It’s official: ad tech has found its new favorite shiny object. Say hello to curation, a word you can’t escape if you’ve been within five feet of an industry panel or LinkedIn post. Depending on who’s talking, curation is either the hero we need to clean up the programmatic mess or yet another way for the middlemen to get paid while publishers cry into their dwindling CPMs.

At its core, curation is pitched as the antidote to a bloated, wasteful programmatic supply chain. It’s the Marie Kondo of ad tech, tidying up the chaos by packaging premium inventory and first-party data into neat little Deal IDs. Less clutter! More efficiency! Better targeting! Everyone wins! Except, of course, publishers—who are left wondering if they’re paying for the privilege of being robbed blind. Again.

Publishers Aren’t Buying It (Literally or Figuratively)

At a recent AdMonsters event, I cornered three publishers to get their unfiltered thoughts on curation—and unfiltered is precisely what I got. To say the mood was skeptical would be like calling a hurricane a light drizzle. These were seasoned industry players who’ve seen every ad tech trend, buzzword, and alleged game-changer, and they weren’t exactly ready to roll out the red carpet for curation.

At a recent AdMonsters event, I cornered three publishers—The Realist, The Cynic, and The Optimist—to hear their thoughts on curation. If industry press releases frame it as a groundbreaking innovation, their perspectives landed somewhere between cautious skepticism and outright disdain, with a few glimmers of cautious hope.

The Realist was the first to speak, leaning back in their chair with a weary tone that suggested they’d been through too many of these “next big things.” “Curation sounds fine in theory,” they said. “But in practice? It just feels like more layers, more fees. Why do I feel like I’m giving up more control than ever?” Their voice carried a sense of resignation, as though they were bracing for yet another cycle of ad tech overpromising and under delivering.

Next up was The Cynic, who wasn’t interested in mincing words. “Curation is just a polite way of saying, ‘Let’s add another layer of middlemen.’ They talk about efficiency and transparency, but all I’m seeing is a lot of people trying to justify their cut without adding anything of real value. CPMs aren’t improving.” I asked what they are tired of being told and they said “If I hear ‘streamlined efficiency’ one more time, I will lose it.” There was no mistaking their frustration—it wasn’t just about curation but the entire ecosystem that allowed such practices to thrive.

Finally, The Optimist spoke to me, offering a perspective that was measured, almost hopeful. “The idea of using first-party data to package premium inventory? Sounds smart,” they said, with a thoughtful nod. “If done correctly, curation could really help create better outcomes for everyone.”

This sentiment echoes a broader frustration within the industry, as noted by Gareth Glaser, author and ad tech skeptic, who recently posted: “DSPs, and their users, were once expected to do this thing called ‘optimization’ that ‘found the best performing placements’ for a given client’s goal/outcome. It really does seem to me that lots of people have simply begun to absolve the people trafficking the campaigns, and the machine learning algorithms that are supposed to be assisting them, of the responsibility for making those campaigns perform.”

Google to the Rescue (Kind of)

Of course, no ad tech conversation is complete without Google barreling in with its own take on whatever trend is currently monopolizing panel discussions. True to form, the tech giant has rolled out a suite of curation tools in partnership with companies like Permutive, touting it as the key to unlocking a better, more efficient open web. Joe Root, CEO of Permutive, wasted no time singing Google’s praises, calling the initiative “an important step for the open web because of how much ad inventory is transacted via Google’s pipes.”

That’s all well and good, Joe, but let’s not ignore the elephant-sized leak in those very pipes. Google’s tools promise advertisers better access to first-party signals, which should, in theory, lead to improved targeting and less waste. But the reality for publishers? Not quite as rosy. As one industry insider put it bluntly, “It feels like we’re being asked to buy back our own inventory—with interest.” The sentiment is hardly surprising. In the world of programmatic advertising, promises of efficiency and transparency often come with hidden costs—most of which seem to land squarely on the shoulders of publishers.

Let’s break it down. Google’s curation tools are designed to package inventory in a way that combines first-party data with audience and contextual signals. This is supposed to make inventory more appealing to advertisers while ensuring publishers get paid for their valuable data. But in practice, publishers are left questioning where the money is going—and why they aren’t seeing more of it. “Overall eCPMs have gone down,” one frustrated publisher told me. “We’re making less money per impression, and the math just doesn’t add up. If curation is supposed to make things more efficient, why are we losing value?”

Good question. The answer, as always, lies in the fine print—or, in this case, the layers of fees, revenue-sharing agreements, and opaque practices that have long characterized Google’s role in programmatic advertising. Sure, advertisers might be paying more for curated inventory, but by the time the dollars trickle down through Google’s labyrinthine system, publishers are often left with little more than table scraps.

And then there’s the matter of control—or lack thereof. With Google at the helm, publishers are finding themselves increasingly sidelined in the curation process. The promise of first-party data as a revenue driver is undercut by the fact that much of that data is now being filtered through Google’s systems. As one publisher put it, “We’re handing over our data, paying to use it, and then getting less back for our inventory. How is that a good deal for us?”

Alessandro De Zanche, a seasoned media strategist, added his take: “The industry is full of mutants and shapeshifters that will adapt to anything to keep their business models up and running. On the topic of curated marketplaces (either by media alliances or third parties), I am afraid that a key element is still missing from the broader conversation. From a media owner’s perspective, no matter how high the quality of the curated marketplace, the benefits will be minimal if that same inventory is also made available through several backdoors to the open marketplace.”

Financial concerns aside, there’s also a growing unease about what Google’s dominance in curation means for the broader industry. By consolidating more control over the buying and selling process, Google isn’t just shaping the future of curation—it’s effectively dictating it. And while that might be good news for advertisers looking for simplicity, it’s a far cry from the open, collaborative ecosystem that curation is supposed to create.

Lipstick on a Programmatic Pig

David Nyurenberg: Cutting Through the Curation Noise

David Nyurenberg, never one to mince words, has made it clear that the industry has gone off the rails when it comes to curation. “Is it just me, or are we losing the plot on curation?” he asked, in his trademark direct style. “Curation to me has always been about curating the best quality inventory and optimizing ad experiences. The current narrative around curation involving data just sounds like the same lipstick on the programmatic pig parroted by intermediaries whose business models are at risk and whose days are numbered.”

Nyurenberg’s critique is pointed but not without direction. He believes the heart of curation lies in taking direct control of inventory quality. That means rigorously selecting placements that align with performance objectives and leveraging in-house tools to curate inventory based on specific, outcome-oriented criteria. Forget relying on SSPs or third-party vendors with murky definitions of curation. For Nyurenberg, it’s about ensuring every impression supports brand safety, transparency, and campaign effectiveness.

“The problem is,” he noted, “legacy players in this space have incentives that are completely misaligned with what media buyers actually need. They’re focused on maintaining broad relationships and maximizing volume, not delivering outcomes. That lack of end-to-end visibility means their choices often don’t align with the nuanced needs of a client’s campaign goals.”

The Case for Self-Directed Curation

Nyurenberg is a staunch advocate for what he calls self-directed curation. Instead of outsourcing to platforms that prioritize their own margins, publishers and media buyers should take the reins. His approach involves working with signal partners, like DeepSee.io, to identify inventory that meets premium ad quality standards. By analyzing bid stream data for signals like instream ad calls, low refresh rates, and low ad-to-content ratios, Nyurenberg ensures that curated sites consistently provide premium experiences.

“It’s all about precision,” he explained. “You have to dynamically curate sites that deliver actual value—not just fill impressions. When you control the process, you’re not beholden to someone else’s definition of quality.”

This in-house approach not only empowers publishers but also creates agility. Campaigns can be adjusted as insights develop, and inventory selections can be refined to meet evolving performance metrics. “By bringing curation in-house, you can maximize every dollar spent on media,” Nyurenberg said. “It’s not just about transparency—it’s about creating campaigns that actually work.”

Cutting Through the Hype

Nyurenberg doesn’t just criticize; he provides a clear blueprint for how publishers and media buyers can move forward. His vision hinges on rejecting the vague, buzzword-heavy narratives pushed by legacy players and embracing a more strategic, transparent approach to curation.

“Curation should be about curating,” he said with a wry laugh. “Not about layering more complexity into an already broken system. The industry loves to overcomplicate things, but at the end of the day, it’s simple: you either own the process, or you let someone else own it—and they’re always going to prioritize themselves.”

For Nyurenberg, the path forward is clear: self-directed, data-driven curation that prioritizes quality over quantity and ensures every ad placement contributes to measurable outcomes. It’s a back-to-basics philosophy that cuts through the noise and gets to the heart of what curation should be. “Buzzwords come and go,” he said. “But the fundamentals? They’re here to stay.”

SSPs and the Trust Deficit: When the Middlemen Go Rogue

Let’s address the giant elephant stomping through the programmatic room: SSPs. These platforms were supposed to be the great equalizers—the Robin Hoods of digital advertising, bringing order, efficiency, and transparency to the chaos of inventory sales. Instead, they’ve become the digital Wild West, where the supposed sheriffs are more like outlaws with one hand in the till and the other on the mute button whenever publishers start asking uncomfortable questions.

At the heart of the issue is a trust deficit so big you could drive a programmatic truck through it. SSPs (Supply-Side Platforms), the supposed saviors of ad inventory sales, have earned a reputation for doing precisely the opposite of their intended purpose. Misdeclaration of auctions is the most glaring example. Here’s how it works: the SSP sells an impression to a buyer at one price but reports a completely different (lower) price to the publisher, keeping the difference for themselves. It’s an accounting sleight of hand that doesn’t just erode trust—it kneecaps the financial health of the very publishers SSPs are supposed to serve.

“The SSPs are cheating us,” The Realist said, cutting right to the chase. “They’re pocketing the difference between what buyers pay and what they report to us, and they think we’re too dumb to notice.” 

Spoiler: they notice.

This isn’t some isolated bad actor situation. It’s systemic. Misdeclaration creates a profound disconnect between what publishers are promised and what they actually receive. And when publishers start crunching the numbers, it doesn’t take long for the math to scream, This isn’t adding up.

Data Hoarding: The Black Box Problem

But it’s not just about misdeclared earnings. There’s another trick SSPs love to pull: data hoarding. SSPs control troves of valuable audience and performance data—insights that publishers could use to optimize their inventory and command higher prices. The catch? SSPs treat this data like a closely guarded secret, sharing just enough to keep publishers engaged but withholding the kind of detailed, actionable information that could level the playing field.

This creates a vicious cycle: publishers are forced to rely on SSPs to curate and optimize inventory, but without full access to the data, they have no way of verifying whether these curated deals are actually delivering value. It’s like asking a magician to show you the trick while they keep waving their wand and saying, Trust me, it’s working.

“How can we trust curated deals are delivering value when they hide everything” The Optimist asked, their frustration barely veiled. “We’re supposed to believe these platforms are acting in our best interest?”

The Hidden Costs of Complexity

And just when you think it couldn’t get worse, there’s the issue of hidden fees. SSPs excel at finding creative ways to nickel-and-dime publishers through buried platform fees, data processing charges, and other opaque costs. These fees are often deeply embedded in the programmatic pipeline, making them nearly impossible to trace. The end result? Publishers are left wondering how much of their revenue is going toward actual ad sales versus subsidizing the operational costs of the platforms that are supposedly helping them.

“It’s death by a thousand cuts,” The Cynic said, their tone a mix of exhaustion and fury. “Every layer of this system is taking money. There’s barely anything left for the publishers who are actually creating the content.”

This isn’t just about lost revenue—it’s about power. The more convoluted the system, the harder it becomes for publishers to hold SSPs accountable. And that opacity? It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Fixing the Trust Deficit

So, how do we fix this mess? The obvious answer is transparency, but in an industry that thrives on opacity, that’s easier said than done. For publishers, the first step is demanding greater visibility into how their inventory is being sold and where the revenue is going. SSPs need to be pushed to share not just top-line numbers but detailed data on audience performance, transaction specifics, and those pesky hidden fees.

But transparency alone won’t save the day. Publishers also need to start exploring alternatives to the traditional SSP-dominated model. That could mean building direct relationships with buyers, leveraging in-house tools for inventory management, or partnering with platforms that prioritize accountability over scale.

As The Realist put it, “The only way we’re going to fix this system is if we stop relying on the same people who’ve been cheating us from the startt. We need to take control, or we’re just going to keep getting played.”

Eli Heath, SVP of Global Addressability at Lotame, offered a perspective that cuts through much of the industry jargon: “DSP-led inventory selection/optimization should be core to basic agency programmatic functions. But you’re still left with low match rate, low scale, majority cookie-based audience segments with DSP targeting. Moving the audience upstream to the SSP (closer to the user/publisher) can solve match and scale challenges, but also unlock additional signals such as page/URL level insights. Trust and transparency should be table stakes for any curation vendor supporting agencies, else diminish credibility of the entire category.”

The SSP trust deficit is one of the biggest hurdles facing the programmatic ecosystem today. But with the right tools, strategies, and partnerships, publishers can start reclaiming their place in the supply chain. Until then, the elephant in the room isn’t going anywhere—it’s just getting fatter.

The Potential of Curation (If We Stop Screwing It Up)

Here’s the thing: curation isn’t inherently bad. In fact, when done right, it has the potential to address some of the biggest issues in programmatic advertising. By pre-qualifying inventory and sending only relevant bid requests, curated marketplaces can reduce waste, improve targeting, and create better outcomes for everyone involved.

“The idea of using data to create premium ad makes sense,” said The Optimist. “But it has to be done transparently. Publishers need to know exactly where their dollars are going and why. Without that, it’s just another black box.”

Curation also has the potential to level the playing field for smaller publishers, giving them access to premium advertisers who might otherwise overlook them. But this only works if the platforms managing curation prioritize fairness over volume—a tall order, given the current landscape.

The Bottom Line

Curation is either the ad industry’s savior or its latest hustle, depending on who you ask. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the messy middle. For publishers, the challenge is clear: demand more control, more transparency, and less BS. Otherwise, curation will just be another chapter in the ongoing saga of ad tech overpromising and underdelivering.

As The Cynic so eloquently put it: “If curation is the future, someone needs to explain why it feels so much like the past.”

In the meantime, stay bold, stay curious, and—most importantly—know more than you did yesterday.

Innovid Corp. is stuck in adtech purgatory—a company brimming with potential but weighed down by enough challenges to keep a boardroom sweating.

On paper, the numbers look promising: a 10% revenue boost in Q2 2024, climbing to $38 million. But that shiny achievement comes with a $10.5 million net loss that looms like a storm cloud over the company’s ambitions.

Innovid’s story is one of big ideas, big bets, and big questions about whether it can pull off its lofty goals before the market’s patience runs out.

Let’s start with the headline-grabber: Innovid’s much-touted Harmony initiative. This project promises to be the savior of connected TV (CTV) advertising, eliminating waste, trimming fat, and even cutting carbon emissions in the process. Bold claims, yes, but the industry seems intrigued. The initiative even bagged an AdExchanger award for “Most Innovative TV Advertising Technology,” a nice feather in Innovid’s cap. Partnerships are another bright spot—LG Ad Solutions recently joined Harmony, signaling industry buy-in. But while awards and partnerships look good on press releases, they don’t automatically translate into profits.

Now, let’s talk about the cracks in the foundation. Innovid’s own study uncovered a glaring inefficiency in how advertisers measure and optimize campaigns. More than 60% of advertisers measure performance on one platform but optimize campaigns on another. It’s like trying to read a map while driving two cars at once—confusing, inefficient, and not a great look for an adtech company trying to position itself as the industry’s brain trust.

Then there’s the ad frequency problem. Consumers are sick of seeing the same ad plastered across every streaming service they use. Innovid hasn’t solved this yet, and the result is ad fatigue—a buzzkill for consumers and advertisers alike. Add to that the privacy headaches brought on by Apple’s iCloud Private Relay, which makes tracking user behavior about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. These privacy challenges are a nightmare for attribution, leaving advertisers in the dark about what’s actually driving conversions.

And don’t even get started on the impression-counting discrepancies. You’d think counting impressions would be straightforward, but discrepancies between Innovid and other ad servers make it harder to establish trust with advertisers. In an industry where credibility is king, this isn’t a trivial issue—it’s a liability.

If all this weren’t enough, Innovid also had a leadership shake-up that felt more like an episode of Succession than a C-suite strategy session. David Helmreich was ousted faster than you can say “corporate drama,” with one insider in the company bluntly saying, “He did absolutely nothing but piss off everyone.” For a company aiming to turn its challenges into wins, this kind of internal turmoil isn’t exactly inspiring confidence.

But it’s not all bad news. Innovid’s debt-free status is a rarity in the cash-burning world of adtech, giving it breathing room to focus on growth without worrying about looming repayments. Analysts are cautiously optimistic, predicting Innovid will break even by 2026 with a $17 million profit. That’s assuming the company can sustain an eye-watering 102% annual growth rate—a tall order even for the most optimistic board members.

Despite the hurdles, Innovid’s core offerings—ad personalization, omnichannel integration, and robust analytics—are solid. But they’re not unique, and that’s a problem in an industry teeming with competitors offering similar tools. To truly stand out, Innovid needs more than good ideas; it needs flawless execution. The Harmony initiative and its growing roster of partnerships are steps in the right direction, but they’ll only pay off if Innovid can deliver real-world results that solve advertisers’ pain points.

So, where does that leave Innovid? For now, it’s a high-stakes gamble. The company has the tools, the vision, and the partnerships to succeed, but its profitability woes, leadership turnover, and operational gaps paint a picture of a company that’s still figuring out how to hit its stride. Innovid isn’t just competing in adtech—it’s fighting to prove it can be more than a name in the crowd. Whether it can rise above remains to be seen.