navigating a minefield blindfolded. The on-browser computing needed for this? It’s akin to performing open-heart surgery with a spoon. “Chrome is focused on providing discrete components that support aspects of use cases, but which ultimately cannot be assembled into a whole that provides a viable business foundation,” Katsur explains, painting a picture of a puzzle with missing pieces.

The task force’s findings are akin to a detective novel where the plot thickens with every page. Of the 44 basic digital advertising use cases analyzed, only a select few could play nice with the Privacy Sandbox APIs. It’s as if Google built a playground but forgot the swings, slides, and, oh, the children.

Katsur doesn’t mince words when he describes the situation: “What we’re saying is that many of the building blocks in the Privacy Sandbox aren’t effective or robust enough and in some cases they’re simply dysfunctional.” It’s like Google handed the industry a Swiss Army knife when what they needed was a sledgehammer.

The report, while a beacon of analysis in a sea of uncertainty, has ruffled some feathers over at Google. The tech giant was notably absent from the task force, which Katsur hints was a strategic move to avoid the awkwardness of calling out the flaws in their plan to their faces. 

“No one wants to be told their baby’s ugly when their baby’s in the room,” he quips, a line that could very well become the catchphrase of this whole saga.

As for the Privacy Sandbox itself, Katsur’s take is both pithy and poignant. When asked to describe it in layman’s terms, he ventures, “Digital advertising is a 30-year experiment… I think it’s software that’s in alpha or beta stage is where it is.” It’s a reminder that in the world of tech, today’s revolutionary idea can quickly become tomorrow’s cautionary tale.

Despite the critical feedback, there’s a sliver of hope for collaboration. The IAB Tech Lab is open to Google joining the task force to make improvements. It’s an olive branch in a storm, signaling that while the current state of the Privacy Sandbox might be more sandbox than privacy, there’s room for growth, change, and perhaps, a better internet for all.

In the meantime, the industry waits, watches, and wonders what will come of this digital drama. With a character like Katsur leading the charge, it’s sure to be an enlightening—if somewhat tumultuous—journey. As for Google’s response, the ball is in their court. But one thing is clear: the conversation around privacy, advertising, and the future of the web is far from over.


Watch the Full Interview with Anthony Katsur here

From Gamer to Game Changer: Robby Kraai Levels Up at Brand Metrics

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

In a move that’s equal parts audacity and acuity, Brand Metrics is stirring the ad tech pot by roping in Robby Kraai for a dive into the deep end of Connected TV (CTV). This isn’t just shuffling the deck; it’s playing a whole new game. Kraai, anointed as the Head of CTV, is tasked with a mission that’s part alchemy, part analytics: to refine their product for the CTV arena, forge meaningful alliances with broadcasters, and dissect campaign performances with surgical precision.

This leap into CTV isn’t a solo flight. It’s buoyed by a freshly inked partnership with Paramount ANZ, signaling Brand Metrics’ ambition to vault their brand lift wizardry across the globe, reaching into CTV markets that sprawl well beyond the familiar territories of the US and Europe.

Kraai isn’t stepping into uncharted territory unarmed. His arsenal is packed with years of ad tech leadership at XITE, where he didn’t just participate; he built the tech stack from scratch. That’s on top of his tenure at SpotX, where he blended the arts of sales and technology, and a past life as a professional gamer, which surely adds a layer of intrigue and insight into engaging, innovative advertising formats.

At the heart of Kraai’s appointment is the recognition of the CTV landscape as a fragmented frontier, ripe for the taking but demanding a nuanced approach. The task at hand involves navigating through the maze of existing standards and protocols to craft a Brand Metrics offering that’s not just effective but tailor-made to meet the diverse needs of publishers.

Anders Lithner, Brand Metrics’ CEO, is not just watching from the sidelines. He’s pinpointed the convergence on streaming services as a golden opportunity, with CTV ad revenues predicted to balloon significantly in the coming years. This isn’t just an optimistic forecast; it’s a clarion call to stake a claim in the future of advertising, with Kraai’s appointment as a pivotal move in Brand Metrics’ strategy to not just participate in but shape the evolving CTV narrative.

In essence, Brand Metrics is not merely expanding its reach; it’s strategically positioning itself as a vanguard in the CTV revolution, with Kraai leading the charge. This initiative is a testament to their commitment to innovation, responsiveness to market trends, and a vision that sees beyond the horizon, aiming to redefine the boundaries of digital advertising in the CTV domain.

Rufus to the Rescue: Amazon’s AI Corgi Sniffs Out Your Shopping Needs

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

The future is here: and it’s wagging its tail with excitement. Amazon, in a move that could only be described as both brilliantly innovative and slightly whimsical, has introduced the world to Rufus—a chatbot with a personality as fetching as its namesake, Amazon’s very own corgi mascot. This isn’t just any AI; this is your AI-powered shopping sherpa, ready to guide you through the Amazonian jungle of products with the ease of a well-trained corgi herding sheep.

Let’s get this out of the way: Rufus is still a pup, metaphorically speaking. It’s in beta, making its debut to a lucky few “select customers” who now hold the leash to this digital companion. If you’re among the chosen, you can summon Rufus within Amazon’s mobile app. Just type or speak your query into the search bar, and voila, a chat window with Rufus pops up, eager to assist.

Amazon’s timing is impeccable, coinciding with the unveiling of their Q4 2023 earnings—showing off their ad business’s robust health and their cloud computing’s mighty prowess. But let’s not digress too far into the numbers; the real star here is Rufus.

Trained on an extensive diet of Amazon’s product library, customer reviews, and a smattering of web knowledge, Rufus is no ordinary chatbot. It’s designed to answer your most pressing shopping questions, from the nuances differentiating trail and road running shoes to the perennial “What do I get my significant other for Valentine’s Day?” dilemma. Rufus is ready to tackle these with the finesse of a seasoned shopping guru.

But here’s where it gets interesting—or annoying, depending on your tolerance for digital clutter. Rufus is eager, perhaps overly so. Make a simple search, like “coffee maker,” and Rufus pops up with suggested questions. It’s like having a hyperactive corgi trying to play fetch with you when you’re just trying to enjoy a peaceful walk in the park. Yet, there’s potential genius in this approach. Amazon is betting that Rufus will become an indispensable part of your shopping experience, one you’ll wonder how you ever did without.

And let’s not forget the broader context. Walmart has thrown its hat in the ring with its AI tool, aiming to serve as your “customer’s concierge.” The AI arms race in retail is heating up, with each giant trying to outdo the other in making shopping as seamless (and as AI-dependent) as possible.

Rufus, however, is not just about answering questions. It’s about creating an interactive, engaging shopping experience. Amazon is encouraging feedback on Rufus’ performance, allowing users to rate responses with thumbs up or down, and even offering “freeform feedback.” It’s like training a puppy with treats and corrections, except the puppy is an AI, and the treats are your feedback.

As we stand at the cusp of this new era, one thing is clear: shopping is no longer just about buying; it’s about engaging in a conversation. Rufus is Amazon’s way of saying that the future of retail is not just personal—it’s personalized.

So, as Rufus rolls out to more users in the coming weeks, the question isn’t just whether this AI will change how we shop. It’s whether we’re ready for the playful, sometimes overeager companionship of a digital corgi named Rufus, guiding us through the vast expanse of Amazon’s offerings with a wagging tail and a friendly bark.

In this brave new world of AI shopping assistants, one thing’s for certain: shopping has never been this entertaining.

Cookiegeddon: The Final Crumble or Just Another Batch in the Oven?

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Let’s not parse words here: the pixelated crumbs of third-party cookies have long been the lifeblood of our industry, and we find ourselves at a peculiar juncture—a point in time so bewildering, it could rival the plot twists of a techy telenovela. 

Also, I need to be honest: I am getting tired of writing about this $%&$$&%

Google has declared, like a evil demented King, an end to third-party cookies in Chrome, setting the stage for what could be the grand finale of a saga that’s been running longer than some of our favorite TV shows. 

But is the cookie truly, really, honestly going away?

Or is this just another cliffhanger in the industry’s longest-running drama?

For eons, or so it seems, denial was the name of the game. The ad industry clung to third-party cookies like a comfort blanket, believing, perhaps, that if we wished hard enough, they would never leave us. Fast forward to last year’s ALM, and IAB CEO David Cohen morphed into the embodiment of the industry’s collective angst, a balding superhero of adtech—throwing shade at regulators and platform giants alike for conspiring in what seemed like a plot to snatch away our beloved cookies.  Rawr!

Fast forward to this year, and it’s as if the industry collectively moved on to the bargaining stage of grief. Tech vendors are now scurrying about, making deals and partnerships like it’s the digital equivalent of musical chairs, all in hopes of securing a seat when the music stops in this post-cookie world. Cohen has dubbed this the “in-between” years, a time when the cookie gets its swan song while subscription- and ad-supported media duke it out in a battle royale for dominance. Less Rawr.

As IAB CEO David Cohen melodramatically proclaimed at a sun-soaked gathering of almost elderly leaders (ok, I’m up there too) in Marco Island, Florida, we are at a “critical inflection point in our digital evolution.” It’s the era he envisions we’ll look back on, reminiscing about the “good old in-between years” as if they were a cherished sitcom from the ’90s.

The script couldn’t get any juicier: digital media layoffs, data being yanked from programmatic’s grasp, and TV companies fumbling with streaming ventures that bleed red. And amidst this chaos, Cohen whispers sweet nothings (oh baby, play with my sandbox) about the Privacy Sandbox and the imminent demise of third-party cookies—promising a revolution in how we do everything in advertising.

Yet, the plot thickens. With early 2025 now looking like a safe bet for the cookie’s curtain call, ad execs are hedging their bets, skeptical of Google’s promise to end all promises. This skepticism isn’t unwarranted, especially after whispers and murmurs from marketers, publishers, and ad tech vendors have filled the air, painting a picture of Google’s Privacy Sandbox as a stage still under construction, not quite ready for the performance it’s meant to host. And, The TradeDesk just basically said it’s absolute junk.

The U.K.’s Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) has turned up the drama, casting long shadows with its ongoing investigation into the Sandbox’s readiness and competitive fairness. Concerns abound that the Sandbox might not be the all-encompassing solution it was touted to be, possibly leading to an even greater entrenchment of the walled gardens cultivated by the likes of Google, Meta, and Amazon.

James Rosewell, of the Movement for an Open Web, couldn’t put it more bluntly on Digiday a few days back: the Sandbox is riddled with flaws, and Google’s self-preferencing antics are under the microscope. (it sucks) The CMA’s report reads like a thriller, revealing at least 39 plot twists (read: regulatory concerns) that Google needs to address before we can even think about saying goodbye to third-party cookies.

As we delve deeper into the heart of this dingy digital drama, the plot thickens and twists into a narrative that could rival any binge-worthy series. Companies across the ad tech landscape are crafting contingency plans, akin to doomsday preppers, as they brace for Google’s next monumental (heh, seismic) shift. This “ok it really sucks” scenario has everyone on edge, playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the future of digital advertising. .

Meanwhile, in a room that one imagines is filled with whiteboards, lots of bottled water and sweaty existential dread, the IAB Tech Lab’s finest minds under Anthony Katsur, are dissecting Google’s Privacy Sandbox with the precision of surgeons in an operating theatre. They’re on a quest, not for the holy grail, but for something equally elusive: a gapless future where privacy and precision in advertising can coexist harmoniously. The noble pursuit of a more private web is a highly publicized beacon of hope in this saga, guiding us through the murky waters of change.

The crux of the matter lies in not just identifying the gaps, but in the Herculean task of bridging them. The Privacy Sandbox, in its current form, is a patchwork quilt—comforting in theory but riddled with holes that let the cold winds of doubt seep through. (again, it sucks) The industry’s craftsmen and craftswomen (crafters?) are now faced with the daunting challenge of weaving together a new tapestry, one that can shelter us from the prying eyes of regulators and hackers alike, without unraveling at the seams. As they stitch together solutions, there’s an underlying fear: what if, after all this, we’re left out in the cold? Brrrr.

This journey towards a cookieless future is akin to navigating a labyrinth with no map, where every turn could lead to a dead end or a hidden passage to salvation.Yet, as we chart our course, we can’t help but cling to the remnants of the old world, like sailors reluctant to let go of the shore. The question that looms large is whether we’ll find our way to the promised land of privacy and precision or if we’ll be forever lost at sea, yearning for the days when cookies ruled the waves. The adventure continues, and only time will reveal the final destination of this epic voyage.

Still, the question looms large: Is the cookie really going away, or are we all just actors in a play that’s far from over?

(Hint: It’s really going away, sorry)

 Only time will tell, but one thing’s for certain—this saga is bound to keep us on the edge of our seats, popcorn in hand, eagerly awaiting the next episode in the great cookie crap crumble.

From HubSpot to Zappi: Nataly Kelly’s Global Odyssey

By
Pesach Lattin
-
0

Zappi’s latest strategic maneuver reads like a plot twist in the high-stakes drama of market research, with Nataly Kelly stepping into the role of Chief Marketing Officer, a character arc befitting a protagonist in the world of international business and culture clash comedies. Kelly, with a Boston backdrop, swaps the HubSpot hustle, where she was a linchpin in global expansion theatrics, for the Zappi stage, aiming to sprinkle some of her international fairy dust across Zappi’s burgeoning global narrative.

This casting comes hot on the heels of Babita Earle’s ascension to International Managing Director, a move that’s less of a step up and more of a quantum leap across continents. The subplot thickens with Melissa Clucas entering stage left as Chief Financial Officer, rounding out a trio of appointments that could rival any corporate Avengers assembly. The departing Yvonne O’Brien, erstwhile CMO, exits stage right, her role complete, making room for Kelly’s spotlight.

Kelly, in a candid chat with Research Live, didn’t hold back, drawing parallels between Zappi’s script and her HubSpot days, reminiscing about a culture that flourished from a cozy ensemble cast to a veritable blockbuster production. It’s this rare air of camaraderie and global conquest that’s got Kelly hooked, not to mention Zappi’s B Corp and net-zero cred that adds a green sheen to its narrative arc.

Her mission, should she choose to accept it (and accept it she has), involves turbocharging Zappi’s revenue growth, a plotline involving close ties with other go-to-market teams, brand building, and injecting a dose of best practice into the marketing machinations. Kelly’s global gaze is set on alleviating the existential angst of global companies wrestling with market research and insights, aiming to shepherd them towards a narrative of continuous, connected insights and centralized strategies.

Steve Phillips, Zappi’s CEO and perhaps this story’s narrator, outlines a grand vision of digitizing insights for consumer businesses worldwide, with Kelly and Earle as his chosen champions. Their quest is laden with the promise of new tools for customers to wield influence and improve their roles within their corporate kingdoms, underpinned by the sorcery of artificial intelligence and novel research methodologies.

Phillips’ narrative acknowledges the dark clouds of privacy restrictions and economic uncertainty, casting market research as the guiding light through these turbulent times. His vision for Zappi is not just as a platform for testing but as a beacon for continuous learning and inspiration, aiming to shift the paradigm from a stoplight for advertising and product development to a continuous loop of improvement and innovation.

In this tale of strategic hires and ambitious visions, Zappi positions itself not just as a company but as a protagonist in the evolving story of market research, with Nataly Kelly ready to lead the charge into its next chapter. The drama unfolds, the plot thickens, and the industry watches with bated breath as Zappi writes its next act.

1...141516...1,257Page 15 of 1,257

Other Great Reads

Data, Dance, and Daring Campaigns: Erin Levzow’s Approach to Building Loyalty

Pesach Lattin - 0
How Mango Habanero, Metrics, and Masterful Moves Redefined Marketing Genius Every so often, a guest comes along who doesn’t just raise the bar—they throw it into orbit. Erin Levzow is one of those guests. From the moment she joined The ADOTAT Show, it was clear we were in the presence of brilliance. Erin is a marketing powerhouse, blending emotional intelligence with razor-sharp strategy, all wrapped in a package of humor, humility, and dazzling storytelling. She’s the...

Streaming’s Big Lie: The Future of TV Is Already Broke

Pesach Lattin - 0
Streaming was supposed to be the savior of TV—the rebellious new kid with no commercials, endless content, and an open bar of binge-worthy dopamine hits. But, as Doug Shapiro’s sharp, no-BS research reveals, the revolution is out of cash and looking for a loan. Streaming doesn’t just monetize less—it barely monetizes at all. For every streaming dollar generated, old-school pay TV is making it rain with three dollars in subscriber fees and seven dollars...

How to Narrow the Scope of Information Sought by an FTC Civil Investigative Demand (CID)

Richard B. Newman - 0
A civil investigative demand (“CID”) is the instrument by which the Federal Trade Commission exercises its compulsory process authority in connection with investigations.  CIDs may require the production of documents - including electronically stored information – or tangible things, the provision of testimony, and the providing of written responses to questions. A CID must state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to...

Did Your Company Receive a Letter From the FTC?  FTC Warning Letters and Notices of Penalty Offense

Richard B. Newman - 0
Recipients of FTC warning letters and notices of penalty offense should be on high alert and act quickly. Their advertising and marketing practices could be in violation of applicable legal regulations. What is an FTC Warning Letter? Federal Trade Commission “warning letters” are intended to warn companies that their conduct is likely unlawful and that they can face serious legal consequences, such as a federal investigation or lawsuit, if they do not immediately stop. ...

The Good, the Bad, and the SPO-ly

Pesach Lattin - 0
The Hidden Flaws Behind Ad Tech’s Favorite Buzzword. Supply Path Optimization (SPO) is my love-hate relationship in ad tech personified. It’s the reason I fell for this industry’s maddening brilliance—and why it sometimes feels like a bad rom-com where no one learns their lesson. At its core, SPO promises efficiency, transparency, and accountability, and when it works, it’s like watching a Rube Goldberg machine perform flawlessly. But when it doesn’t—and let’s be honest, that’s most...

Must Read

About Us

ADOTAT is the leading digital publication for CMOs online. Published by Pesach Lattin, renown online advertising journalist and leader.

Contact us: pace@lattin.us

Follow Us

© Copyright 2022 Pesach CV Lattin & ADOTAT.com