Attention Metrics: Industry Savior or Snake Oil?

2024-09-09

In a masterclass of déjà vu, both AdExchanger and Digiday unleashed a “scoop” yesterday announcing that the IAB and MRC are collaborating on attention measurement accreditation.

Slow clap.

We had Angelina Eng on our show weeks ago spilling the same beans. But hey, if you don’t watch the hottest show in adtech, that’s on you, not me. Eng gave us a front-row seat to the coming circus of guidelines the IAB is rolling out, breaking attention into bite-sized pieces: visual/audio tracking, neurological observations, data signals, and good old-fashioned surveys. Spoiler: We’ve got one part of this puzzle already, but the rest? Well, you’ll have to sit tight until the first quarter of 2025. Talk about the attention economy needing patience!

You’ve read all the bs, now let’s get into the details folks.

The Attention Rabbit Hole
The IAB’s master plan is like trying to get everyone at a family reunion to agree on one pizza topping—it’s ambitious, a bit unrealistic, and fraught with the potential for drama. Their idea is to craft a sparkling new framework that forces everyone—from media buyers to ad tech vendors—to speak the same language when it comes to measuring attention. Enter the buzzwords: visual and audio tracking, neuro-something-or-others, and data proxy signals. These are the magic beans that the IAB believes will grow into a beanstalk of industry-wide consensus. But let’s be honest; this is less about achieving clarity and more about covering up the fact that we’ve been playing an elaborate game of “pin the metric on the donkey” for years. The old impression-based model is starting to feel like a relic from the Stone Age, and everyone is scrambling to redefine relevance.

At the heart of the IAB’s vision is the hope—no, the prayer—that by next year, everyone will finally sing from the same hymn sheet, er, scroll. But that’s a tall order in an industry that thrives on buzzwords and vague promises. The challenge here is monumental. Herding the scattered tribes of advertisers, publishers, platforms, and vendors into a unified front on what attention really means is akin to getting a group of caffeinated toddlers to walk in a straight line. You’ve got factions defending their turf, vested interests, and different interpretations of what “good” looks like. Each party has its own version of what attention measurement should prioritize—be it viewability, engagement time, or neurological responses—turning any effort at standardization into a diplomatic nightmare.

And even if, by some miracle, the IAB manages to draft a set of guidelines that doesn’t immediately implode under the weight of its own contradictions, getting universal buy-in is another story. Think of the ad industry as a rebellious teenager—always pushing boundaries, never satisfied with the status quo, and constantly inventing new ways to dodge the rules. Just when you think you’ve pinned them down, they slip out of your grasp, invent a new acronym, or find a loophole to exploit. So, while the IAB dreams of a future where attention metrics are universally understood and applied, the rest of us are bracing for yet another round of chaos and confusion.

Let’s dive into the four attention commandments:

Visual/Audio Tracking: Think “Black Mirror,” but for your eyeballs and eardrums. From eye tracking to facial coding, these methods hope to capture where your gaze lingers and what your ears endure. It’s all very Big Brother, but in the name of engagement, right?

Physiological/Neurological Observations: Want to know what your heart rate thinks of that new Pepsi ad? This one’s for you. Heart rate, brain waves, and maybe even a soul scan—because nothing says “effective marketing” like a mild stroke.

Data Signals: This one reads like an NSA manual. The idea is to grab every signal your device emits like it’s the Fourth of July and weave it into some semblance of attention scoring. It’s like tracking Santa’s sleigh, but with less magic and more metadata.

Survey-Based Methods: The old-school way. Ask people how much they loved or loathed that detergent ad. Nothing like self-reported data to put the “con” in consumer insights.

The MRC Gets Into the Game – Or Just Stands There
The Media Rating Council (MRC), self-appointed guardian of what counts as a “viewable” ad, has now dipped its toes into the murky waters of attention metrics. They’ve come to terms with the fact that attention isn’t just a passing fad but might actually mean something. So, in their typical bureaucratic fashion, they’ve declared that attention measures must tick a few boxes: ads need to be seen (viewability), not clicked by bots or accidental thumbs (invalid traffic filtration), and must have a real-life human present (user presence). But audibility? Meh, that’s an optional extra—unless you’re in the business of selling audio ads to the hearing-impaired. Because, you know, context is key.

And now, they’re all about these new-fangled data signal proxies. Think of them as the latest elixir on the digital marketing shelf. Everyone’s mixing them up in hopes they can create a perfect cocktail—where each ad impression is not only “seen” but felt deep in the soul (or at least in the wallet). It’s all about blending these signals like a pro bartender crafting the ultimate concoction. But in reality? Picture someone waving their hands frantically at a magic show, desperately hoping for a rabbit to appear out of the hat.

But let’s get down to brass tacks: the MRC’s new love affair with data proxies is really just a new chapter in the long book of digital ad metrics. These proxies, they say, will combine diverse data points—like a mixologist who adds a dash of eye-tracking, a hint of mouse movement, and maybe a splash of device orientation—to tell us whether a consumer was really “paying attention.” But here’s the twist: while this may sound like some groundbreaking, data-driven magic, it’s often just more theater. Everyone’s nodding along, but no one’s quite sure if the emperor has clothes on.

Meanwhile, the industry is left to ponder if these proxies are truly the new gold rush or just another fool’s errand. Proponents argue they offer a way to cut through the noise, a new beacon in the fog of digital ads. But detractors suggest it’s more like panning for gold in a dried-up riverbed. Sure, the shimmer of possibility is there, but dig deep, and all you might find are a few shiny rocks masquerading as precious nuggets.

The real kicker is that, even if these proxies could work magic, we still have to agree on what “attention” really means. Is it a gaze that lingers for 2.5 seconds longer than the average? A double-tap on an Instagram post at 3 AM when the consumer’s half asleep? The MRC, in all its wisdom, is trying to draw a line in the sand, but when the entire landscape is shifting like quicksand, that’s a tall order. For every guideline, there’s a counterpoint, and for every standard, a dozen exceptions.

But Wait, Are Attention Metrics the New Snake Oil?

Last year, the advertising world saw a stampede of marketers leaping onto the attention metrics train like a bunch of kids chasing the ice cream truck on a hot summer day. Audi, Coca-Cola, the NBA—all of them decided that simply counting eyeballs wasn’t enough anymore. They’re done with the old days of indiscriminately casting a wide net; now, they want to know precisely how long those eyeballs linger and whether they’re twinkling with interest or glazing over like yesterday’s donuts. In the race for ROI, they’ve decided that “attention” is the secret sauce, the golden fleece, the unicorn that will magically turn their ad dollars into sales gold.

But not everyone is buying a ticket for this ride. Enter Professor Byron Sharp, who’s become the advertising industry’s version of the Grinch who stole Christmas. Sharp stands at his soapbox, waving his arms like an air traffic controller in a storm, shouting that the whole attention metrics frenzy is nothing more than a carnival sideshow. His argument? Counting the seconds someone accidentally stares at an ad because they were too lazy to click “skip” doesn’t amount to effective marketing. Sharp, along with his colleagues, claims that chasing attention is like hunting a mythical dragon—one that might breathe a lot of hype, but not a lot of fire.

Sharp’s skepticism cuts deep into the heart of the attention metrics movement. He points out that more attention doesn’t automatically mean more sales, more brand love, or any substantial value beyond an empty marketing budget. He’s not alone, either. A growing cadre of critics echoes his doubts, arguing that while attention metrics might sound like the Holy Grail, they could just as easily be another false idol. They argue that advertisers are throwing good money after bad, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle by optimizing for fleeting glances and momentary awareness that, in reality, might not be worth the pixels they’re printed on.

Sharp’s critique is more than just a curmudgeonly rant against the latest trend. It’s a call for sanity in an industry that often leaps from one shiny new object to another like a hyperactive squirrel on an espresso drip. He suggests that the obsession with attention metrics could lead to creative and strategic shortcuts, where marketers focus more on capturing attention than delivering meaningful content. After all, what good is an ad that grabs your attention for a few seconds if it doesn’t leave any lasting impact? Sharp warns that by overvaluing attention, we risk turning advertising into a game of “gotcha,” where the only winners are the platforms raking in the ad dollars.

But the debate doesn’t end there. Sharp’s opponents argue that he’s missing the forest for the trees. Attention, they say, is not just about the quantity of seconds but the quality of engagement. Even a fleeting moment, they claim, can plant the seed of brand recall, influencing purchase decisions down the line. To them, the real question isn’t whether attention matters, but how to capture and hold it in ways that are genuinely valuable. They see attention metrics not as a fad, but as a necessary evolution in how we understand and measure advertising effectiveness.

Still, Sharp’s supporters contend that the industry’s fixation on attention metrics is like chasing shadows—there’s just not enough substance to justify the hype. They argue that while some attention is necessary (after all, you can’t sell to people who aren’t paying attention), obsessing over how much attention you get is a bit like worrying about how many likes your cat photos get on Instagram. Sure, it’s nice, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything important is happening. Instead, they urge a return to fundamentals: build great brands, create compelling content, and let attention follow naturally, rather than bending over backward to manufacture it.

Attention Fans Speak Up

Karen Nelson-Field and Mike Follett are leading a full-scale charge in the debate over attention metrics, positioning attention not just as another industry buzzword but as the foundational metric that should guide all advertising decisions. Nelson-Field, through her work at Amplified Intelligence, argues that attention is the “Holy Grail” of advertising—an essential link between the mere exposure of an ad and genuine engagement from the audience. Her approach is backed by rigorous, independent studies conducted across six countries, demonstrating that attention is not only measurable but also directly linked to advertising effectiveness, brand growth, and customer retention. Essentially, she believes that if you’re not measuring attention, you’re flying blind in a storm, and no amount of traditional metrics like impressions or clicks will give you the true picture of an ad’s impact.

Backing her up, Mike Follett of Lumen Research has also been on the offensive, presenting data that shows how attention metrics outperform traditional measurements in predicting campaign outcomes. According to Follett, while old-school metrics might tell you how many people could have seen your ad, attention metrics tell you who actually did see it and for how long. This, he contends, is crucial information that translates directly into real-world results. His studies suggest that ads which capture higher levels of attention are more likely to be remembered, which in turn increases the likelihood of purchase—a metric every marketer dreams of improving.

Joining the fray is Mark Ritson, the self-styled provocateur of marketing academia, who has been banging the drum for attention metrics as the definitive measure of success. Ritson argues that “dwell time,” or the length of time a viewer spends with an ad, is not just another metric but the metric that indicates the true effectiveness of an ad. According to Ritson, attention creates salience; salience drives preference, and preference impacts the bottom line. He’s pushing the notion that the more time a consumer spends with an ad, the more likely they are to engage with the brand—and possibly even become a loyal customer.

Yet, while Nelson-Field, Follett, and Ritson are painting a rosy picture of the potential of attention metrics, they’re not blind to the challenges. Nelson-Field has cautioned that this new focus on attention needs to avoid the pitfalls of previous measurement obsessions—like the doomed fascination with clickbait-style engagement metrics that once promised to revolutionize digital marketing but instead devalued both content and brand trust. She argues that the industry must focus on “real human attention,” insisting that any metrics not grounded in genuine human engagement (like those that don’t use actual human gaze data) are just more snake oil in a different bottle.

The proponents of attention metrics are also sounding the alarm about the need for ethical practices in this new era. Nelson-Field, for example, warns against using attention metrics to drive advertising into the “cheapest, darkest corners of the internet”—a mistake made in the past with click-driven content. Instead, she’s advocating for the responsible use of attention data to maintain high-quality content and transparent media trading. Her “Attention Revolution” column calls for the industry to treat attention as the “North Star” for ad effectiveness, cautioning that while disruption can be beneficial, it must be validated against actual brand growth and not just short-term metrics.

In the coming months, expect to see a flood of vendors peddling various attention measurement tools. Nelson-Field predicts that while some will offer genuine advancements, many will not. The challenge will be to separate the “quick-fix” measures from those that genuinely add value by capturing real human engagement. As she puts it, the goal is to create a new measurement category that offers more certainty than the industry has seen in a long time—one that can withstand new challenges and continue to evolve in a dynamic media environment.

Attention Metrics: The Darling or the Dud?

So, what’s the verdict here? Is attention the next big thing or just another fad like the pet rock? For every marketer who thinks attention metrics are the magic bullet, there’s another who thinks they’re more like a water gun. The IAB and MRC are diving in headfirst, hoping to calm the waters with their new guidelines, but the industry is left wondering if this is the moment we finally get some clarity or just another chapter in the book of marketing jargon. Are we setting the stage for a revolution in how we measure ad effectiveness, or simply giving ourselves more data to drown in?

One thing’s for sure: the debate isn’t going away anytime soon. As the industry grapples with defining what “attention” really means and how to measure it, there’s a lot at stake—billions of dollars, reputations, and, dare we say, the future of how we connect brands to consumers. Will attention metrics emerge as the guiding star of digital advertising, or will they fade into obscurity like so many trends before them? Stay tuned, folks; this show is just getting started.

Can Curation Houses Be the Couples Therapist We All Need?

Pesach Lattin

2024-09-09

Programmatic advertising is like that friend who never stops binge-watching “The Real Housewives” — you know it’s not great for you, but you can’t stop. For media buyers, it’s the ultimate double-edged sword, a love-hate relationship between efficiency and effectiveness. And into this chaotic, conflicted landscape gallops the new messianic figure of ad tech: Curation Houses.

Now, if you’re already rolling your eyes, I get it. Another savior in a market that’s had more “saviors” than Hollywood has had superhero reboots. But Curation Houses aren’t just another silver bullet. They’re the hot new thing promising to be the solution to a programmatic landscape filled with wasted budgets, misaligned incentives, and inventory that often feels more like dumpster diving than data-driven targeting.

The Basics: What Even Are Curation Houses?

In the simplest terms, curation gives you a front-row seat to the supply-side inventory, but with a twist — a programmatic one. Think of it as a self-service suite for ad-buying enthusiasts. Curation platforms allow brands, publishers, and data providers to combine their first-party data with inventory sourced from third-party publishers, all packaged neatly into a PMP (Private Marketplace) deal ID, ready to be channeled through demand-side platforms (DSPs).

So, it’s essentially a matchmaking service, but instead of swiping left or right, you’re setting the rules — think filtering inventory based on location, or crafting audiences with the kind of contextual targeting that’s more aligned with your performance KPIs than some generic horoscope of online behaviors.

Scott Messer, who knows his way around a murky ad stack, sat down with us for a interivew (to be published in a few weeks) sees the current state of programmatic as a kind of purgatory where “media buyers are stuck in a cycle of buying bulk supply deals that sound fancy but are essentially just packaged junk.” But here’s the kicker: the rise of Curation Houses suggests there may actually be gold at the end of this rainbow, not just the usual fool’s gold.

Why Should You Care?

Let’s get real. For years, curation has been trapped in the dark, cobweb-filled basement of DSPs and SSPs, cobbled together like Frankenstein’s monster, with buyers often ending up with results as reliable as a one-star Uber ride. But now, the “second coming” of curation is shifting the power dynamics. Publishers are finally getting smarter, context-driven inventory management that bypasses the need for third-party cookies. Imagine a world where publishers can finally monetize data they could never sell at scale, and advertisers actually get what they pay for. Crazy, right?

Messer calls this a game-changer: “By facilitating more direct relationships between publishers and buyers, curation houses can drive data licensing revenue, provide deeper insights, and create liquidity in the market.” Translation? No more black box deals where you have no clue where your money is going or what it’s doing.

Separating the Wolves from the Sheep

But wait, there’s a catch. Not all Curation Houses are created equal, and some are just peddling the same old inventory with a fancier name. According to industry insights, curation can be a double-edged sword—promising transparency and quality but often delivering “more smoke and mirrors than magic” when not executed properly. As Lotame points out, some curation houses are masters of distraction, using jargon and fancy AI claims to sell what is essentially repackaged, mediocre inventory. In an ecosystem where trust is about as common as a unicorn, it’s easy to be dazzled by the hype and overlook the hard truths.

Drew Stein from Audigent recognizes this problem too, but he’s betting on curation as the real deal—if done right. Stein doesn’t just see curation as a trendy buzzword; he sees it as a fundamental shift, a way to move data from the buy side to the sell side, leveraging dynamic pricing and real-time optimization to drive down costs and drive up performance. “Dynamic pricing… is frankly cheaper for the buyers,” he explains, underscoring the importance of using data and technology to cut through the murkiness of the current system. Audigent is doubling down on this vision, working to integrate real-time data and AI capabilities through partnerships with industry heavyweights like Onetag and TransUnion to make sure they’re delivering the goods, not just the gloss.

But don’t be fooled by just any shiny new label. While Audigent and a few others are truly redefining the game, many curation platforms are more smoke and mirrors than substance. As Lotame notes, even with promises of enhanced transparency and control, the real value of curation depends heavily on the integrity and quality of the data being used. The challenge, then, is figuring out which curators are genuinely adding value and which are just wolves in sheep’s clothing, hoping you won’t look too closely while they pocket their margin. This is especially critical as we transition into a post-cookie world, where transparency and trust are everything.

In short, be skeptical and savvy. The curation craze has everyone jumping on the bandwagon, but the truth is, not every player is making magic happen. Some are just hoping you won’t notice the sleight of hand while they rake in their margin. Before you buy into the promise of “incremental lift,” make sure you’re not just buying another flashy PowerPoint pitch. As Stein puts it, curation done right is a game-changer; done wrong, it’s just another hustle in the ever-chaotic world of ad tech.

The Efficiency Dream (Or Nightmare?)

With increased efficiency through curation comes a reduction in waste — the digital ad world’s equivalent of Marie Kondo-ing your closet. Curation sifts through and refines data, ensuring only the good stuff gets through. Think of it like sorting the wheat from the chaff, or in this case, the quality impressions from the metric ton of low-value junk. As marketers struggle with a fragmented audience landscape and declining effectiveness of third-party cookies, programmatic curation offers a way to cut through the complexity, making sure every ad dollar is spent wisely.

Audigent points out that “curated marketplaces can be created and developed with key industry trends in mind,” such as sustainability, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I), and privacy. These curated packages allow for more tailored verticals like entertainment and B2B, fostering greater collaboration between publishers and advertisers while promoting a sustainable ecosystem where everyone wins — advertisers get better targeting, consumers see more relevant ads, and publishers can monetize more effectively.

Adding to this, a report from OpenX highlights how curation offers a clear and consolidated path for advertisers by reducing reliance on a web of intermediaries. The result? More efficient ad placements and better inventory control. As OpenX emphasizes, their curated supply eliminates low-quality “Made for Advertising” (MFA) content and supports more sustainable practices by optimizing their supply chain, offering both transparency and enhanced targeting capabilities that directly tie ad spend to desired outcomes. This means that curated supply portfolios allow buyers to optimize their supply paths based on consumer interests, publisher rates, and brand values, rather than getting lost in the noise of endless options and hidden fees.

However, while curation offers numerous advantages, it’s not without its challenges. Dan Owens of Multilocal warns that curation is still a young methodology, surrounded by noise and confusion about its tools and applications. The key is partnering with trusted providers who can navigate the curation landscape, provide privacy-compliant first-party data, and offer curated packages that genuinely align with an advertiser’s campaign goals. The bottom line? Programmatic curation promises a path toward greater efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness, but only if executed with a clear strategy and reliable partners. As the industry continues to evolve, leveraging curated data smartly will become crucial to success in the post-cookie world

The Real Winners in Curation’s New World Order

To thrive in this brave new world, Curation Houses can’t just rest on their laurels and hope their shiny new tech will dazzle the room. They need to get serious about bringing unique data partnerships to the table, serving up exclusive inventory like it’s artisanal avocado toast, and cutting through the buzzword-bingo that fills every pitch deck these days. As Nick Hill from EssenceMediacom aptly points out in ExchangeWire, “The real winners in the curation era will be those who can demonstrate unique access to new signals or a fresh approach to unlocking the rich value within publishers’ audiences.” In other words, don’t just talk the talk—show us the magic.

But let’s not get carried away. The ad tech industry is notorious for promising revolutions that end up looking more like a new coat of paint on the same rusty clunker. The old-school way of doing things—relying on DSPs to maximize their margins while delivering mediocre results to advertisers—is still kicking around, stubbornly refusing to die. The only thing they’ve revolutionized is their ability to prioritize their bottom line over your campaign’s success. If you’re not vigilant, you could find yourself back at square one, swimming in the same murky waters that Scott Messer so colorfully describes as “programmatic purgatory.”

So, what does it take to rise above the noise? For starters, transparency needs to be more than just a buzzword thrown around at industry panels. Curation Houses need to make their operations as clear as a summer day. Show exactly where the ad spend is going, what value it’s driving, and how it stacks up against all those dazzling AI predictions. If they can’t provide that, they might as well be selling snake oil in a fancy bottle.

Moreover, they must champion the idea of direct relationships. No more layers upon layers of middlemen skimming a bit off the top until there’s nothing left for the publisher or advertiser. Think of it like farm-to-table dining, but for ad dollars: fresh, direct, and not handled by a hundred different vendors along the way. Real transparency, combined with unique data, is the secret sauce that will set the true innovators apart.

In the end, the future of Curation Houses will depend on their ability to deliver on these promises. As the industry continues to evolve, those that can cut through the noise with real value and measurable results will thrive. The rest? They’ll likely end up as cautionary tales, relegated to the annals of ad tech history, as yet another trend that never quite lived up to the hype.

Drew Stein, the brain behind Audigent, saw the writing on the wall early on: the old data networks were “busted,” and something needed to shake up the stale game of programmatic advertising. “Curation” wasn’t even a buzzword when Audigent kicked off, but Stein knew there was magic in the idea. He describes it as “the application of data through the supply path,” turning the tables by shifting power from the buyers to the sellers. The new play? Dynamic pricing and real-time optimization that’s “frankly cheaper” for buyers and privacy-friendly—because who wants their data shipped all over the web like a digital hot potato?

Stein isn’t just peddling another ad tech miracle cure; he’s pointing to a future where data gets to stay close to home, cozy and secure, without being slung around like the contents of a yard sale. He sees curation as the ultimate strategy for maintaining control, driving efficiency, and finally getting some respect for your data—keeping it in the family, so to speak, where it belongs. As Stein puts it, you get “all the best parts of programmatic and more,” without the usual mess of inefficiency and privacy concerns.

Can Curation Truly Save Us, or Are We Just Drinking the Kool-Aid?

Maybe. Or maybe this is just another flavor of the month in ad tech’s endless parade of “game-changers.” You know how it goes: today’s savior is tomorrow’s cautionary tale. But if you listen to folks like Wei Hsueh from Equativ, there might be a genuine opportunity in this mess. “With direct access to publisher supply,” Hsueh argues, “buyers can bypass intermediaries, ensuring a more streamlined distribution of resources and ad spend.” That sounds pretty nice if you’re tired of the middlemen sucking up every spare penny like programmatic vampires.

Nishanth Raju over at Lotame chimes in with a similar pitch. He says, “Curated deals deliver scale, incremental reach, and optimized supply paths to advertisers at the right price while meeting or exceeding KPI benchmarks observed at open auctions.” Translation? Curation might just turn your ad spend from a game of darts in the dark to something resembling an actual strategy. But, hey, we’ve all heard the buzzwords before: “scale,” “incremental reach,” and “optimized supply paths” are the mantras of an industry that loves to sell sizzle but often forgets about the steak.

So, can Curation Houses be the white knights galloping in to save programmatic from itself? They certainly seem to offer a glimmer of hope in an industry where trust is about as common as a unicorn. Scott Messer, who has seen more programmatic catastrophes than most of us have had hot dinners, says, “2025 might just be the year when publishers take back some control, buyers find their footing, and the programmatic world starts looking less like a bad habit and more like a balanced diet.” Hope springs eternal, Scott.

But before we all start singing hallelujah and building statues in their honor, let’s pump the brakes. There’s still a ton of work to do to separate the real innovators from the charlatans who just discovered the word “curation” in a PowerPoint slide and decided to make it their personality. So, keep your eyes open, sharpen your pitchforks, and ask the hard questions. Because, let’s be real, we’ve been promised saviors before, and we all know how that story usually ends: in tears, broken KPIs, and yet another round of “what went wrong?”

Here’s the kicker: maybe this time, the savior is real. Or maybe we’re just caught up in another round of tech snake oil sales.

But hey, without a little skepticism, where’s the fun in this industry anyway?

How Advertisers Are Betting Big on Gamers in Q3 and Q4

Pesach Lattin

2024-09-04

There’s an audience, and then there are gamers. Imagine someone so engrossed that even a fire alarm wouldn’t make them flinch. That’s who we’re dealing with here—dedicated, distracted, and delightfully obsessed. And if you’re in the advertising world, this should sound like a golden ticket.

Gamers are, by nature, a captive audience. But despite this, gaming ads aren’t the headliner you’d expect them to be. Why aren’t more advertisers making it rain in the gaming arena? Is there something inherently tricky about gaming ads, or is it just the industry still stuck in the tutorial level? Time to investigate.

🎮 Breaking Down the Game Plan: What Even Are Video Game Ads?

First, let’s get our definitions straight: Video game ads are like the special effects of the advertising world—they can be subtle, explosive, or completely in your face. They come in a variety of flavors:

Intrinsic Ads: These are the sneaky ninjas of in-game advertising. They’re ads seamlessly woven into the game environment, like billboards in your favorite racing game or a branded soda can your avatar guzzles after a marathon battle. They blend in so well that players might not even realize they’re being advertised to—at least, not consciously.

Rewarded Ads: Picture this: you’re one hit point away from losing your last life in Candy Crush. The game offers you an extra life—if you watch a 30-second ad for the latest superhero movie. This is bribery with a wink, and it works like a charm. Players watch the ad, get their reward, and everyone goes home happy.

Interstitial Ads: Ah, the showstoppers. These are the ads that pull no punches—they take over the entire screen during natural pauses in gameplay, like when you’re waiting for the next level to load or your opponent to make a move. Love them or hate them, they demand your attention.

Now, the idea of running ads in video games isn’t exactly new. But what’s changed? Why is the hype growing, and why are more brands starting to eye the gaming world like it’s the last piece of chocolate cake at a diet convention?

💰 Show Me the Money: A $100 Billion Power-Up

Let’s talk about the dollars and cents—or rather, billions and cents. According to the latest forecasts, video game ad revenue is set to soar by a staggering 5.7 times from 2017 to 2027. That’s a cool $100 billion increase in less than a decade. This is not just pocket change; it’s a tidal wave of cash.

But here’s the catch: While gaming ads are growing, they’re still just a slice of the overall pie. In the U.S., gaming ads represent less than 5% of the total internet ad spend. Sure, it’s still a sizable chunk for a “niche” market, but compared to behemoths like social media and CTV (connected TV) ads, it’s clear that video games are still fighting for a seat at the grown-up table.

🎯 Who’s Playing the Game? A Quick Demographic Dive

To understand where the money is going, you need to know who’s actually playing the games. In 2023, there were 3.2 billion gamers worldwide, with the U.S. boasting a particularly interesting mix—55% male, 45% female. These aren’t your stereotypical teenage boys in their mom’s basement anymore; the modern gamer is a more complex creature. You’ve got millennials who grew up with controllers in their hands, Zoomers who consider gaming as much a social activity as texting, and even Gen Xers sneaking in some mobile game time between meetings.

Mobile-Only Gamers: Here’s a twist—female users dominate the mobile-only gaming space, making up 55% of that demographic. Turns out, Candy Crush is a serious battleground, and it’s not who you think is playing. Gen X is also heavily into mobile games—possibly because they can play on their phones while pretending to be engrossed in their kids’ soccer games.

Millennials: The undisputed champions of gaming. They dominate every gamer type, from casual mobile gamers to hardcore e-sports competitors. And guess what? They’re also the ones with the spending power, willing to drop cash on in-game purchases like there’s no tomorrow.

🛒 Shopping While Shooting: The Evolution of In-Game Purchases

Remember when buying something in the middle of a game felt like an interruption? Not anymore. Thanks to the rise of microtransactions and in-game purchases, today’s gamers have fully embraced the idea of spending while playing. Whether it’s buying new skins, unlocking premium content, or snagging that shiny new weapon, purchasing is now as integral to the gaming experience as jumping over a chasm in Super Mario.

But why this sudden shift towards a ‘buy while you play’ mentality? Here’s a thought: The biggest generation in gaming, millennials, is hitting peak spending power, and they’re joined by a chunk of Gen Z who are almost allergic to traditional ads but don’t mind dropping $3.99 on a virtual hat. Add in the rise of mobile gaming—particularly popular among older generations who’ve learned to swipe, not scroll—and you’ve got a perfect storm of opportunity.

The numbers back it up: The global market for in-game purchases has grown by leaps and bounds, and it shows no signs of slowing down. So, if you’re a marketer, it’s not crazy to think that the number of in-game purchases will keep growing faster than a speed run at AGDQ.

📱 Mobile Gaming: The Jackpot No One’s Cashing In On

Now, let’s talk about the golden goose: mobile gaming. This is where the attention—and the money—are. Most gamers are playing on their phones, and it’s the most convenient place for ads. Yet somehow, ad spend isn’t matching the amount of time people are gaming. In fact, 10.9% of all mobile time in 2024 is spent on games, but you wouldn’t know it from how much is actually being spent on mobile game ads. What gives?

For one, there’s a lot of unused advertising space on mobile. Advertisers have been slow to realize the potential here. The real issue? Many find it trickier to navigate than an old-school text adventure. Between the complexities of scaling, targeting, and measuring success, gaming ads have been treated like the weird cousin who shows up at Thanksgiving—fun, unpredictable, but not exactly reliable.

🚀 Advertisers Are Starting to Get It—Sort Of

Let’s be real: Advertisers aren’t entirely clueless. Many are waking up to the untapped potential in video game ads. The stats speak for themselves: gaming is seeing some of the biggest budget increases this year, right after social media and online video ads. But there’s a caveat—about 10% of advertisers are also planning to cut back on gaming ads, citing the difficulty of planning and implementing them. Complexity is a killer, and for gaming ads to truly break out, the industry needs to make it as simple as ordering a pizza online (without the annoying upsells).

❤️ But Those Who Love It, Really Love It

Interestingly, those who’ve dabbled in the gaming ad world seem to be all in. According to the IAB, 78% of advertisers say gaming ads are great for brand awareness. Another 70% claim they’re perfect for driving post-purchase advocacy, and 65% believe they’re excellent for ROAS. It’s the marketing trifecta! So, why aren’t we seeing more big-budget campaigns flooding the market?

🎮 Loading… Advertisers Prepare for an Omnichannel Assault

Historically, gaming ads have been like experimental cocktails—fun to try but not the staple of any serious marketing menu. But as we move into the last half of 2024, there’s a shift happening. More advertisers are considering gaming as a valuable part of their omnichannel strategies. Agencies are starting to build out gaming playbooks, and DSPs like The Trade Desk and Xandr are getting serious about the space, which means lower barriers for entry on the buy side.

We’re also seeing the rise of partnerships between in-game ad platforms and verification vendors. Now, advertisers can measure viewability, completion rates, and performance metrics for in-game ads in a way that makes sense when compared to traditional media. According to Shahar Sorek, CMO of Overwolf, “Campaign metrics like brand awareness uplift, brand consideration, and purchase intent are now a thing across the board.” So, yes, gaming ads are growing up and starting to dress like adults.

⚡ It’s All About the Metrics, Baby

Thanks to new in-game measurement guidelines from the IAB and MRC, gaming ads are finally beginning to unlock larger budgets. These advancements—combined with better targeting, attention measurement, and media-quality verification—mean that advertisers are getting more confident about diving into the gaming waters. It’s no longer a question of if gaming ads will become a staple, but when.

And here’s where it gets interesting: the big game-changer might just be those pesky little DSPs. With platforms like The Trade Desk and Xandr lowering the entry barriers, advertisers can now buy gaming inventory with the same ease they do for display or video ads. Partnerships with verification vendors like Integral Ad Science allow advertisers to compare their in-game ad performance directly against other channels. Finally, you can justify your gaming ad spend to the CFO without breaking into a cold sweat.

🏁 The Final Level: What Comes Next?

As we zoom through the last half of 2024, the future of video game advertising looks like it’s leveling up. The money is there, the audience is primed, and the potential for growth is practically staring us in the face. Advertisers who figure out how to navigate the complexities of the space—whether it’s through smarter targeting, better metrics, or just sheer stubbornness—stand to gain big.

So, to all the brands hesitating at the starting line: Pick up the controller. It’s time to move from tutorial to the main campaign. Your audience is waiting.

Gray Hair, Don’t Care: Judy Shapiro’s Stormy Path Through Ad Tech’s Boys’ Club

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-28

In the ever-evolving world of ad tech, where buzzwords often outshine real innovation, Judy Shapiro stands out as a voice of reason—and rebellion. As the CEO of Topic Intelligence, Judy is not just another figure in the ad tech landscape; she’s a disruptor, challenging the status quo with a blend of experience, wit, and a relentless pursuit of what she calls “real marketing.”

We had the pleasure of sitting down with Judy for The ADOTAT Show’s Mad Women Series, where she offered us an unfiltered glimpse into the realities of the industry, the challenges she’s faced, and the bold ideas she’s championing to push ad tech beyond its current limitations.

The Cookie Conundrum: Google’s Big “Never Mind”

When Judy Shapiro gets started, she doesn’t just dip her toes into the conversation—she cannonballs right in, splashing cold water on the tech giants that many are too timid to criticize. Case in point: Google’s recent cookie fiasco. “I am shocked,” Judy said, and you could almost hear the collective nod of agreement from everyone who’s been watching this slow-motion car crash. Google’s dithering over cookie deprecation isn’t some noble stand for consumer privacy; no, it’s regulatory appeasement dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Judy, with her razor-sharp wit, likened Google’s backtracking to Gilda Radner’s classic “Never mind” moments on Saturday Night Live. It’s the perfect comparison for a company that, when faced with real heat, throws its hands up and says, “Oops, just kidding!”

But let’s not forget who really gets left out in the cold here—consumers. While Google plays its corporate chess game with regulators, consumers are the pawns, moved around with little regard for their privacy or autonomy. “They have no control or power in this entire world that revolves around them,” Judy lamented, cutting to the heart of the matter with her trademark directness. It’s a harsh reality: while the industry’s big players, from DSPs to retargeting firms, pop champagne bottles to celebrate their newfound lease on cookie-based tracking, the average user is left grappling with the implications of their data being up for grabs.

The irony isn’t lost on Judy. Here’s a tech behemoth that once promised to make the world’s information accessible to everyone, now spinning on a dime to protect its bottom line while consumers get stuck with the bill. It’s like watching a magic trick where the audience knows exactly how the illusion works, but they’re still somehow mesmerized by the sleight of hand. The grand reveal? Consumers realize they’re the ones being sawed in half, privacy sliced away while the industry applauds the act.

In the end, Judy’s critique is more than just a scathing indictment of Google’s flip-flopping; it’s a call to action. She’s pointing out the elephant in the room that everyone else seems to be ignoring: the consumer, the very lifeblood of this entire ecosystem, is being treated as an afterthought. And until that changes, until consumers are given the power and control they deserve, Judy’s “shock” is likely to resonate across the industry—because, really, who isn’t tired of being the one left holding the bag?

Scale and Surveillance: The False Gods of Ad Tech

Judy is not one to shy away from controversy. Her critique of ad tech’s obsession with scale and surveillance is biting and, frankly, spot on. “The scale business is a business that is detached from reality,” she asserted, pointing out that the endless quest for impressions often leads to a complete disconnect between ads and actual people. This isn’t just a flaw in the system—it’s a design feature that serves the industry’s bottom line at the expense of meaningful engagement.

Verification, Judy notes, is another area where the industry has willfully turned a blind eye. Despite the sophisticated tools available, the verification of ad placements remains frustratingly inadequate. “They don’t want to really check whether fraud was a problem,” she said, a startling revelation that underscores the ethical lapses that plague ad tech.

A New Paradigm: Topic Intelligence

If Judy sounds angry, it’s because she is—righteously so. But that anger has been the driving force behind Topic Intelligence, the company she founded out of sheer frustration with the industry’s refusal to innovate in meaningful ways. Topic Intelligence isn’t about scale for the sake of scale; it’s about relevance. By focusing on topics rather than broad keywords, Judy’s approach ensures that ads are not just seen but are seen by the right people, in the right context.

Her company’s AI-driven contextual model, developed over three years, is designed to understand the nuances of language—ensuring that a financial ad doesn’t end up next to content about blood banks, for instance. It’s a labor-intensive approach, but one that promises to deliver far better results for advertisers and a more pleasant experience for consumers.

The Gendered Battlefield of Ad Tech

In the male-dominated world of ad tech, being a woman is no small feat. Judy Shapiro, a seasoned veteran of the industry, describes it as “playing chess in a hurricane.” It’s a vivid metaphor that captures the relentless challenges women face, not just in keeping up with the fast-paced, ever-changing dynamics of the industry but in overcoming the entrenched gender biases that still prevail. Judy’s experiences highlight a fundamental issue that many women in tech continue to grapple with—casual sexism that, though subtle at times, can be as destructive as a hurricane in its ability to undermine and belittle.

One of the most striking examples Judy shared with us was a meeting with a major venture capitalist (VC). She had gone into the meeting prepared to discuss her innovative work and the future of ad tech, only to find herself derailed by an entirely different conversation. For the entire 15-minute meeting, the VC fixated on her gray hair, a superficial detail that had nothing to do with her expertise or the business at hand. “Have you always had gray hair?” he asked, as if this were the most pressing issue in the room. The experience was not just bizarre but emblematic of the casual sexism that often reduces women to their appearance rather than acknowledging their professional accomplishments.

This encounter, while infuriating, is just one of many that Judy has faced throughout her career. Yet, rather than let these experiences deter her, they have only strengthened her resolve. Judy’s resilience, she explains, is fueled by a combination of anger and stubbornness—traits that have become her greatest assets in an industry that often tries to sideline women. “Stay angry,” she advises, because that anger is what propels her forward, pushing her to challenge the status quo and demand the respect that she and other women in the field deserve. It’s this refusal to be cowed by the systemic biases of the industry that has made Judy not just a survivor, but a force to be reckoned with.

Judy’s approach to business, particularly her passion for client outcomes, is another area where she has faced criticism—but this time, for being “too invested.” In an industry that often prioritizes quick exits and rapid returns, Judy’s commitment to long-term relationships and real value is seen as unconventional. But it’s this very commitment that sets her apart. Where others are content to chase the next big payday, Judy is focused on creating sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships with her clients. “If you do it right, performance marketers line up,” she says, underscoring her belief that real success in ad tech isn’t about short-term gains but about building something that lasts.

This philosophy hasn’t always been easy to maintain, especially in a sector where the pressure to deliver immediate results can be overwhelming. But Judy’s insistence on prioritizing client outcomes over everything else has not only differentiated her from her peers but has also attracted a loyal following. Her clients know that when they work with Judy, they’re getting more than just a service provider—they’re getting a partner who is deeply invested in their success. This level of dedication is rare in an industry often characterized by transactional relationships, and it’s one of the reasons why Judy’s approach is resonating with so many.

Trust: The Future of Ad Tech Leadership

Looking ahead, Judy believes that trust will be the defining trait of the next generation of ad tech leaders. In an industry riddled with manipulation and half-truths, those who can build genuine trust—between advertisers, consumers, and platforms—will lead the way. “Trust is going to be the next 20 years of the internet,” she predicted, and it’s hard to argue with her logic. The tools that enable users to create their own trusted web experiences will be the ones that thrive, leaving behind the hollow promises of today’s ad tech giants.

Final Thoughts: A Message to Her Younger Self

If Judy could send a message back to her younger self, it would be simple: trust your instincts. Early in her career, she admitted, she often deferred to the technical experts around her, assuming they knew best. But with the benefit of hindsight, she realizes that her marketing instincts were often spot on. “Most marketers never start ad tech firms,” she said, but perhaps they should. Judy’s journey is a testament to what can happen when you combine deep industry knowledge with a willingness to challenge the status quo.

Judy Shapiro isn’t just navigating the turbulent waters of ad tech; she’s charting a new course, one that prioritizes relevance over scale, ethics over shortcuts, and trust over manipulation. It’s a path that may not be easy, but as Judy herself would tell you, it’s the only one worth taking.

How Jon Walsh Built Adtech’s Largest Chat Empire (and Shook Up the Job Market)

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-26

Jon Walsh isn’t just a name in adtech; he’s a phenomenon. A legend. The kind of figure who has not only witnessed the wild, often chaotic evolution of digital advertising but has also been one of its most influential architects. With over two decades in the trenches, Jon’s career reads like an adtech epic—a narrative filled with exhilarating highs, crushing lows, and a relentless drive to push the boundaries of what’s possible in an industry notorious for its volatility.

Let’s start at the beginning. Selling his first company at 31 was no small feat, but it was just the opening act in what would become a career full of audacious moves. Picture this: a young, ambitious entrepreneur navigating the shark-infested waters of acquisitions. The experience left him a bit battered but far from broken. Instead, it set the stage for what would become a series of ventures where Jon didn’t just survive—he thrived. He was like a master chess player, always thinking several moves ahead, even when the board was a swirling mess of shifting trends and fleeting innovations.

But Jon’s story isn’t just about personal success; it’s about his uncanny ability to build communities and foster connections in an industry where isolation and competition are often the norms. Enter the adtech chat community on WhatsApp. What started as a humble attempt to stave off boredom during the pandemic morphed into the largest adtech chat network in the world. Imagine trying to corral thousands of adtech professionals from every corner of the globe into a single, coherent conversation. It’s like herding cats, if the cats were also constantly arguing about blockchain, CTV, and the latest SSP developments. And yet, Jon managed to do it—not by force, but by creating a space where genuine, unfiltered dialogue could thrive. This isn’t your typical LinkedIn group filled with self-promotion and corporate jargon; it’s a living, breathing organism where ideas are exchanged, friendships are forged, and yes, sometimes digital bar fights break out.

Jon’s involvement in blockchain is another chapter worth delving into. Here’s a guy who didn’t just dip his toes into the world of decentralized tech—he plunged in headfirst, clocking in thousands of hours of research and study. He was so deep into the blockchain rabbit hole that he could’ve written a dissertation on it. But unlike many who were blinded by the hype, Jon emerged from this journey with a clear-eyed perspective. His verdict? Blockchain, for all its promises, might just be more sizzle than steak, especially in an industry like adtech that thrives on centralization and control. Yet, even as he moved away from the blockchain evangelism, Jon’s curiosity didn’t wane. Instead, it shifted towards more practical, grounded innovations—like Bitcoin—where he saw a genuine opportunity to bridge the gap between digital currency and digital products.

But let’s talk about the crown jewel of Jon’s endeavors: the adtech chat community. The WhatsApp groups he founded have grown into something far beyond a casual chat room. These are global epicenters of industry conversation, where the latest trends, controversies, and innovations are dissected by some of the sharpest minds in the field. And it’s not just about the tech talk. These groups are a lifeline for professionals who often find themselves in the isolating trenches of a fast-paced, high-stakes industry. Jon’s groups offer a rare blend of professional discourse and personal connection—a virtual water cooler where everyone from seasoned veterans to fresh-faced newcomers can share insights, vent frustrations, and maybe even crack a joke or two.

One of the most remarkable aspects of these groups is how they’ve organically grown from a few dozen participants to thousands of active members. WhatsApp’s initial cap of 256 participants didn’t stand a chance against the demand for inclusion. When the limit was raised to 512, and later to 1024,

Jon’s groups quickly maxed out, proving that there was a real hunger for this kind of community. And Jon, ever the savvy operator, didn’t just sit back and let it ride. He expanded the network into multiple groups, each focused on different aspects of adtech—from CTV to programmatic to the intricacies of data privacy. It’s like a sprawling digital metropolis, with Jon as the mayor, ensuring that the trains run on time and that everyone’s voice gets heard.

Yet, despite the success, Jon’s not one to rest on his laurels. He’s constantly iterating, looking for ways to improve the experience for his community. Whether it’s creating spin-off groups to dive deeper into niche topics or stepping in to quell the occasional digital dust-up, Jon’s hands-on approach is a big reason why these groups have thrived. And let’s not forget the fun stuff—like the football group, where the banter flies as fast as the goals, and the occasional political chat, where Jon wisely created a separate space to keep the peace in the main groups. It’s a delicate balance, managing the egos and opinions of thousands of adtech professionals, but Jon does it with a mix of diplomacy, humor, and a no-nonsense attitude that’s earned him the respect and admiration of his peers.

Then there’s JobsInAdTech, Jon Walsh’s latest brainchild, which is turning the adtech job market on its head. In an industry where LinkedIn often feels like an overcrowded flea market—swarming with irrelevant job postings and recruiters who spam your inbox with positions that don’t even come close to matching your skills—JobsInAdTech is like finding an oasis in a desert of chaos. It’s precise, it’s streamlined, and above all, it’s built with people in mind. Jon recognized early on that the traditional job board model was outdated and, frankly, broken. It was drowning in noise, cluttered with jobs that had nothing to do with the seekers’ real expertise, and lacking any real sense of community or connection. Job seekers were treated like cattle, herded into generic roles by algorithms that couldn’t distinguish between a data scientist and a social media manager. Jon saw this for the mess it was and decided it was time to flip the script entirely.

So, he created JobsInAdTech, a platform that tosses the old model out the window. Instead of quantity, Jon chose to prioritize quality. It’s a platform where every job listing is carefully curated, every connection meaningful, and every interaction designed to respect the time and effort of both job seekers and employers. By launching the site with a free-for-all approach in its initial months, Jon didn’t just gain a user base—he built a community. People came not just because it was free, but because it was different, better, and—most importantly—trusted. This wasn’t just another job board; it was a resource, a hub for the adtech community where professionals could find real, relevant opportunities without wading through the usual muck and mire of the online job market. Jon knew that trust is hard to earn and easy to lose, so he made sure that every aspect of JobsInAdTech was designed with integrity and transparency at its core.

The success of JobsInAdTech is more than just a feather in Jon’s cap; it’s a clear reflection of his deep, almost instinctual understanding of the adtech ecosystem. Jon knows the adtech industry inside and out, not just from a technical standpoint, but from a human one. He’s acutely aware of the pain points that plague both job seekers and employers—the frustrations of endless applications, the wasted time sifting through irrelevant candidates, the disconnect between what companies need and what traditional job boards provide. Where others saw these problems as just part of the landscape, Jon saw opportunities for innovation. His approach to building JobsInAdTech was as meticulous as it was visionary. He didn’t just want to create a job board; he wanted to solve the fundamental issues that make job hunting such a soul-crushing experience for so many people.

And while Jon might not be one to toot his own horn, the results speak for themselves. The testimonials from companies and candidates alike are glowing, filled with stories of how JobsInAdTech connected them with roles they’d been dreaming of but couldn’t find anywhere else. It’s not just about filling positions; it’s about matching the right people with the right opportunities, in a way that feels almost effortless. Jon has managed to take something as mundane as a job search and turn it into an experience that’s not only effective but also, dare we say, enjoyable. People aren’t just landing jobs; they’re finding careers that align with their passions and skills, all without the usual stress and frustration.

In a world where job boards are often synonymous with disappointment, JobsInAdTech stands out as a beacon of what’s possible when someone takes the time to truly understand the needs of their industry and acts on it with integrity and insight. Jon Walsh has not just created a platform; he’s set a new standard for what job searching in adtech can and should be.

Of course, it hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Jon’s had his share of stumbles along the way—like the time he lost a major deal with YouTube to a competitor. But instead of wallowing in defeat, he used the experience to fuel his next big win. It’s this resilience, this ability to learn from mistakes and come back stronger, that defines Jon’s career. He’s not just a survivor in the cutthroat world of adtech; he’s a pioneer, constantly pushing the envelope and redefining what’s possible.

Jon’s impact on the adtech industry is undeniable, but what sets him apart is his commitment to making the industry better for everyone—not just the big players with deep pockets, but the up-and-comers, the underdogs, and the everyday professionals who make this industry what it is. Through his community-building efforts, his thought leadership, and his innovative platforms, Jon has created spaces where people can connect, grow, and thrive. He’s not just shaping the future of adtech; he’s creating a legacy that will last long after the latest tech fad has come and gone.

In a world where digital interactions often feel impersonal and disconnected, Jon Walsh is a reminder that technology can be a force for good. That it can bring people together, foster real connections, and create opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach. His story is a testament to the power of community, the importance of resilience, and the impact that one person can have when they refuse to settle for the status quo.

So, what’s next for Jon Walsh?

If his track record is anything to go by, it’s safe to say that whatever it is, it’ll be big, bold, and way ahead of the curve. Whether he’s launching the next big platform, spearheading a new initiative in the adtech community, or simply continuing to build on the success of his existing ventures, you can bet that Jon will approach it with the same mix of vision, passion, and relentless drive that has defined his career. Because for Jon Walsh, the journey is far from over—it’s only just beginning.

Netflix Is Messing Up Big Time: How the Streaming Giant Is Losing Its Way with Ads

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-26

Netflix, once the uncontested ruler of the streaming universe, now seems to be playing a risky game of trial and error with its new ad-supported tier. With a staggering 40 million monthly users, you’d think they’ve struck gold, right? But here’s the kicker: Netflix is messing it all up—royally. It’s like watching someone try to juggle flaming torches while blindfolded; you can’t help but wonder how long before the whole thing goes up in flames.

The streaming landscape today is vastly different from the one Netflix dominated for years. Back in the day, Netflix was synonymous with uninterrupted binge-watching, offering a vast library of content free from the interruptions of traditional television. This was their golden promise, their unique selling proposition. But as competition intensified, with rivals like Disney+, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video carving out their own chunks of the market, Netflix found itself needing to diversify its revenue streams. Enter the ad-supported tier—a seemingly brilliant idea on paper, but one that is beginning to show significant cracks.

For years, Netflix resisted the temptation to run ads, standing firm on the belief that viewers valued the premium, ad-free experience. This approach not only differentiated them from cable but also from ad-supported streaming services like Hulu. However, as growth plateaued and subscription fatigue set in among users, Netflix had to find new ways to keep the revenue flowing. The ad-supported tier was introduced with much fanfare, and at first, it seemed like they had pulled off a masterstroke. But what we’re seeing now is a company struggling to balance its original vision with the demands of a new business model that, frankly, it doesn’t seem to fully understand.

A Journey Through Frustration: The Ad Experience from Hell

When Netflix first dipped its toes into the ad-supported waters, the skepticism was palpable. Critics and industry insiders alike questioned whether the platform could maintain its premium image while selling ad space. Fast forward to today, and Netflix has a thriving new revenue stream. But for viewers, it’s starting to feel like they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. I decided to take the plunge and sign up for the ad-supported tier myself, thinking I’d indulge in some documentaries or biopics, hoping for a slightly interrupted but still enjoyable experience. What I got instead was a frustrating crash course in how not to do advertising.

Imagine settling in for a cozy evening of Netflix, only to be bombarded by the same ad over and over again. And not just the same ad, but the same ad in different formats and sizes, as if the platform couldn’t decide how best to annoy you. It’s like they’ve taken the concept of repetitive strain injury and applied it to their advertising strategy. Alan Wolk, a respected voice in the industry, noted that this isn’t just a one-off glitch. Netflix’s ads are being sold through multiple exchanges, resulting in the same ads being shown repeatedly, sometimes within the same viewing session. It’s a user experience nightmare and one that could have long-term consequences for the platform.

To put it bluntly, Netflix’s ad experience is a mess. The platform seems to be trying to accommodate every possible way to buy and sell ads—private 1:1 marketplace deals, programmatic guarantees, you name it. They’ve thrown in tools like Google’s Campaign Manager and Innovid for impression verification and extended their partnerships with DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science for fraud and viewability checks. But instead of creating a seamless, integrated experience, they’ve cobbled together a Frankenstein’s monster of an ad ecosystem that’s as confusing as it is frustrating. It’s enough to make even the most seasoned marketing teams think twice about allocating their budgets to streaming.

The FAANG Illusion: Why Netflix’s Success Is a Double-Edged Sword

Despite these glaring issues, Netflix’s ad-supported tier is being hailed as a success in some circles. This perception is largely driven by the fact that Netflix has an almost magical ability to get people to suspend their critical thinking and buy into the hype. It’s why the acronym “FAANG” still includes Netflix, even though the company has little in common with tech behemoths like Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google, who have diversified revenue streams and a multitude of multibillion-dollar business lines. But the reality is that Netflix’s success in the ad space is a double-edged sword.

The success of Netflix’s ad-supported tier creates a narrative that streaming ads are the next big thing, which in turn drives more brands to shift their dollars from traditional media to streaming platforms. This is good news for the industry as a whole, but it also means that Netflix is under enormous pressure to deliver results. If the ad experience continues to be as clunky and repetitive as it currently is, advertisers will start to question whether they’re getting their money’s worth. And once the cracks start to show, it could be a slippery slope to irrelevance.

Moreover, the belief that “as Netflix goes, so goes the industry” is problematic. It creates an illusion of growth and success that may not be entirely accurate. Yes, the market is expanding, and yes, more dollars are flowing into streaming, but if Netflix’s ad-supported model is fundamentally flawed, it could lead to a bubble that’s bound to burst. And when it does, the fallout could affect not just Netflix but the entire streaming ecosystem.

Half-Baked and Ill-Prepared: The Ad-Supported Tier’s Growing Pains

One of the most frustrating aspects of Netflix’s ad-supported tier is how half-baked it feels. For a company that has spent years perfecting its user experience, the ad-supported model seems like a rushed, ill-conceived afterthought. Users have reported missing titles, a lack of consistent content availability, and an overall experience that feels like a step down from what they’ve come to expect from Netflix. While the ad load is lighter than traditional broadcast TV—around four or five minutes per hour—there’s still a sense that Netflix hasn’t fully committed to making this tier work.

Adding to the frustration is Netflix’s decision to phase out its Basic plan, the cheapest ad-free option. This move feels like a bait-and-switch, pushing users towards the ad-supported tier whether they like it or not. In markets like Canada and the UK, Netflix has already retired the Basic plan, and the US and France are next on the chopping block. It’s a risky move that could backfire if users feel they’re being strong-armed into a subpar experience.

But perhaps the most telling sign that Netflix’s ad-supported tier is not ready for prime time is its embarrassingly low fill rates. According to a report by One Touch Intelligence, ad fill rates for the FAST channel market, including Netflix, hover around a dismal 38%. This means that Netflix is struggling to sell ad inventory, and as a result, viewers are being subjected to the same ads over and over again. It’s a classic case of quantity over quality, and it’s doing more harm than good.

Leadership Shakeups and Programmatic Pitfalls: Is Netflix Losing Its Way?

Netflix seems to be aware that something isn’t quite right, as evidenced by the recent departure of their top ad liaison, Peter Naylor. Naylor, a veteran of the industry, was brought in to help Netflix navigate the complex world of advertising, but his exit suggests that the company is still struggling to find its footing. The move towards programmatic, automated channels to sell ad inventory is another indication that Netflix is trying to fix the problem, but it’s unclear whether this will be enough.

The shift to programmatic could streamline the ad-buying process and improve fill rates, but it also comes with its own set of challenges. Programmatic advertising is notorious for issues like ad fraud, viewability problems, and lack of transparency. If Netflix can’t get a handle on these issues, they risk alienating advertisers even further. And with competition in the streaming space only getting fiercer, Netflix can’t afford to drop the ball.

In the end, Netflix’s foray into the world of advertising feels like a series of missteps and missed opportunities. They’ve got the audience, they’ve got the data, and they’ve got the potential to be a major player in the ad space. But unless they can figure out how to deliver a seamless, engaging experience for both viewers and advertisers, they’re at risk of losing the very thing that made them great: their ability to innovate and lead.

Netflix needs to remember that in the world of streaming, content may be king, but user experience is the kingdom. If they don’t get their act together, they might find themselves dethroned.

Nevada Senate Showdown: How CTV is About to Shake Things Up in the Silver State

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-21

With the Senate race in Nevada heating up, it’s clear that the contest between incumbent Jacky Rosen and challenger Sam Brown is far from a snooze-fest. This is the kind of high-stakes, edge-of-your-seat drama that keeps political junkies glued to their screens. And guess what? In this volatile arena, Connected TV (CTV) is poised to be the wildcard that could tip the scales.

Here’s how CTV isn’t just playing the game but changing it entirely.

CTV: Not Your Grandma’s Political Ad Strategy

Forget the old-school approach of blasting ads to anyone with a pulse. CTV is where the real action is. It’s like trading in your clunky old car for a sleek sports model that doesn’t just get you from A to B but does it with style and precision. With CTV, campaigns can zoom in on specific voter segments with surgical accuracy, ensuring that every dollar spent is hitting the right mark. Think of it as your political ad’s personal GPS, directing it straight to the voters who matter most.

Nevada’s Demographics: A Diverse Playground Where Precision is King

Let’s get real—Nevada is a melting pot of political potential. Here’s why targeting the right way matters:

Hispanic Voters: With nearly 30% of the population, Hispanics are a force to be reckoned with. Whether it’s about immigration, economic opportunities, or just having your voice heard in Spanish, this group is crucial. Tailoring messages to address their hot-button issues can turn a campaign from “meh” to “¡claro que sí!”
Women Voters: Women in Nevada are not to be overlooked, especially with hot-button issues like abortion on the table. Rosen’s backing of the Nevada Right to Abortion Initiative is a clear signal, and Brown’s waffling on the issue makes this group ripe for targeted messaging. Address their concerns directly, and you might just see some serious voter shift.
Young Voters: Nevada’s younger crowd is more plugged in than ever, and they’re not just scrolling aimlessly. They care about education, jobs, and climate change. Engage them with dynamic, relevant content, and you might just snag a few more votes.
Union Workers: The culinary union and hotel workers are a sizable chunk of the electorate. Address their concerns about job security, wages, and working conditions with pinpoint accuracy, and you’ll make a real impact.

In a state where voter preferences are like sand shifting underfoot, CTV’s laser-focused targeting ensures that every message hits its mark. This isn’t about tossing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks—this is about delivering content that resonates on a personal level.

CTV’s Game-Changer Status: Proven and Powerful

Let’s talk numbers: political ad guru Jason Mendeloff ran a campaign using CTV’s Slingshot technology and saw a jaw-dropping 368% increase in voter attention. That’s not a typo. This kind of result isn’t just impressive; it’s game-changing.

Origin’s Secret Sauce: Slingshot

Here’s where Origin comes into the picture. Their Slingshot tech is the real MVP, transforming how campaigns reach voters. Partnering with TVision Insights, Origin surveyed 7,237 streaming households and uncovered some eye-opening insights. A whopping 71% of people don’t recall seeing political ads, but they’d tune in if the ads were relevant. And with 65% of respondents still undecided about their 2024 vote, local, relevant content could be the tipping point they need.

Origin’s Slingshot offers unparalleled targeting across multiple networks and media. It’s like having a magic wand that ensures your ads are always on point, whether you’re going for a turnkey approach or a custom solution. This isn’t just a tool; it’s the key to unlocking voter engagement and making every ad dollar count.

The Bottom Line

In the nail-biting world of Nevada politics, CTV is the high-octane fuel that could drive your campaign to victory. With its ability to deliver targeted, compelling content, CTV isn’t just an option—it’s a necessity. If you’re looking to make a real impact in this election, Origin’s cutting-edge technology might just be the game-changer you’ve been waiting for. Buckle up, because Nevada’s Senate race is about to get a whole lot more interesting.

Google’s New Playbook: Ads Next to Nazis and Naughty Bits

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-20

Well, well, well, what do we have here? It seems Google, in all its infinite wisdom, has decided to go on a wild adventure of placing ads next to some of the most revolting content on the internet. You know, the stuff that makes you want to wash your eyeballs with bleach and reconsider your entire digital existence. Welcome to XTwitter, folks—where your brand’s shiny logo could very well be the next thing you see after a video of someone’s amateur audition for “Debbie Does Dallas” or, worse, a rousing speech from Adolf Hitler. Yes, this is the new reality, and it’s as horrifying as it sounds.

So how did we get here? Great question. X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has been on a free-fall trajectory ever since Elon Musk decided to turn it into his personal playground for free speech absolutism—or, as it turns out, a cesspool where the worst of humanity is given a megaphone. Ads from respectable companies—well, companies that used to be respectable—are now cropping up next to content that’s straight out of your worst nightmares.

You’d think Google, with all its algorithms and AI-powered brainpower, would know better. But apparently, someone in Mountain View thought it was a stellar idea to shove ads onto X’s main feed without bothering to check what’s lurking in the shadows. Spoiler alert: it’s not pretty.

Nancy Levine Stearns, a journalist and friend of mine, with a stronger stomach than most, has been knee-deep in this digital cesspool, documenting the daily horror show that X has become. Picture this: a timeline that looks like it’s been pulled straight from the bowels of the dark web, with ads for your favorite household products cozying up to adult videos that would make even the most seasoned internet users do a double-take. And then, just when you think it can’t get worse, there’s the casual threat to exterminate an entire people, dropped in like it’s just another Tuesday. That’s right, folks. Ads for soap, right next to posts advocating for a “final solution.” If irony had a physical form, it’d be slapping us all in the face right now.

Nancy, bless her, has been keeping tabs on this madness, trying to hold onto her sanity while she documents the collapse of what little decency remains on the internet. It’s like someone threw open the dungeon doors, let the trolls out, and then handed them a megaphone. And Nancy? She’s the one stuck trying to make sense of it all, watching as the line between acceptable and abhorrent content becomes increasingly blurred. But let’s be real—there’s no making sense of this. It’s a full-blown descent into the digital underworld, and Nancy’s just trying to keep from losing her lunch.

But don’t just take Nancy’s word for it. NBC News, always eager for a good horror story, decided to do some digging of their own. And what did they find? Oh, just that X has become the new go-to hub for pro-Nazi content. That’s right—Elon Musk’s grand vision of a “free” internet has devolved into a playground for the worst kind of hate.

We’re talking at least 150 “Premium” subscribers—yes, people are actually paying to spread this filth—actively posting or amplifying Nazi propaganda. It’s like someone took the darkest corners of Reddit, mashed them up with 4chan’s worst offenders, and then gave them all a stage on X.

And to make matters worse, Google decided to show up with a keg of ad dollars, sponsoring this digital hatefest.

The platform’s rules, which are supposed to ban glorifying violence, ave turned out to be about as effective as a chocolate teapot in a heatwave. They’re leaking like a sieve, and the hate is spilling out all over the place. X has become a total mess, a quagmire of filth where the worst of humanity is not just tolerated but actively encouraged. And guess who’s getting stuck in the middle of this?

The brands that thought they were just buying some harmless ad space. They signed up for digital marketing, and instead, they’re getting a front-row seat to the internet’s version of a dystopian nightmare.

So, where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us with a platform that’s gone off the rails, a CEO who seems more interested in shock value than in keeping things even remotely respectable, and a bunch of advertisers who are now scrambling to distance themselves from the hate-filled mess that X has become. It’s a perfect storm of bad decisions, unchecked hate, and the inevitable fallout when you mix the two. Nancy’s got her work cut out for her, and so do the brands trying to untangle themselves from this digital disaster.

One such brand is IQAir, a Swiss company that makes air quality devices. Sounds innocuous enough, right? Well, NBC News caught one of their ads hanging out next to Holocaust denial content. That’s like opening a health food store next to a KFC—only much, much worse. IQAir, understandably horrified, scrambled to adjust their ad settings, trying to steer clear of X’s hate-filled rabbit holes. But here’s the kicker: they were already using X’s targeting features designed to avoid this exact scenario. So much for that. When the system is this broken, it doesn’t matter how many settings you tweak; the hate is going to seep through.

But It Gets Worse

Now, here’s where it gets really juicy. According to MarketingBrew, several advertisers have found themselves unwittingly slapped onto X, like some kind of twisted digital prank. They never signed up for this, and now they’re left wondering why Google decided to take them along for this ride through the internet’s seediest back alleys. One bewildered business owner, who clearly didn’t sign up to be Musk’s bedfellow, told MarketingBrew, “I don’t want us affiliated with anything related to politics or religion…and I don’t want us related to anything extremist.” Well, pal, I’ve got some bad news for you. Your brand is now firmly planted in the middle of the most extremist political cesspool this side of 4chan, thanks to Google’s brilliant partnership with X.

But wait, there’s more! The issue isn’t just about where these ads show up on X—it’s the fact that the whole platform has become a smorgasbord of hate, adult content, and whatever else slithered out of the internet’s underbelly. No joke, someone actually spotted an ad right next to a video of a woman getting intimately acquainted with herself, let’s just say. And I’m not talking about some obscure corner of the site. This was front and center, as if X was trying to channel its inner PornHub.

The moderation—or lack thereof—on this platform has reached levels of absurdity that would be funny if it weren’t so deeply disturbing. Imagine opening your app to check the news, only to be greeted by an ad for vacuum cleaners followed by someone’s DIY attempt at adult entertainment. It’s like living in a bad fever dream, and we’ve got Musk to thank for it.

Now, you might be wondering what Musk himself has to say about this. As usual, he’s doubling down, telling users that they “should be able to create, distribute, and consume material related to sexual themes as long as it is consensually produced and distributed.” In other words, X is now your one-stop-shop for everything from political hate speech to porn, because, hey, free speech, baby! The man doesn’t seem to care that this turns X into an adult site governed by special laws that are supposed to keep minors—and, let’s be honest, most adults—away from this kind of content. But Musk is on a mission to prove that he’s the king of edgelords, and if that means turning X into the internet’s red-light district, so be it.

This whole fiasco feels eerily reminiscent of the rise and fall of Tumblr, that once-beloved haven for artists, weirdos, and everyone in between. Tumblr was a paradise of adult content until it decided to ban it all in 2018, only to backtrack slightly in 2022 to allow some nudity, just not the explicit stuff. Tumblr realized—albeit a little too late—that maybe, just maybe, letting the internet’s wild side run free wasn’t the best business model. But here’s the difference: Musk isn’t backing down. He’s going full steam ahead, convinced that this NSFW free-for-all is the key to making X profitable, even as advertisers are fleeing the platform faster than rats from a sinking ship. The New York Times reported that X could lose up to $200 million in revenue this year alone because advertisers are tired of their brands getting tarnished by association with this hellscape.

And what does Google have to say about all this? Not a peep. When asked for a comment, Google’s spokesperson apparently ghosted faster than your last Tinder date. And as for the people at X who are supposed to be in charge of safety? Well, they’ve been muzzled too. Apparently, speaking to the media about how the platform’s turned into a digital dumpster fire isn’t part of the job description anymore. So here we are, watching this train wreck in slow motion, with no one at the wheel willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, this wasn’t such a great idea after all.

Welcome to the new X, where your brand’s ad could be the next thing someone sees before they lose all faith in humanity. It’s a brave new world out there, and if you’re not careful, you might just find yourself part of the spectacle. But hey, at least it’s free speech, right?

The FTC vs. AI: Who Knew Regulating Lies Could Be So Complicated?

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-20

The FTC just dropped the hammer on one of the most obnoxious practices in the world of online marketing: fake endorsements. It’s about time, too, because if there’s one thing consumers don’t need more of, it’s getting bamboozled by bogus reviews and celebrity testimonials that have about as much credibility as a late-night infomercial.

So here’s what went down: On Wednesday, the FTC finalized a rule that basically says, “Enough with the BS.” They’ve made it crystal clear that businesses can no longer sell or buy fake reviews, whether they’re glowing or scathing. You know those sketchy reviews that sound like they were written by a robot? Well, they probably were, and now that’s off the table too. The rule even takes aim at companies trying to game the system with AI-generated reviews—because, apparently, it wasn’t enough to just deceive consumers with human-written lies.

But wait, there’s more! The FTC’s new rule also slams the door on insider reviews that don’t disclose connections. No more getting your cousin’s best friend’s roommate to write a five-star review without mentioning that they’re basically on your payroll. And for those businesses that thought they could get away with setting up a fake “independent” review site to sing their own praises? Think again. The FTC’s coming for you.

And if you’re one of those companies that think they can suppress negative reviews by threatening customers or simply making them disappear? Consider this your official wake-up call. The FTC rule makes it clear that messing with authentic feedback is a one-way ticket to penalty town.

Now, here’s where it gets really juicy: the rule doesn’t just target the usual suspects in the retail space; it’s also throwing shade at the influencer industry. We’ve all seen those cringey fake celebrity endorsements plastered across social media. You know, the ones where some B-list actor pretends to use a skincare product they’ve clearly never touched? Yeah, that’s going to be a lot harder to pull off now. The FTC cited an in-depth Better Business Bureau study that exposed fake celeb endorsements, so if you’re thinking about slapping a fake “As seen on Shark Tank” sticker on your product, you might want to rethink that strategy.

Oh, and speaking of AI, the FTC’s rule also specifically bans the use of generative AI tools to cook up fake reviews. It’s like they’ve been reading the tea leaves and know that as soon as one door closes, marketers are already looking for the next trick up their sleeve. But this time, the FTC’s one step ahead, slapping down that nonsense before it even becomes a trend.

This isn’t just about slapping wrists, either. The FTC means business, with the rule reiterating that fines will be issued for each violation. So, for all those e-commerce sites with thousands of questionable reviews? Let’s just say the penalties could add up faster than you can say “deceptive advertising.”

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan summed it up perfectly: “Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors.” In other words, this isn’t just about protecting consumers—it’s also about leveling the playing field for businesses that actually play by the rules.

Now, if you’re thinking this is just another chapter in the FTC’s long-running series of consumer protection efforts, you’re not entirely wrong. But there’s a fresh edge to this latest move, a sense that the FTC is done playing nice with those who think they can pull a fast one on the public. The rule will take effect 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register, so the clock is ticking for those still trying to figure out how to weasel their way around it.

And in case you’re wondering if this might spill over into politics—well, we’ve already seen the kind of drama that can unfold when fake endorsements start circulating. Just look at the recent mess in Duval County, where a lawsuit is accusing state representative Angie Nixon’s campaign of distributing fake endorsement flyers. It’s a perfect example of how the lines between marketing, politics, and outright deception can blur, and why the FTC’s rule is a big deal beyond just the retail space.

The Bigger Picture: The FTC’s Heavy Hand on AI Raises Concerns

But let’s zoom out for a moment, because this rule is about more than just cleaning up the cesspool of fake reviews—it’s also a signal that the FTC is gearing up to flex its regulatory muscles over emerging technologies like AI. And while this might seem like a win for consumers and honest businesses, it also raises some serious concerns about the FTC’s approach and the potential for regulatory overreach.

The rule explicitly bans the use of generative AI tools to create fake reviews and testimonials, which shows that the FTC is acutely aware of the role AI is starting to play in the marketing landscape. But here’s the rub: the FTC is stepping into a regulatory gray area where the laws haven’t quite caught up with the technology. Critics have already pointed out that the FTC’s move to regulate AI without clear legislative backing could be seen as overstepping its authority.

Take, for example, the criticism that emerged when the FTC first started hinting at regulating AI. There’s a growing chorus of voices arguing that the agency might be biting off more than it can legally chew. As attorney Brian Hengesbaugh, a partner at Baker McKenzie, noted, “The FTC is signaling that they want to take a broad approach to AI regulation, but without specific laws, their actions could be vulnerable to legal challenges.” The FTC’s attempt to regulate AI through existing consumer protection laws—rather than waiting for new legislation to be passed—puts the agency on shaky constitutional ground.

This is where things get even more interesting—and potentially problematic. The recent Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA is a case in point. The ruling significantly curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without explicit congressional authorization, setting a precedent that could come back to haunt the FTC. The Supreme Court’s decision suggests that federal agencies need clear and specific mandates from Congress before they can impose new rules, especially when it comes to regulating cutting-edge technologies like AI.

So, while the FTC’s new rule might look like a strong stance against deceptive practices, it could also be seen as the agency overstepping its constitutional bounds. If the rule is challenged in court—and let’s be real, it probably will be—there’s a legitimate question about whether it will hold up in the long run. The FTC is treading into new territory, and without a solid legal foundation, its efforts to regulate AI could be seen as an overreach.

For those of us who believe in the importance of keeping the marketplace honest, this rule might feel like a step in the right direction. But it’s also a reminder that even well-intentioned regulations need to be backed by law—and right now, the legal landscape for AI is anything but settled. If the FTC wants to continue down this path, it might need to push for clearer legislative backing, or it risks having its efforts undone by the courts.

In short, while the FTC’s heavy hand on AI might be good for society, it also raises the stakes in a legal and constitutional showdown that’s just getting started. Marketers, influencers, and anyone else who thought they could skate by with a little creative dishonesty are in for a rude awakening. It’s time to get real, or get out.

Meet the Monsters of the Ad Supply Chain: Greed, Inefficiency, and Cowardice

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-20

Ok, this might get me killed by the secret advertising police, if they existed — or at least some nasty comments and slander. The advertising supply chain—what a dumpster fire. It’s like someone took the worst parts of a sketchy pawn shop and a DMV waiting line and mashed them together.

You’ve got layers upon layers of middlemen, each one more useless than the last, all feeding off the same carcass of inefficiency and greed. And the sad part?

The folks who are supposed to be the gatekeepers—yes, you, media buyers—are too scared to rock the boat.

So instead, they shuffle papers, collect their paychecks, and pretend the whole mess isn’t about to implode.

The Bloat of the Supply Chain: A Modern-Day Horror Story

Let’s talk about this monstrosity of a supply chain. Once upon a time, programmatic advertising was supposed to be the future—the streamlined, automated process that would make ad buying faster, cheaper, and more effective. Instead, it’s turned into a Frankenstein’s monster of inefficiency. We’ve got so many players involved that it’s like trying to untangle a plate of spaghetti with a pair of chopsticks. Every SSP, DSP, and TLA (Three-Letter Acronym) in the book wants a piece of the action, but all they’re really doing is selling you the same tired inventory over and over.

It’s the ad industry’s version of Groundhog Day, and we’re all stuck in the loop.

And let’s not kid ourselves—most of what’s being sold as ‘premium’ inventory is about as premium as a gas station sushi. It’s the digital equivalent of selling knock-off handbags on a street corner. You’ve got ads showing up on made-for-advertising sites that no one actually visits, buried in non-viewable placements, or spread across supply chains so convoluted you need a map and a compass just to figure out where your ad is showing up. And the worst part? The people in charge of buying this crap are too lazy or too terrified to do anything about it.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Big Lie of Transparency

Let’s start with the fairy tale everyone in the advertising world seems to love—the myth of transparency. It’s right up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, only less believable. Sure, everyone talks a good game about transparency, as if just saying the word enough times will somehow make it true. But let’s be real: transparency in the advertising supply chain is about as real as a unicorn sipping a latte at Starbucks. When it comes down to it, no one actually knows where their ads are going, who’s seeing them, or if anyone’s even paying attention. The whole thing’s like playing darts blindfolded in a pitch-black room—sure, you might hit something eventually, but you’re just as likely to end up with a dart in your foot.

But the real kicker? Everyone in the industry knows this. It’s the dirty little secret that everyone’s too scared to say out loud, because once you pull at that thread, the whole thing unravels. The moment you start asking questions, like “Where exactly did my ad dollars go?” or “Why are we paying top dollar for inventory that might as well be invisible?” you’re venturing into dangerous territory. And nobody likes dangerous territory—not when it threatens the cozy status quo that’s been lining pockets for years. So, what do the media buyers do? They pretend it’s all fine, nod along in meetings, and hope no one notices the emperor is buck naked.

Let’s talk about fear—because that’s what’s really driving this trainwreck. Media buyers are terrified of pulling back the curtain and admitting the truth: they’ve been complicit in this mess from the get-go. It’s like that scene in every horror movie where the character knows something’s wrong but decides to go into the creepy basement anyway. Why? Because facing the truth is scarier than whatever might be lurking in the dark. Admitting that the supply chain is broken would mean taking on the big players—the ones with deep pockets and even deeper connections—and that’s a battle most buyers just aren’t willing to fight. After all, who wants to be the one to say that the emperor has no clothes when everyone else is still pretending to admire his fine robes?

And let’s not forget about the money—because, at the end of the day, that’s what this is all about. The current system, as broken as it is, keeps the cash flowing. It’s a gravy train with biscuit wheels, and nobody wants to be the one to derail it. So, instead of fixing the problem, media buyers keep their heads down, cross their fingers, and keep throwing money into the fire. It’s the ultimate in willful ignorance—pretend the problem doesn’t exist, and maybe it’ll go away. Spoiler alert: it won’t.

What’s truly mind-boggling is the sheer level of denial. It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone’s too busy texting to notice the impending doom. The industry keeps talking about transparency like it’s some magical cure-all, but in reality, it’s just a buzzword that gets tossed around to make everyone feel better. Meanwhile, the same old games are being played, the same old problems are being ignored, and the same old money is being wasted. It’s a vicious cycle, and the only way out is to stop pretending that everything’s fine and start demanding real change.

Audience Curation: The Marie Kondo of Advertising

But there is a way out of this mess, and it’s called Audience Curation. Think of it as Marie Kondo for the advertising world—only instead of decluttering your closet, you’re decluttering your ad strategy. Curation is all about stripping away the layers of crap that have built up over the years and focusing on what really matters: reaching the right people with the right message at the right time.

When you curate your audience, you’re not just playing a numbers game—you’re making sure your ads are seen by people who actually care about what you’re selling. It’s like switching from a shotgun to a sniper rifle. You’re not just spraying and praying—you’re taking careful aim and hitting the target every time. By focusing on real-time data and dynamically updating your targeting, you’re not just improving efficiency—you’re unlocking new opportunities. You’re finding those hidden gems of audience segments that everyone else is missing, and you’re turning them into brand advocates.

The Benefits: Less Crap, More Connection

The beauty of audience curation is that it’s not just about saving money—it’s about building real connections with consumers. When your ads are relevant and aligned with the interests of your audience, people notice. They engage. They convert. And that’s not just good for your bottom line—it’s good for your brand.

But here’s the kicker: curation also future-proofs your strategy. The ad industry is changing faster than a TikTok trend, and if you’re not staying ahead of the curve, you’re going to get left behind. By embracing curation, you’re giving yourself the flexibility to adapt to whatever comes next, whether that’s new technology, new consumer behaviors, or new industry regulations.

The Bottom Line: Get Your Act Together

The advertising supply chain is a disaster, and everyone knows it. But instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to clean up the mess, it’s time to take action. Embrace audience curation, cut through the clutter, and start delivering ads that actually make a difference. Because if you don’t, you’re not just wasting money—you’re wasting your time. And in this business, time is the one thing you can’t afford to lose.

What Digital Marketers Need to Know About New York Attorney General’s New Website Privacy Guides for NY Consumers and Businesses

Richard B. Newman

2024-08-19

On July 30, 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the launch of two privacy guides on the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) website: a Business Guide to Website Privacy Controls and a Consumer Guide to Tracking on the Web.

The Business Guide is intended to help businesses better protect visitors to their websites by identifying common mistakes the OAG’s office believe businesses make when deploying tracking technologies, processes they can use to help identify and prevent issues, and guidance for ensuring they comply with New York law.

The Consumer Guide is intended to assist New Yorkers by offering tips they can use to protect their privacy when browsing the web, including how to safeguard against unwanted online tracking.

The OAG issued the guides following a review that purportedly uncovered unwanted tracking on more than a dozen popular websites, collectively serving more than 75 million visitors per month.

“When New Yorkers visit websites, they deserve to have the peace of mind that they won’t be tracked without their knowledge, and won’t have their personal information sold to advertisers,” said Attorney General lawyer James. “All too often, visiting a webpage or making a simple search will result in countless ads popping up on unrelated websites and social media. When visitors opt out of tracking, businesses have an obligation to protect their visitors’ personal information, and consumers deserve to know this obligation is being fulfilled. These new guides that my team launched will help protect New Yorkers’ privacy and make websites safer places to visit.”

While many websites provide visitors with information about the tracking that takes place and controls to manage that tracking, not all businesses have taken appropriate steps to ensure their disclosures are accurate and their privacy controls work as described, according to the OAG. “Most tracking on the internet relies on cookies, which are small text files created by a web browser when visiting a website. Cookies often contain an identifier unique to a user’s device which helps websites and other online services recognize the user as they click from one webpage to the next. Cookies can also be used by advertising companies to track the websites a user visits, the buttons a user clicks, and the searches a user runs, and then be used to serve highly targeted ads to that person.”

To help businesses better protect New Yorkers and comply with New York consumer protection laws, Attorney General James has launched a Business Guide to Website Privacy Controls. This new guide identifies common mistakes that businesses make and includes steps that can be taken to identify and prevent issues. The Business Guide also provides information to help businesses comply with relevant New York laws, including ensuring that the representations made about tracking, whether express or implied, are truthful and not misleading.

The Business Guide provides areas where businesses have run into trouble and tips for avoiding these issues.

In addition to a guide for businesses, Attorney General James launched a guide to help New Yorkers understand how to better protect themselves from unwanted tracking online. The OAG’s Consumer Guide to Tracking explains how website visitors are tracked, what cookie pop-ups do, and to what extent websites’ privacy controls can be relied on to protect users’ privacy.

The Consumer Guide discusses that on many websites, tracking cookies are created as soon as the first webpage loads, often before consumers have a chance to opt out. Attorney General James wants New Yorkers to appreciate that using a website’s privacy controls to opt out will not delete cookies that already exist on a consumer’s computer, including those created before a webpage visitor had the chance to opt out. “This means consumers can be tracked and targeted by personalized ads even if they seemingly opted out.”

The online privacy guides released by Attorney General James are part of OAG’s ongoing work to protect New York consumers and help businesses enhance their privacy and data security.

Attorney General James also recently issued a consumer alert to raise awareness about free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services available for millions of consumers impacted by the Change Healthcare data breach.

In March 2024, Attorney General James led a bipartisan coalition of 41 attorneys general in sending a letter to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) addressing the purported recent rise of Facebook and Instagram account takeovers by scammers and frauds. In April 2023, Attorney General James released a comprehensive data security guide to help companies strengthen their data security practices. In January 2022, Attorney General James released a business guide for credential stuffing attacks that detailed how businesses could protect themselves and consumers.

Takeaway: The Business Guide identifies numerous “unfair and deceptive practice” investigation and enforcement avoidance issues that should be considered by those that operate on the Internet, including those pertaining to: (i) uncategorized or miscategorized tags and cookies; (ii) misconfigured consent-management tools; (iii) hardcoded tags; (iv) tag privacy setting; (v) incomplete understanding of tag data collection and use; (vi) cookieless tracking; (vii) identification and prevention of problems when deploying tacking technologies; (viii) ensuring privacy controls and disclosures comply with New York law; and (ix) providing effective disclosures and easy-to-use controls, including “do’s” and “don’ts”. The Consumer Guide discusses, for example, how websites track online activity, what a cookie pop-up is, how consumers can use cookie pop-ups and how consumers can limit online tracking.

Contact the author with questions or if you require assistance with developing and implementing measures designed to comply with the New York OAG’s Website Privacy Guides.

Richard B. Newman is a digital advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP. Follow FTC defense lawyer on X.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should be construed as a complete summary or discussion of the Website Privacy Guides, and all of its obligations and restrictions. May be considered attorney advertising.

Hustle Hard, Die Fast: Lessons from the Grind

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-16

So, here’s the headline:

I’m dying.

No need for violins or those melodramatic Instagram posts with sepia-toned filters.

I’m not here to tug at your heartstrings. I’m here to give you the unvarnished truth about what it’s like to have your body turn against you in slow motion, like some twisted episode of Black Mirror. The culprit? Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Ever heard of it? Yeah, neither had I until it decided to make my life its personal demolition project.

Let’s back up for a second. For most of my life, I’ve been playing a game I didn’t even know I was in—one where my body was the underdog, and the odds were stacked against me from the start. I chalked up the constant aches, the creaky joints, and the general sense of my body being an unreliable piece of machinery to the hustle. Because, you know, that’s what we’re all supposed to do, right? Work until we break. Turns out, I was doing just that—literally.

I finally got the diagnosis: Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. A genetic condition that, in layman’s terms, means my collagen—the stuff that’s supposed to keep your body in one piece—decided to take a permanent vacation. So here I am, falling apart at the seams, and no amount of positive thinking or green juice is going to fix it. I’ve had to make peace with this reality, though, let me tell you, it’s a peace that’s often punctuated with a lot of swearing and a fair amount of bourbon.

But here’s the real gut punch: I spent most of my life chasing the wrong damn thing. While my body was busy crumbling, I was too busy grinding to notice. I wasn’t there for my kids, not really. Sure, I made the money. Paid for the Ivy League education. Harvard Med School, anyone? But my daughter and I? We’re practically strangers. I can count the meaningful conversations we’ve had on one hand—and I’d still have fingers left over.

So why did I do it? Why did I sell my soul to the devil of hustle culture, buying into that overpriced BS like it was the last avocado toast at a Silicon Valley brunch? Why did I believe that the only currency that mattered was how hard you could grind, how many sleepless nights you could endure, how many bodies you could step over on your way to the mythical “top”? Because, my friends, that’s the Kool-Aid we’ve all been guzzling for years. It’s not just about the paycheck—oh no, that would be too simple. It’s about the scoreboard, the twisted satisfaction of knowing you’re “winning,” even if it means playing dirtier than a politician in an election year.

And what are we winning, exactly? Bragging rights at the next soulless networking event where everyone’s faking smiles and checking their phones? A few extra zeros in a bank account you’re too stressed to enjoy? Hustle culture tells you that success is just one more all-nighter away, one more client crushed, one more deal closed, and if you’re not ready to sacrifice everything—family, health, sanity—then clearly, you don’t want it badly enough.

Hustle culture is the snake oil of the modern era, peddling this shiny, seductive lie that if you just work hard enough, you’ll unlock the secret to happiness, fulfillment, and everything else you ever wanted. But here’s the dirty little secret they don’t slap on the label: the grind doesn’t care about you. The grind is a merciless machine, and you’re just another cog it’s more than happy to wear down until you’re no longer useful. Then, it’ll spit you out, broken, burned out, and wondering why you ever thought that shiny lie was worth the price of your soul.

Let’s be real for a second. Do you want your legacy to be a list of jobs where you “exceeded expectations” and “increased revenue by X percent”? Is that what they’re going to carve on your tombstone? Spoiler alert: no one’s reading that crap at your funeral, because no one cares. The LinkedIn accolades you slaved over aren’t going to mean squat when you’re six feet under.

And the stats? Oh, they’re a gut punch. Seventy percent of C-level execs—the same people who preach the gospel of hustle—are secretly fantasizing about quitting for a job that doesn’t make them want to drive off a cliff every Monday morning. Forty percent of employees are so close to the edge, they’re basically living in a constant state of near-breakdown. And let’s talk about the loneliness epidemic at the top. The higher you climb on that rickety ladder of success, the more people you leave behind, until one day you look around and realize the only company you’ve got is your own exhaustion and a stack of unread emails.

That’s the prize at the end of the hustle culture rainbow: isolation, burnout, and the creeping realization that you’ve been chasing a mirage. The grind sold you a dream, and in return, it took everything that mattered. So here I am, battered, bruised, and a little bit wiser, telling you that the hustle isn’t worth the hype. Trust me, there are better ways to spend your time—ways that won’t leave you wondering, “What the hell was I thinking?” when it’s all said and done.

The worst part? Hustle culture turns you into a jerk. It’s not just about working hard—it’s about winning at all costs. I used to think nothing of putting other companies out of business, firing people without a second thought, all in the name of more money, more success, more, more, more. I was a one-man wrecking ball, and I didn’t care who got crushed as long as I was on top.

But now? Now I’m the one getting crushed, not by some competitor, but by the weight of all those years spent chasing the wrong things. I’ve tried to make amends. I’ve adopted kids from abusive families, supported a dozen more financially, tried to be the good guy for once.

But let’s be real—it’s too little, too late. You can’t buy back lost time, and you sure as hell can’t un-break the relationships you’ve shattered along the way.

So here I am, staring down the barrel of my own mortality like it’s some kind of cosmic practical joke, and all I can think is: what the actual hell was I doing?

Seriously, what was the point of all that relentless hustling, the late nights, the endless meetings, the deals that felt like life or death at the time but now seem as trivial as choosing a side salad over fries?

Was it worth it?

The money?

Sure, it paid the bills and bought some nice toys, but money isn’t much comfort when you’re lying in bed at 3 AM, wrestling with regrets.

The accolades? The pats on the back from people who wouldn’t bother to show up at your funeral? The victories that once felt so sweet but now taste like cardboard?

It’s all about as fulfilling as a politician’s promises during an election year—lots of noise, lots of fanfare, and then… nothing. The hard, bitter truth that I’ve had to choke down like a pill that just won’t go down easy is this: it wasn’t worth it. Not one bit. All that time I spent chasing what I thought was success, I was running in the wrong direction, away from the things that actually matter.

But here’s the thing about staring down death: it has a funny way of sharpening your focus, cutting through the BS, and making you realize what really counts. And maybe—just maybe—there’s still time to do something about it. Maybe I can squeeze out a little redemption, be more than just a cautionary tale that people share at networking events to scare the newbies straight. “Don’t end up like him,” they’ll say, and maybe they’ll be right. Or maybe not.

Because here’s the deal: I’m done with the hustle. That ship has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and is currently resting at the bottom of the ocean with all the other broken dreams and abandoned ambitions. Hustle culture has taken enough from me—my time, my health, my relationships, my peace of mind. I’ve paid more than my share, and I’m not willing to hand over anything else.

Now, I’m focused on taking back what I can. It’s not going to be pretty, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be easy. It’s going to be painful, awkward, and full of missteps because let’s face it—I’m not exactly a poster child for work-life balance or emotional intelligence. But I’m learning, slowly, how to walk away from the grind, how to say no to the things that drain me, and yes to the things that might actually fill me up.

I’m taking it one step at a time—sometimes it’s a stumble, sometimes it’s a crawl, and sometimes I feel like I’m moving backward. But the point is, I’m moving, and that’s something. I’m trying to reconnect with the people I love, to rebuild relationships that I let crumble while I was busy chasing the next big deal. I’m trying to find some peace in the middle of the chaos, to figure out who I am without the constant need to prove myself.

And maybe, just maybe, I’ll figure out how to live in a way that feels true to who I really am—not the version of me that was sculpted by hustle culture, but the version of me that’s been buried under all that noise and pressure for far too long. Maybe I’ll find a way to make the time I’ve got left mean something more than just another bullet point on a resume. Or maybe I won’t. Maybe this is just another experiment, another shot in the dark.

But here’s the thing: at least I’m trying.

At least I’m not going to spend whatever time I have left on this earth doing the same damn thing that got me into this mess in the first place. At least I’m not going to die with my face pressed against the grindstone, too busy to notice that life was passing me by. I’m done with that.

I’m choosing something different now, something real, even if it’s messy, even if it’s hard. Because in the end, I want to be able to look back and say, “Yeah, I screwed up, but I didn’t let it define me. I didn’t let it be the end of my story.”

FTC Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials

Richard B. Newman

2024-08-15

On August 14, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a Final Rule combatting bogus consumer reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase. The Rule allows the FTC to strengthen enforcement, seek civil penalties against violators and deter AI-generated fake reviews.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” said FTC attorney Chair Lina M. Khan. “By strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

The Rule announced on August 14, 2024 follows an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking announced in November 2022 and June 2023, respectively. The FTC also held an informal hearing on the proposed rule in February 2024. In response to public comments, the Commission made numerous clarifications and adjustments to its previous proposal.

What Does the FTC Final on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Prohibit?

The FTC Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials prohibits:

Writing, selling, or buying fake or false consumer reviews.

The Rule prohibits businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews that misrepresent they are by someone who does not exist or who did not have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the reviewers’ experience. It also prohibits businesses from buying consumer reviews that they knew or should have known made such a misrepresentation. Businesses are also prohibited from procuring from certain company insiders such reviews about the business or its products or services for posting on third-party sites, when the businesses knew or should have known about the misrepresentation. The prohibitions on buying or procuring reviews do not cover generalized review solicitations to past customers or simply hosting reviews on the business’s website. Neither will a retailer or other entity be liable for sharing consumer reviews unless it would have been liable for displaying those same reviews on its own website.

Writing, selling, or disseminating fake or false testimonials.

Businesses are similarly prohibited from writing or selling consumer or celebrity testimonials that make the same kinds of misrepresentations. The are also prohibited from disseminating or causing the dissemination of such testimonials when they knew or should have known about the misrepresentation. The prohibition on disseminating testimonials does not cover the type of generalized solicitations to past customers discussed above with respect to reviews.

Buying positive or negative reviews.

Businesses are prohibited from providing compensation or other incentives contingent on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative. Violations here include situations in which such a contingency is express or implied. So, for example, while it prohibits offering $25 for a 5-star review, it also prohibits offering $25 for a review “telling everyone how much you love our product.”

Failing to make disclosures about insider reviews and testimonials.

The Rule prohibits a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials about the business or its products or services without clearly disclosing their relationship. Businesses are also prohibited from disseminating testimonials by company insiders without clear disclosures, if the businesses knew or should have known of the relationship. A similar prohibition exists for officer or manager solicitations of reviews from their immediate relatives or from employees or agents of the business, and when officers or managers ask employees or agents to seek such reviews from relatives. For these various solicitations, the Rule is violated only if: (i) the officers or managers did not give instructions about making clear disclosures; (ii) the resulting reviews – either by the employees, agents, or the immediate relatives of the officers, managers, employees, or agents – appear without clear disclosures; and (iii) the officers or managers knew or should have known that such reviews appeared and failed to take steps to have those reviews either removed or amended to include clear disclosures. All of these prohibitions hinge on the undisclosed relationship being material to consumers. These disclosure provisions also clarify that they do not cover mere review hosting or generalized solicitations to past customers.

Deceptively claiming that company-controlled review websites are independent.

Businesses are prohibited from misrepresenting that websites or entities they control or operate are providing independent reviews or opinions, other than consumer reviews, about a category of businesses, products, or services that includes their own business, product, or service.

Illegally suppressing negative reviews.

The Rule prohibits using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation or public false accusations (when the accusation is made with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity) to prevent the posting or cause the removal of all or part of a consumer review. Legal threats are “unfounded or groundless” if they are unwarranted by existing law or based on allegations that have no evidentiary support, according to the FTC. Also, if reviews on a marketer’s website have been suppressed based on their rating or negative sentiment, the Rule prohibits that business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a portion of its website dedicated to receiving and displaying such reviews represent most or all submitted reviews.

Selling and buying fake social media indicators.

The Rule prohibits the sale or distribution of fake indicators of social media influence, like fake followers or views. A “fake” indicator means one generated by a bot, a hijacked account, or that otherwise does not reflect a real individual’s or entity’s activities or opinions, according to the FTC. The Rule also bars anyone from buying or procuring such fake indicators. These prohibitions are limited to situations in which the violator knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and which involved misrepresentations of a person’s or company’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

The Rule does not specifically refer to AI. However, according to the FTC, these prohibitions cover situations when someone uses an AI tool to generate the deceptive content at issue.

According to the FTC, case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority might not be enough to deter clearly deceptive review and testimonial practices. The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act. The Rule is intended to enhance deterrence and strengthen FTC enforcement actions.

The Rule will become effective 60 days after the date it’s published in the Federal Register.

Takeaway: The FTC will aggressively enforce the new Rule. The agency has challenged illegal practices regarding consumer reviews and testimonials for several decades. The agency has also issued guidance to help businesses to comply. According to the FTC, online marketplaces and social media companies could and should do more when it comes to policing their platforms. Consult with a seasoned FTC Endorsement Guidelines and social media influencer attorney if you are interested in discussing how the Final Rule may apply to your company, or if you are the subject of an FTC CID investigation or enforcement action. Note that any “deceptive or unfair” practice involving reviews or testimonials which the Rule does not cover is still subject to the FTC Act.

Richard B. Newman is a digital advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP. Follow FTC defense lawyer on X.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should be construed as a complete summary or discussion of the Rule and all of its obligations and restrictions. May be considered attorney advertising.

The Unfiltered Genius of Terence Kawaja: How Adtech’s Peter Pan Refuses to Grow Up

Pesach Lattin

2024-08-15

If you’ve been anywhere near the ad tech world in the last decade, you’ve probably tripped over a LumaScape—or at least heard someone throw around the term like it’s a religious text. That sacred scroll of chaos, mapping out the sprawling, byzantine world of digital advertising, is the brainchild of Terence Kawaja, or Terry, if you’re on first-name terms with him. But while most of us are still trying to figure out if that mess of logos is a blessing or a curse, Terry’s moved on to bigger and bolder things. After all, he’s the guy who’s been navigating the labyrinth of cookies, AI, and billion-dollar M&A deals with a wit as sharp as a scalpel and the guts to say what everyone else is only thinking.

Let’s get one thing straight: Terry isn’t just another suit in a sea of ad tech wannabes. He’s the guy who’s been pulling the strings behind the scenes for years, orchestrating over $300 billion in transactions with the kind of ease most of us reserve for online shopping sprees. But despite his towering influence, Terry remains refreshingly down-to-earth—cracking jokes about power washing his patio and binge-listening to 70s workout playlists while casually discussing the intricacies of antitrust cases and the impending death of cookies.

Terry’s journey into ad tech royalty wasn’t a straight shot. He started out in investment banking, where he cut his teeth on some of the biggest deals of the early 2000s, including the colossal AOL-Time Warner merger. It was the largest deal in the world at the time, a $183 billion behemoth that made headlines for all the wrong reasons. But for Terry, it was more than just a notch on his belt—it was a turning point. “I negotiated the largest M&A fee in history at the time, $60 million,” Terry recalls. But instead of riding that wave to Wall Street immortality, he did something that left his colleagues scratching their heads: he quit. “Three months after announcing AOL-Time Warner, I announced my resignation from the firm,” he says. “Everyone said, are you smoking crack? Like, dude, you’re set up for life now. But I was bored.”

Boredom is a dangerous thing for a guy like Terry. It’s what drives him to take risks, like jumping into the chaotic world of startups at the turn of the millennium. “I joined a company as a CFO, took it public, and that was great for a while,” he says. But then the dot-com bubble burst, and Terry’s new venture came crashing down with it. “I had to become a public company CFO. I had to write all the analyst presentations. Then I had to restructure the business. I had to fire one of the co-founders, who later turns out was sexually abusing four different women at the company.” It was a brutal learning experience, but one that Terry doesn’t regret. “What I’ve decided doesn’t work for me is passing on an opportunity and watching someone else less qualified make a quarter of a billion dollars. That is razor blade and sleeping pill time.”

Terry Kawaja’s ability to see the big picture in the tumultuous ad tech landscape is what makes him a formidable force. He’s not just navigating the game; he’s often the one drawing the map. Back in 2009, he didn’t just create the LumaScape as a marketing gimmick—it was a lifeline for an industry drowning in its own complexity. “The LumaScape in its current manifestation was 2009,” Terry recalled, noting that he had been charting companies since 2005. But the turning point came in 2011 when the Wall Street Journal came knocking. “I had this light bulb idea: Landscape, LumaScape, I’ll put my brand in it. It’s going to be awfully hard for others to copy if my company’s name is actually the name of the product,” Terry explained. That single decision not only cemented the LumaScape’s role in the industry but also made it inseparable from his brand.

The LumaScape wasn’t just about slapping a name on a chaotic industry—it was about bringing order to the chaos. But for Terry, this was just the beginning. Over the years, he’s watched ad tech balloon into a beast of its own, not always in ways he might have hoped. “This industry is like Peter Pan,” Terry remarked, pointing out its refusal to grow up. The frustration in his voice is clear as he talks about the endless fragmentation and the numerous middlemen who siphon off profits without contributing real value. “When an SSP has a 20% margin, and DSP has a 20% margin, and a verification company has a 20% margin… it’s no wonder the ad tech tax exists,” he said, cutting right to the heart of the issue.

Terry’s critiques are sharp, and they don’t stop at surface-level observations. He’s acutely aware of the industry’s reluctance to face reality. The complex ecosystem, with its layers upon layers of players each taking their cut, has led to the much-discussed ad tech tax—a burden that falls squarely on the shoulders of brands and publishers. The numbers don’t lie, and Terry knows that unless the industry grows up and starts addressing these inefficiencies, the cost of doing business in ad tech will only keep rising.

Despite the challenges, Terry remains an influential figure, one who is not afraid to speak truth to power. His vision has always been ahead of the curve, and he’s not one to back down from challenging the status quo. The LumaScape, for all its notoriety, was never just about mapping the industry; it was about forcing it to confront its own complexities and inefficiencies. Terry’s light bulb moment back in 2011 was just one example of his ability to see beyond the immediate and to shape the narrative in a way that compels the industry to take a hard look at itself.

And then there’s Google, the 800-pound gorilla in the room that Terry has been keeping a close eye on for years. Google’s cookie deprecation saga is a perfect example of the company’s power—and its ability to keep the industry on edge. “Lucy keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Brown,” Terry quips, comparing Google’s endless delays to a classic Peanuts gag. “But let’s be honest, cookies are largely going away. So all of those efforts towards data collaboration, whether it’s clean rooms or alternative identities or contextual targeting solutions, that is not wasted.”

But while Terry might seem like he’s got it all figured out, he’s not above poking fun at himself—or the industry. When asked about his wildest, craziest prediction for the future of ad tech, he doesn’t miss a beat: “Google will be found guilty of antitrust in the ad tech case commencing in September.” And if that sounds like a joke, it’s not. Terry is dead serious about the challenges the industry faces, from antitrust issues to the impending death of cookies to the rise of AI and its potential to revolutionize targeting. “At the end of the day, interest is better than demographics,” he says. “I think technology will help lead the way.”

Terry’s take on the state of the industry might seem bleak, but it’s not without hope. He believes in the power of consolidation, in the idea that fewer players doing higher volumes at lower take rates with better quality is the way forward. “I think if you think of the fact that there are over 5,000 companies in ad tech, 95% of them will go out of business,” he says, matter-of-factly. “It just takes a long time because they’re getting a piece of ad spend.”

But if you think Terry is all business, think again. The guy knows how to unwind, and he’s got some surprising guilty pleasures. “Power washing while listening either to a podcast or a 70s workout playlist is so satisfying,” he admits with a grin. “I also love creating comedy. Creating is my happy place. I love thinking about a problem and how do I ideate it? How am I going to give a message about this using that in a way that’s humorous?”

That sense of humor is a big part of what makes Terry so effective—and so beloved in the industry. He’s the kind of guy who can drop lines like, “Exit large or die trying,” and make it sound both profound and hilarious. He’s unfiltered, unapologetic, and absolutely fearless when it comes to speaking his mind. “When I’m wrong and I know I’m wrong, I’m quick to apologize,” he says, his Canadian politeness shining through. “But I don’t believe in packing the audience so they’ll laugh for you. The fuck is that? I get no signal out of that.”

Terry Kawaja isn’t just your run-of-the-mill wisecracker; he’s the kind of guy who’ll drop a joke that makes you spit out your coffee, and then, before you’ve even wiped your chin, he’s already five steps ahead, plotting the next billion-dollar deal. When he says, “I like comedians that make people laugh, but also manage to do something else. There’s some other message, usually substantive,” he’s not just talking about stand-up routines—he’s laying down the blueprint for how he lives and breathes business. For Terry, a joke without substance is like a donut without the filling—what’s the point? He’s always looking to mix the sweet with the serious, making sure every laugh is laced with a deeper message that sticks with you long after the punchline.

In the high-stakes, cutthroat world of ad tech, where most folks are just trying to stay afloat, Terry’s the guy who’s not just swimming—he’s doing laps around everyone else while reading the fine print. He’s got this knack for seeing beyond the noise, cutting through the BS, and finding that hidden gem of truth that everyone else missed. It’s like he’s playing 4D chess while everyone else is still figuring out the rules to checkers. Whether he’s ripping apart the latest industry buzzword or putting together a strategy that makes you wonder if he’s got a crystal ball stashed somewhere, Terry’s always digging deeper, searching for that extra layer of meaning that turns the ordinary into something extraordinary.

And this isn’t just some artsy-fartsy philosophy; it’s the secret sauce that’s made Terry a force to be reckoned with. While others are content with surface-level success, Terry’s the guy who’s drilling down, going for the gold buried beneath. He knows that in a world full of smoke and mirrors, it’s the substance that counts—the real meat beneath the sizzle. And that’s why he’s not just another talking head in a suit; he’s the guy who’ll make you laugh, make you think, and, just when you least expect it, make you realize he’s already won the game.

So, what’s next for Terence Kawaja? More charts? More billion-dollar deals? More power washing? Probably all of the above. But one thing’s for sure: he’s not done yet. Whether he’s cracking jokes or making bold predictions, Terry is a guy who’s always thinking, always pushing the boundaries, and always ready for whatever comes next.

In the end, Terry’s story is one of grit, intelligence, and an unshakeable belief in the power of honesty—both with himself and with the world around him. He might be ad tech’s Peter Pan, but he’s also its guiding star, leading the way through the chaos with a smile, a joke, and a mind that’s always two steps ahead.

1...567...1,257 Page 6 of 1,257

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

Pesach Lattin - 2025-01-15 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 - 2025-01-07 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 - 2025-01-07 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 - 2025-01-07 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 - 2025-01-07 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...

UrbanObserver

UrbanObserver

ADOTAT

Attention Fans Speak Up

Attention Metrics: The Darling or the Dud?

Can Curation Truly Save Us, or Are We Just Drinking the Kool-Aid?

🎮 Breaking Down the Game Plan: What Even Are Video Game Ads?

💰 Show Me the Money: A $100 Billion Power-Up

🎯 Who’s Playing the Game? A Quick Demographic Dive

🛒 Shopping While Shooting: The Evolution of In-Game Purchases

📱 Mobile Gaming: The Jackpot No One’s Cashing In On

🚀 Advertisers Are Starting to Get It—Sort Of

❤️ But Those Who Love It, Really Love It

🎮 Loading… Advertisers Prepare for an Omnichannel Assault

⚡ It’s All About the Metrics, Baby

🏁 The Final Level: What Comes Next?

The Cookie Conundrum: Google’s Big “Never Mind”

Scale and Surveillance: The False Gods of Ad Tech

A New Paradigm: Topic Intelligence

The Gendered Battlefield of Ad Tech

Trust: The Future of Ad Tech Leadership

Final Thoughts: A Message to Her Younger Self

A Journey Through Frustration: The Ad Experience from Hell

The FAANG Illusion: Why Netflix’s Success Is a Double-Edged Sword

Half-Baked and Ill-Prepared: The Ad-Supported Tier’s Growing Pains

Leadership Shakeups and Programmatic Pitfalls: Is Netflix Losing Its Way?

CTV: Not Your Grandma’s Political Ad Strategy

Nevada’s Demographics: A Diverse Playground Where Precision is King

CTV’s Game-Changer Status: Proven and Powerful

Origin’s Secret Sauce: Slingshot

The Bottom Line

The Bigger Picture: The FTC’s Heavy Hand on AI Raises Concerns

The Bloat of the Supply Chain: A Modern-Day Horror Story

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Big Lie of Transparency

Audience Curation: The Marie Kondo of Advertising

The Benefits: Less Crap, More Connection

The Bottom Line: Get Your Act Together

What Does the FTC Final on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Prohibit?

Writing, selling, or buying fake or false consumer reviews.

Writing, selling, or disseminating fake or false testimonials.

Buying positive or negative reviews.

Failing to make disclosures about insider reviews and testimonials.

Deceptively claiming that company-controlled review websites are independent.

Illegally suppressing negative reviews.

Selling and buying fake social media indicators.

Must Read

About Us

Follow Us