Category: Adtech

Posted on

The AdTech Wizard of Odds: Gareth Holmes on Streaming Ads, Helicopters, and Unleashing Sweden’s Secret Sauce 

Adtech is often described as a wild west, but Gareth Holmes makes it sound more like Cirque du Soleil—complete with flaming chainsaws, gravity-defying stunts, and a standing-room-only audience. 

As VP of Strategy Media at SeenThis, Gareth isn’t just navigating the chaos; he’s orchestrating it with the flair of a conductor leading a symphony of algorithms. SeenThis, known for its adaptive streaming technology, has carved out a niche by making ads faster, greener, and frankly, a lot less annoying. Forget static images or bloated video downloads; Gareth’s approach is part eco-revolution, part Jedi mind trick—and entirely effective.

“Streaming Ads Are the Filet Mignon of Formats”

In the smorgasbord of digital advertising, Gareth says streaming ads are the filet mignon, while static images and vast downloads are the equivalent of last week’s cold fries. But what makes these ads so irresistible? Enter adaptive bitrate streaming, a technology that Gareth explains with the kind of geeky enthusiasm you’d expect from someone who compares his work to Spotify’s seamless playback.

“Remember the old days of iTunes?” Gareth asks, conjuring memories of waiting for an ABBA song to download before the party could start. “With adaptive streaming, you hit play, and it just works—because the file is delivered in smaller data packets, not one giant lump.” For brands like Evian, this means ads that play instantly, boosting click-through rates by 152% and slashing CPMs by 36%. Oh, and did we mention the 325 kilos of emissions avoided? SeenThis doesn’t just save your data plan; it saves the planet.

Lazy Meets Paranoid: Why Isn’t Everyone On Board?

Despite the glowing stats, not everyone in the ad industry is rushing to embrace streaming ads. Gareth says the reluctance boils down to an industry-wide case of “lazy meets paranoid.” Agencies, already swamped with deadlines, are hesitant to learn something new, even if it’s as simple as swapping static for streaming. “There are no technical hurdles,” Gareth insists. “It’s a tag-based system that fits right into existing workflows. The real challenge is convincing people to think outside their display-and-video silos.”

This inertia, he argues, is why the ad world moves at the speed of molasses. “People are risk-averse by nature. They wait to see if someone else tries something first, and only jump in once it’s proven not to blow up the internet. It’s frustrating but understandable.”

Sweden’s Secret Sauce

Why does a Swedish company like SeenThis succeed where others flounder? Gareth has a theory: “People trust the Swedes. Sweden doesn’t start wars. It doesn’t cause problems. We show up with IKEA-level simplicity and Viking-level innovation.” That trust translates into less friction when pitching new ideas. Gareth’s method is hilariously straightforward: “We literally hand over a phone and say, ‘Here’s your old vast download, and here’s our streaming version. Watch the difference.’” It’s hard to argue with results you can see.

Manipulation or Evolutionary Brilliance?

Let’s talk about the psychology behind streaming ads, which Gareth describes as “catnip for our lizard brains.” Humans are hardwired to notice movement—it’s a survival mechanism. “If something moves, we look. Streaming ads capitalize on that by starting instantly. If an ad takes two seconds to load, we’re already scrolling past it.”

But this isn’t just about tapping into primal instincts. Gareth rattles off a list of evolutionary quirks that make ads effective:

  • Color Psychology: Red signals urgency; blue evokes calm.
  • Storytelling: We’re suckers for a good narrative.
  • Social Proof: Show popular people using your product, and the herd will follow.
  • Pattern Recognition: Consistency across platforms builds trust.

It’s not manipulation, Gareth insists, but alignment with human behavior. “Ads are meant to encourage action. If they didn’t, what’s the point?”

Static Ads: Dead or Just on Life Support?

Static ads, Gareth says, are running out of time. “I think that they’re pretty much done depending on where in the funnel and such like. But sometimes there are places where you cannot get a video to play in online advertising. If you can get a static and there’s an ad server behind it, then you can stream a video to it as well. So really, I would say anywhere online or an app, I think the days of static ads are absolutely limited.”

But while static ads are fading, Gareth warns against the dangers of going overboard with motion. “I think over-busy is not going to impress anybody, but you use movement to grab the attention and then resonance to hold it,” he explains. For him, it’s all about balance: too little movement and your ad gets ignored; too much, and you risk frustrating your audience.

This balance, Gareth suggests, is the future of online advertising. Movement grabs attention, but it’s resonance—the emotional or contextual connection—that keeps viewers engaged. Static ads might not be extinct yet, but in an industry evolving as rapidly as ad tech, their days are unquestionably numbered.

Zoomers, Boomers, and the Art of Equal Opportunity Brain Hacking

When asked who’s most susceptible to streaming ads, Gareth points to Gen Z and younger audiences. “I think research shows Gen Z or younger audience who are more likely predisposed to be attracted by the movement, given the usage of social and the fact that terms like doom scrolling come from somewhere. So they’re constantly doing it,” he explains.

But movement isn’t just limited to younger audiences. “Movement grabs pretty much all of us equally, but there are some where movement will work slightly better,” he adds, identifying tech-savvy consumers, event-goers, and families with younger kids as key groups that are more engaged by motion-driven advertising.

The Moral Compass in Ad Tech’s Chaos

Ad tech, Gareth says, is like an unregulated finance sector masquerading as a digital playground—equal parts exhilarating and precarious. “The lack of regulation allows innovation to thrive, but it also means we’re relying on relationships and trust, not rules,” he explains, painting a picture of an industry where handshake deals and mutual respect carry as much weight as any written contract. This freedom, while fertile ground for creativity, also demands a steady moral compass—a rarity in a landscape that’s often blurrier than a 3 a.m. drunk text.

So how does Gareth keep himself anchored in such a whirlwind? For him, it all comes down to his upbringing. “I grew up in a military family where humility, honesty, and loyalty weren’t just values—they were expectations,” he says, crediting those lessons for shaping his approach to life and leadership. His early years instilled a no-nonsense ethos that’s both refreshing and disarming in an industry known for its jargon and spin.

When it comes to leadership, Gareth is unequivocal: it’s not about barking orders from a pedestal but about rolling up your sleeves and leading by example. “Leadership, for me, is about servitude,” he says, referencing a principle he lives by. “If serving is below you, leading is beyond you.” This isn’t just lip service; Gareth actively practices what he preaches, emphasizing collaboration over command and demonstrating that true influence comes from action, not authority.

But it’s not always easy to walk the line between ambition and integrity, especially in an industry that thrives on disruption. Gareth admits that the temptation to cut corners or bend the rules can be strong, but he relies on those foundational values—humility, honesty, loyalty—to steer him in the right direction. “It’s not about perfection; it’s about consistency,” he says. For Gareth, staying grounded means treating every interaction, whether with a colleague or a client, as an opportunity to build trust and foster mutual respect.

In a world where the pressure to innovate can sometimes overshadow the importance of ethics, Gareth’s approach is a reminder that success doesn’t have to come at the expense of integrity. By staying true to his principles and prioritizing service over self-interest, he’s managed to carve out a path in ad tech that’s as grounded as it is forward-thinking. For Gareth, the real magic lies in balancing ambition with authenticity, proving that even in the chaos of ad tech, a steady compass can guide you to greatness.

From Math Geek to Ad Tech Maverick

Gareth’s career began in New Zealand, where he left school at 15 and joined the military at 16. After a decade of service, he stumbled into ad tech—a world he initially found baffling but ultimately irresistible. His big break came during the rise of programmatic trading, which he credits with giving “math geeks” like himself a seat at the table. “It wasn’t all shiny suits and flash lunches anymore. It became about solving problems with data and strategy.”

When he’s not juggling ad tech jargon, Gareth lives a surprisingly low-tech life on a farm in New Zealand. “I don’t have neighbors. I just look at the stars and relax.” His one indulgence? Flying helicopters. “It’s hilariously fun and forces you to focus 100%—no time for work stress up there.”

Lessons from a Lifetime

If Gareth could step into a time machine, he’d have a very pointed conversation with his younger self—one that involves a lot of listening and a heavy dose of humility. “You’ve got two ears and one mouth. Use them proportionally,” he’d say, in the kind of tone that suggests he’s learned this the hard way. His teenage self might have scoffed at the idea, but Gareth insists that staying in school would have opened up a world of possibilities. “I left at 15 because it was the easy way out. At the time, I thought I was being clever. In reality, I was just avoiding the challenge.”

And that decision lingers in his mind, not with regret exactly, but with a sense of missed opportunity. “I’d probably be an astrophysicist by now if I’d stuck with it,” he admits, revealing a lifelong fascination with the mysteries of the universe. It’s not just a whimsical idea; it’s on his bucket list to pursue someday. That dream, however, got detoured by a winding career path that wasn’t without its hiccups—and one particular misstep still makes him laugh today.

Picture this: a young, confident Gareth managing a not-insubstantial PPC budget for a telecom giant. Armed with enthusiasm but lacking the nuance of experience, he decided to run a campaign from a pub one afternoon. “I thought I knew what I was doing. I didn’t.” The result? He burned through the entire quarterly budget—hundreds of thousands of pounds—in just a few hours. The kicker? He didn’t even realize the scale of the disaster until it was too late.

“It was one of those moments where you look back and think, ‘What on earth was I doing?’” he says, chuckling now at what was, at the time, a monumental failure. The mistake wasn’t just financial; it was a wake-up call about overconfidence and the importance of asking questions. “I learned that knowing how to do something doesn’t mean you know how to do it well. If you’re not willing to admit what you don’t know, you’re setting yourself up for failure.”

These lessons—hard-earned and occasionally painful—are the foundation of Gareth’s approach today. They’ve taught him the value of preparation, humility, and a willingness to listen, not just to others, but to the situations that demand more thought than bravado. And while he may laugh about that infamous PPC debacle now, it’s clear that the wisdom gained from it continues to guide him.

Closing Thoughts

Gareth Holmes isn’t just an ad tech innovator; he’s a walking contradiction—a math geek with the soul of a philosopher, a military man who preaches humility, and a farm boy who’s reshaping the future of advertising. His advice to the industry is simple: Embrace the chaos, stay true to your values, and never stop innovating. Oh, and maybe invest in a neon-green jet ski—it’s a great way to ride the waves of change.

Posted on

Catalina Salazar: The #martech Dynamo Turning Wolt Into a Retail Media Juggernaut

If retail media were a chess game, Catalina Salazar would be the queen—commanding the board, making bold moves, and turning every play into a checkmate. As the Global Head of Wolt Ads, she’s not just playing the game; she’s rewriting the rules, and frankly, the competition doesn’t stand a chance.

Wolt started as a Finnish food delivery app, but thanks to Salazar’s adtech sorcery, it’s now a full-blown local commerce powerhouse, bridging merchants, brands, and customers with the finesse of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat. But Catalina’s story doesn’t begin with Wolt—it spans continents, industries, and more reinventions than Madonna’s career.

From Colombia to Conquering the Wolt

Catalina’s career is a masterclass in global domination. Starting as a software engineer in Colombia, she soon realized her talents belonged on a bigger stage. She packed her bags for Australia, where she led digital performance marketing teams and built her reputation as someone who doesn’t just follow trends—she creates them.

Then it was off to the UK, where she served as the Global Digital Media Director for Dentsu, juggling global campaigns like they were nothing more than to-do lists. Feeling the pull of her roots, she returned to Colombia to head up Dentsu’s commerce operations across LATAM. But it was her stint at Rappi, the Latin American super-app, where she truly hit her stride, crafting programmatic retail media products and launching partnerships with over 100 global brands.

By the time she joined Wolt, Catalina wasn’t just experienced—she was battle-tested. “At Wolt, I lead global adtech product and business development, creating tools for merchants and brands to connect with consumers effectively,” she explains. “It’s about driving true business performance and value from their retail media budgets.” Translation: she’s the one making sure your ad spend actually works.

Retail Media: The New Gold Rush

Retail media is the hot new playground, and everyone wants a piece. But while others are fumbling around with outdated playbooks, Catalina is running the show like a maestro with a baton. “The biggest trend I observe is the increasing leverage of first-party data sets as media solutions,” she says. This isn’t just limited to retail anymore—healthcare, finance, and other industries are all jumping on the bandwagon.

But Catalina’s no starry-eyed dreamer. She knows this gold rush comes with challenges. “This trend presents a fragmented landscape for brands, with new providers and solutions emerging daily, complicating budget allocation,” she notes. Yet where others see chaos, she sees opportunity. “Technology companies have the chance to step in and help brands navigate this fragmented market.”

Her approach is simple but groundbreaking: keep it fair, keep it smart, and make sure it works. Wolt Ads doesn’t charge merchants for ad impressions or clicks—it only takes a cut when those ads drive actual sales. “We’re about results, not promises,” she quips. It’s a model that’s as revolutionary as it is practical—kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet that only charges you for what you actually digest.

AI and Machine Learning: Catalina’s Secret Weapons

For Catalina, AI and machine learning aren’t just buzzwords—they’re the lifeblood of modern advertising. “AI facilitates the automation of digital creatives, scalable messaging for different segments, and real-time data insights to optimize campaigns,” she explains. At Wolt Ads, machine learning ensures that ads hit the right people at the right time.

“We use machine learning to personalize top placements, ensuring the most relevant audience sees the product,” she says. “It’s like matchmaking, but instead of dinner and awkward conversation, you get sales and customer satisfaction.”

AI is also Catalina’s answer to the cluttered digital marketplace. “Maintaining a consistent brand presence in top positions across touchpoints is critical,” she says. Her advice? Pair premium placements with personalized promotions to break through the noise.

The $50,000 Lesson

Even the most brilliant careers have their hiccups, and Catalina is no exception. Early in her career, she oversaw a billing change that cost her agency $50,000. “It was a facepalm moment,” she admits, “but it taught me the importance of checking in with the team during unfamiliar tasks.”

That experience shaped her leadership style. Today, Catalina is all about communication and accountability. “When you’re managing a team, it’s your job to make sure everyone’s on the same page,” she says. “Mistakes happen, but it’s how you bounce back that matters.”

What’s Next for Wolt Ads?

Catalina isn’t just running Wolt Ads—she’s scaling it faster than a startup founder with a fresh round of funding. Over the next 12 months, she plans to expand Wolt Ads across Europe and beyond, refine their AI-driven solutions, and forge partnerships with global brands.

“We’re not just scaling; we’re elevating,” she says. “Our focus is on creating seamless, omni-channel experiences that connect brands and consumers in meaningful ways.”

Her ultimate goal? To make Wolt Ads synonymous with retail media done right. And if her track record is anything to go by, she’ll get there—and make it look easy.

Catalina’s Playbook for Success

What does it take to thrive in the cutthroat world of marketing and advertising? Catalina has a few ideas:

  1. Know Your Stuff: “The industry changes faster than a TikTok trend. If you’re not learning, you’re losing.”
  2. Get Creative: “Innovation isn’t optional; it’s survival. Find new ways to stand out.”
  3. Crunch the Numbers: “Data isn’t just numbers—it’s the story of your success. Learn to read it.”
  4. Speak Up: “Good ideas are useless if you can’t sell them. Communication is key.”
  5. Bounce Back: “Mistakes happen. Learn from them, grow, and come back stronger.”

Why Catalina Matters

Catalina Salazar isn’t just a leader—she’s a trailblazer. Whether it’s leveraging first-party data, mastering AI, or reshaping retail media, she’s always ahead of the curve. And in an industry where standing still is the kiss of death, that’s exactly where you want to be.

“We’re at a tipping point,” she says. “The brands that adapt will thrive, and the ones that don’t? Well, they’ll be the Blockbusters of adtech.”

With Catalina at the helm, Wolt Ads isn’t just keeping up—it’s setting the pace. And in the race to dominate retail media, that’s all that matters.

Posted on

Streamlined or Screwed? The Real Cost of Curation for Publishers

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

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

Publishers Aren’t Buying It (Literally or Figuratively)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google to the Rescue (Kind of)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lipstick on a Programmatic Pig

David Nyurenberg: Cutting Through the Curation Noise

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

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

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

The Case for Self-Directed Curation

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

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

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

Cutting Through the Hype

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

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

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

SSPs and the Trust Deficit: When the Middlemen Go Rogue

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

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

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

Spoiler: they notice.

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

Data Hoarding: The Black Box Problem

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

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

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

The Hidden Costs of Complexity

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

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

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

Fixing the Trust Deficit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

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

Posted on

Can Innovid Turn Its Adtech Aspirations Into Actual Profits, or Is It Just Playing in the Sandbox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Scope3 and Adloox Just Crashed IAS and DoubleVerify’s Party—And They Brought Green Receipts

Scope3 just shook up the ad tech world by acquiring Adloox, the scrappy French ad verification company that’s been quietly chipping away at fraud, wasted impressions, and low-viewability placements. For a market dominated by IAS and DoubleVerify, Scope3’s move isn’t just a headline—it’s a strategic punch in the face of inefficiency. “Advertisers using our sustainability solutions have not only lowered their carbon emissions but have also found their campaigns perform with greater efficiency and effectiveness,” Scope3 proclaimed in their announcement. Translation? This isn’t just about saving the planet—it’s about saving budgets, too.

Scope3, which has built its reputation on sustainability solutions like Climate Shield and Green Media Products (GMPs), now has even more firepower. With Adloox’s tech integrated into their ecosystem, they’re tackling the dirty side of advertising: impressions no one sees, invalid traffic (IVT), and carbon waste. “Any impression that is being served but not seen by a human has a carbon impact,” Scope3 pointed out, adding, “and we believe it is important to incorporate this into our sustainability offering.”

Here’s the kicker: Adloox’s tools don’t just make ads greener—they make them smarter. Fraud detection, viewability improvements, and reducing invalid traffic mean advertisers can finally stop throwing their money into the digital void. Every ad not seen by a human doesn’t just hurt ROI; it leaves a carbon footprint. Scope3 is ensuring those wasted impressions get the boot.

From Underdog to Industry Disruptor

Adloox may not have the household name recognition of IAS or DoubleVerify, but it’s been punching above its weight for years. Integrated into major platforms like Meta, Amazon Ads, DV360, and The Trade Desk, it’s also prebid-enabled—a rare advantage that allows advertisers to plug it into campaigns with minimal fuss. “DV360 hasn’t opened up prebid access to third parties in years,” an insider said. “The fact that Adloox has it is a big deal.”

This isn’t just a technical upgrade for Scope3; it’s a massive leap forward. It’s like going from selling artisanal cheese at a farmer’s market to landing a deal with Walmart, Amazon, and Target all at once. Advertisers can now access Scope3’s green halo without wading through endless contracts or onboarding headaches.

The Moat-Sized Gap

Let’s not forget that the ad verification world has been feeling a little stale lately. IAS and DoubleVerify have ruled the roost, but with Moat’s recent demise, the market was ripe for disruption. “The market needed an alternative to IAS and DoubleVerify to ensure healthy competition,” one industry insider noted, and Scope3 is stepping up to fill that gap. Adloox’s years of experience, combined with Scope3’s sustainability expertise, create a formidable challenger.

Adloox’s tools are no joke, either. They’ve been accredited by the Media Rating Council (MRC) for visibility and fraud measurement—a critical badge of legitimacy in an industry built on trust. This pedigree is especially important as the ad world shifts its focus to carbon measurement. Scope3’s integration with Adloox positions them as a leader in this new frontier.

Making Green Media the Norm

For Scope3, this isn’t just about shaking up the ad verification space—it’s about changing the rules of the game. The recent ANA report on media sustainability found that brands achieved the greatest carbon reductions by using always-on green media products, not by tinkering with static inclusion or exclusion lists. Scope3 echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that their Climate Shield and GMPs are designed to go beyond surface-level solutions. This is sustainability with teeth.

And let’s talk business. Advertisers have been slow to jump on the sustainability train because, let’s face it, saving the planet doesn’t always align with saving money. But Scope3’s approach ties carbon reduction to performance. By cutting out waste, they’re proving that green media isn’t just ethical—it’s profitable.

What’s Next?

Adloox customers won’t see any disruption in service, but they will benefit from Scope3’s added resources. “Over the coming quarters, the Scope3 and Adloox teams will be working to integrate our technology and teams with the aim to make practicing sustainability in media and advertising easier and more valuable for all participants,” Scope3 explained. That’s corporate-speak for: expect even more tools to make your campaigns greener, smarter, and more efficient.

The timing couldn’t be better. With organizations like the WFA and Ad Net Zero pushing for global carbon measurement frameworks, Scope3 is poised to lead the charge. They’re not just keeping up with the industry—they’re defining it.

The Bottom Line

Scope3’s acquisition of Adloox isn’t just another deal—it’s a statement. By combining carbon reduction with ad performance optimization, they’re showing advertisers that sustainability isn’t a burden—it’s an advantage. If you’re still burning cash on ads that don’t get seen, you’re not just wasting your budget; you’re wasting the planet. Scope3 and Adloox are here to put an end to that.

The message is clear: green media isn’t the future—it’s the present. And Scope3 just turned the dial up to 11.

Posted on

Is Integral Ad Science About to Be KKR’s New Cash Cow? Or Just Another Adtech Trophy?

Picture this: Integral Ad Science (IAS), the stalwart of ad verification, is sitting pretty as KKR – private equity’s favorite cash-cow whisperer – comes calling, ready to lay down a stack of cash for one of adtech’s crown jewels. But make no mistake: this isn’t just another random buyout; this is a strategic move, one that could give KKR a foothold in the ad industry that’s spent the last decade making privacy and security look like afterthoughts. The question isn’t just “Will they?” but “Why now?” And perhaps more importantly: “What’s the exit strategy?”

IAS: The (Very) Public Gatekeeper of Ad Safety
Let’s set the scene here. IAS, which is publicly traded, has made its fortune (and name) as a digital bouncer, keeping the riffraff out and ensuring your ad isn’t getting cozy next to conspiracy theories, fake news, or, God forbid, low-quality traffic. This isn’t some fluffy “nice-to-have” add-on; in a world where ads can end up just about anywhere, IAS is the watchdog making sure brands don’t find themselves listed under “Content That Shall Not Be Named.” And with ad fraud ballooning faster than an influencer’s follower count, IAS’s role has become essential.

KKR knows this and, apparently, wants in. For IAS, going private could mean fewer quarterly calls and a little more room to maneuver away from the prying eyes of Wall Street. But what’s KKR’s game? Because, let’s face it, IAS doesn’t come cheap, and KKR doesn’t buy just to sit back and admire. No, they’re looking at IAS as a cash machine in an industry desperate for brand safety.

KKR’s Master Plan: The Need for a Digital Bodyguard
Ad verification has shifted from a nice-to-have to a non-negotiable for every brand with a digital presence. KKR sees this as a chance to pick up one of the most trusted badges of quality in the industry, a solid reputation for cutting through the sludge of programmatic ads. Think of IAS as digital deodorant for brands, ensuring they don’t stink up the internet by appearing on shady sites or next to dubious content. KKR, by swooping in, can capture a lucrative market where everyone from insurance companies to sneaker brands will pay top dollar to ensure they’re seen and not smeared.

And let’s not kid ourselves. KKR isn’t buying IAS because they suddenly fell in love with brand safety. They’re in it for the return – in other words, the big “flip.” After all, once you’ve built IAS up as a juggernaut of ad quality, that cash-out button starts to look pretty tempting. KKR’s playbook often involves making something bigger, stronger, and more “marketable” before they sell it to the next in line.

This Isn’t Just About IAS—It’s About Surviving in Adtech
IAS becoming a private equity darling is like a siren song for every adtech player worth their weight in CPMs. If IAS sells, the smaller players in ad verification and brand safety will start scrambling for survival, either banding together or lining up for their own buyout deals. We’re talking consolidation, where only the biggest, baddest, most well-funded can last. With IAS, KKR can push smaller players into the shadows, essentially monopolizing the market’s “quality control” badge.

In adtech’s mess of automation and algorithms, the industry has gotten bloated and murky, with too many intermediaries offering “solutions” that only add more links to an already over-stretched chain. By owning IAS, KKR isn’t just buying into brand safety; they’re buying into a new kind of power – the kind that could potentially clean up this mess by cutting through the low-value middle layers that advertisers are tired of funding.

But Here’s the Kicker – Will IAS Get the Support it Needs or Just Become Another Trophy?
For KKR, there are two paths forward: make IAS the indispensable core of every ad budget, or slap some fresh branding on it and toss it to the highest bidder in a few years. If they’re smart, they’ll invest in the technology to make IAS even more essential – maybe develop better fraud detection, audience metrics, the whole nine yards. In doing so, they might just build the powerhouse that adtech desperately needs to keep itself in check. But if KKR sees IAS as just a quick flip, then all the promises of “investing in ad quality” will be about as empty as a clickbait ad.

What Happens If This Deal Actually Closes?
If KKR does acquire IAS, expect a ripple effect. With IAS’s resources supercharged, brands could have a real shot at reclaiming control over where their ads show up, possibly even tightening the purse strings on who can access quality ad placements. This means IAS could do more than just verify; it could start setting new standards. Brands won’t just be buying safety; they’ll be buying the closest thing adtech has to a guarantee that they’re getting what they pay for.

And don’t be surprised if, once IAS starts raking in profits under the KKR umbrella, we see more private equity players sweeping in to gobble up the next best thing in ad verification. IAS could go from watchdog to standard-bearer, and KKR’s stamp on it would signal that big money sees value in keeping ad dollars honest.

The Final Take: IAS as KKR’s New Cash Machine or a Real Game-Changer for Adland?
Look, IAS and KKR aren’t your typical star-crossed lovers. This is a business move, pure and simple. IAS could get the funding and freedom to innovate outside the constraints of public scrutiny, or it could just become another “asset” for KKR to spin and sell. For the industry, though, it’s a big deal. If KKR can turn IAS into the brand safety juggernaut we all want, it’ll be the start of a new era in adtech, where quality control isn’t just a buzzword but a baseline. If they can’t, well, it’s just another chapter in adland’s endless struggle with fraud, fragmentation, and fickle private equity tastes.

So stay tuned, because if KKR actually goes through with this, IAS could either go big on brand safety or just become a high-priced “mission accomplished” for KKR’s shareholders. Either way, this is one deal that’s worth watching – for better or for worse.

Posted on

Audience Lists: The Ad World’s New Best Friend and Your Latest Digital Stalker

Ever felt like an ad was so on-point it gave you goosebumps? You scroll past one too many kitchen remodel videos, and suddenly your feed is flooded with farmhouse sink ads, high-end Dutch ovens, and cutting boards that cost more than your mortgage. That’s advanced audience targeting at work, my friend. These ads aren’t just “targeted”; they’re precision-guided missiles, meticulously crafted to tap into your every want and weakness. And behind this marketing sorcery? The all-powerful audience list—a modern marvel of adtech and data-driven wizardry that knows exactly how to keep your attention, whether you like it or not.

Audience lists have rapidly become digital marketing’s most valuable asset. Forget age and gender; today’s brands want the down-and-dirty details. Think: which podcasts you listen to, your recent purchases, and even what kind of coffee you like. As Jay Baer, founder of Convince & Convert, aptly put it, “Understanding the nuances of your audience list can significantly enhance your engagement metrics.” Jay’s not talking fluff here—he means that every little tweak, every detail you refine, can lead to better engagement, more clicks, and yes, more of your cash in their pockets.

Advanced Audience Targeting: Because Basic Demos Are So Last Decade

Back in the day, marketing was like tossing spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck. You’d get a few wins, sure, but most of it just slid off into the ether. Today, it’s all about precision—no more hoping and praying that the right people see the ad. Now, brands use advanced audience lists to define exactly who they want to reach. And this isn’t about simple demographics; it’s profiling to the nth degree. Think “eco-conscious suburban moms who love hiking” or “Gen Z gamers obsessed with ramen.” Suddenly, ads aren’t just reaching anyone; they’re crafted to hit like a laser-guided missile aimed at you.

Neil Patel, co-founder of Crazy Egg, gets it. “Segmenting your audience lists allows for more personalized and effective marketing strategies,” he says, and he’s right. By slicing and dicing these lists, brands aren’t just shooting into the dark. They’re aiming with sniper-level precision, getting their message in front of exactly the right eyeballs and upping their chances of a sale.

The Data Trifecta: First-Party, Second-Party, and Third-Party Data

To create these hyper-specific audience lists, marketers use a three-course meal of data, each more savory (and invasive) than the last. Here’s the breakdown:

  • First-Party Data: The cream of the crop, collected straight from the source. Every click, every chatbot conversation, and every “sign up to get 10% off your next order” scheme feeds this data monster. Brands who control their own first-party data have a serious edge, as Ann Handley, Chief Content Officer at MarketingProfs, reminds us: “Building and maintaining a robust audience list is crucial for delivering targeted content that resonates.” She’s not wrong—there’s no middleman here, just a straight line from the consumer to the brand, making it easier to hone in on exactly what makes customers tick.
  • Second-Party Data: For those brands who can’t collect their own data, this is the next best thing. Essentially, it’s just another company’s first-party data, traded or purchased through a partnership. Imagine a soda company teaming up with a grocery store chain to get insights into who’s buying what. Pam Moore, CEO of Marketing Nutz, has some advice here: “Regularly refining your audience lists helps in adapting to changing consumer behaviors and preferences.” She’s got a point—getting stale with your data is like trying to make soup from last week’s leftovers. Keep it fresh, or prepare to lose your audience.
  • Third-Party Data: The least loved (but still useful) kid on the block. Collected by, well, pretty much anyone and everyone who can gather consumer data, this type is sold to the highest bidder. With new privacy regulations and cookie-less browsing gaining steam, though, this data source is on thin ice. Rand Fishkin, co-founder of Moz, offers a reality check: “An updated and well-maintained audience list ensures your outreach efforts are both efficient and impactful.” With third-party data, accuracy is everything—no one wants to pay top dollar for insights from 2017.

The (Not-So-Secret) Sauce: Targeting Precision

This next-level precision isn’t just about making people buy; it’s about knowing who’s watching and how they’re going to react. Marketers have gone from a scattershot approach to something more like mind-reading. And as Larry Kim, founder of WordStream, puts it, “Leveraging audience lists effectively can lead to higher ROI in your marketing campaigns.” ROI—it’s the holy grail of marketing, and with audience lists, brands are cashing in like never before.

Enter the world of lookalike audiences. Got a list of die-hard vinyl fans who shop exclusively on Etsy? You can build a list of lookalikes, people who share the same vinyl-loving, Etsy-shopping traits, and expand your audience to reach fresh customers who are almost guaranteed to fall in love with your brand. Heidi Cohen, Chief Content Officer at Actionable Marketing Guide, keeps it real: “Audience lists are not static; they require continuous attention to remain relevant and effective.” It’s not a set-it-and-forget-it deal; these lists need regular tweaks to keep up with shifting trends.

Audience Targeting Invades Traditional Media—For Better or Worse

While advanced targeting started online, it’s been slowly infiltrating traditional media too. Connected TV (CTV), free ad-supported TV (FAST), and data-driven linear channels are giving broadcasters new ways to deliver more tailored messages. Digital media might have the precision advantage, but traditional channels are catching up, promising to meet the demands for personalized ads even on grandma’s favorite soap operas.

As Michael Brenner, CEO of Marketing Insider Group, puts it, “A dynamic audience list is the backbone of any successful content distribution strategy.” Gone are the days of carpet-bombing entire demographics with generic ads. Whether you’re streaming the latest drama or catching a game, brands want to make sure you feel that ad was made just for you (even if it’s really just a profile built on 80 million data points).

Privacy and Identity Solutions: The New Frontier of Data

With cookies on their way out and privacy regulations coming down hard, brands are getting creative. Enter privacy-focused identity solutions, which allow companies to maintain audience insights without the creep factor. Techniques like hashing emails make sure no one’s identity is compromised while still letting advertisers do their thing.

Seth Godin, the OG of permission marketing, couldn’t be clearer: “Permission marketing starts with a well-defined audience list that trusts you to deliver value.” In today’s privacy-first world, that trust is gold. Publishers finally have a chance to directly capitalize on their email lists, creating valuable audience segments without needing Google’s blessing.

Advanced Audience Lists: The Real MVP of Digital Marketing

Audience lists aren’t just a random collection of names—they’re a treasure trove of insights that help brands connect in a way that feels almost intimate. Joe Pulizzi, founder of the Content Marketing Institute, drives it home: “Investing time in curating your audience list pays dividends in audience loyalty and conversion rates.” Curated and fine-tuned, these lists go beyond traditional ad metrics. They offer brands a chance to form genuine connections with consumers who feel seen and understood.

Neil Patel, co-founder of Crazy Egg, sums it up well: “Segmenting your audience lists allows for more personalized and effective marketing strategies.” As audience lists continue to evolve, they aren’t just guiding who sees the ad but are reshaping the entire relationship between brands and consumers.

So, next time you’re served an ad that feels creepily on-point, remember: behind that campaign is a meticulously curated audience list, a vault of data, and a marketer who’s spent hours poring over every last detail about you. Audience lists aren’t just the future—they’re here, they’re powerful, and they’re here to stay.

Posted on

Audience Store & AudienceProject: Finding Viewers Even After They Cut the Cord

In a bold (and overdue) move, Audience Store has teamed up with AudienceProject to supercharge incremental reach for TV advertisers. This partnership is all about corralling the so-called “cord-cutter” crowd, using an arsenal of data to locate and engage viewers who’ve ditched linear TV in favor of OTT and CTV. If you’re wondering what incremental reach even means, buckle up—this isn’t your grandpa’s advertising jargon.

So, What’s Incremental Reach?

In advertising speak, reach is simply the number of unique viewers a campaign engages. Think of it as your baseline: if 100 million people in the coveted 18-to-49 demographic are out there, but only 80 million of them are still glued to linear TV, that leaves a big chunk of the audience on CTV or OTT platforms, streaming away in peace. Incremental reach is the cherry on top, capturing that 20 million of “untapped” viewers who are beyond linear TV’s grasp. For brands, it’s the difference between reaching most of their audience and reaching all of their audience.

AudienceProject’s measurement tech does the heavy lifting here, merging Barb data with digital impression data to figure out exactly where incremental viewers are hanging out—and how often they’re watching. The real kicker? This setup lets Audience Store offer advertisers true frequency capping across CTV platforms, so those viewers aren’t hammered with the same ad over and over until they hit “unsubscribe” out of sheer exasperation.

Why Is Incremental Reach a Big Deal?

For one thing, the rise of cord-cutting isn’t just a trend; it’s an avalanche. According to eMarketer, U.S. non-pay-TV households have already surpassed 51 million, with projections saying they’ll outnumber traditional pay-TV households by 2024. The more people bail on cable, the more essential it is for brands to shift from linear-only campaigns to multi-platform strategies that capture viewers across every screen. In other words, the days of blasting ads to a captive living room audience are over. Now, it’s about fishing where the fish are.

Nielsen’s latest data puts streaming at 25% of total TV usage—a figure that’s only climbing as streaming services churn out endless content. For advertisers, this shift means that a linear-only campaign risks missing a solid chunk of the audience. By marrying traditional TV and CTV with a precise incremental reach strategy, brands can get a 360-degree view of their reach and—hopefully—their relevance.

The Audience Store & AudienceProject Power Couple

Audience Store’s Targetcast, already a top-tier CTV solution, is getting a major upgrade. With this partnership, advertisers now have access to a supercharged campaign strategy, complete with enhanced pre-campaign planning and post-campaign analysis that digs deep—not just showing overall reach but breaking down incremental lift. As Jon Hewson, CEO of Audience Store, puts it: “Teaming up with AudienceProject is a strategic move that elevates Targetcast, enabling us to give advertisers a precision toolkit for maximizing audience reach and engagement.”

And in a quote that is clearly, very much fake, Hewson didn’t actually say, “With AudienceProject, we’re practically putting our ads on hoverboards—they’ll zoom right to where the viewers are.” He totally should have however.

Now, advertisers can get hyper-specific about reach, engagement, and ad frequency, with tools designed to avoid the notorious “ad fatigue” that has viewers reaching for the “skip ad” button. AudienceProject’s tech lets Audience Store clients deduplicate across Barb and impression-level digital data, helping advertisers see the real impact of their campaigns and avoid wasted spend on redundant impressions.

Paul Barnard, Managing Director at AudienceProject, captures the essence of the collaboration: “Our mission is to empower advertisers to capture their full audience, not just a fraction. Partnering with Audience Store lets us take that mission further, giving advertisers a true bullseye approach with every campaign.”

Why This Matters for Advertisers

This partnership isn’t just a footnote—it’s a signal flare to the industry that the one-size-fits-all ad strategy is as outdated as cable. With incremental reach, brands don’t just spray and pray; they target and resonate. As more viewers bail on linear TV and turn to on-demand content, the brands that master incremental reach will be the ones that win in today’s fragmented media landscape.

For advertisers clinging to linear campaigns: you’ve been warned. Incremental reach is the new battleground, and brands that don’t jump in will find themselves behind, left wondering where all their viewers went.

Posted on

Sweet Dreams and Sour Deals: How White-Noise Apps Are Playing Advertisers

In a twist that would make even the most seasoned insomniac sit up, white-noise apps—the digital lullabies meant to soothe us into slumber—have become the latest playground for ad fraudsters. According to a recent exposé by DoubleVerify, cyber tricksters are turning these calming soundscapes into cash-grabbing machines, siphoning off advertising dollars through elaborate schemes with charming names like “BeatSting” and “FM Scam.”

White-noise apps have surged in popularity, with nearly 200 articles in the past year hyping up everything from “Ocean Waves” to “Deep Sleep for Kids.” But behind these tranquil facades, fraudsters are playing advertisers like a bad lullaby. The setup is as simple as it is sinister: fake streaming data, spoofed IP addresses, and counterfeit servers trick advertisers into paying for ads that never reach a single human ear. It’s like shelling out premium CPMs for a midnight snack in a dream you didn’t even sign up for.

This isn’t the first time fraudsters have exploited seemingly benign apps. Back in 2019, cybersecurity firm HUMAN uncovered “Poseidon,” an ad fraud scheme where over 40 Android apps openly committed multiple forms of fraud. And this wasn’t a one-off—it evolved into “Charybdis” in 2020 and later into “Scylla,” impacting 89 apps with a staggering 13 million downloads from the Google Play and Apple App Stores.

Then there was “Vastflux,” a scheme that compromised about 11 million devices by loading multiple video ads in sneaky layers using spoofed apps and malicious JavaScript. Imagine your device under a barrage of invisible video ads stacked like an endless deck of cards, all thanks to sophisticated fraudsters running a racket that most users would never see.

The latest white-noise fraud case fits right into this pattern. Take the infamous “Deep Sleep” and “Deep Sleep for Kids” apps. On the surface, they appear like perfect sleep aids, each with over 10,000 downloads. But DoubleVerify found they’re more “Deep Fraud” than “Deep Sleep,” pumping out phony impressions with the precision of a seasoned scam artist. While genuine white-noise apps peak at night, when people are actually asleep, these apps suspiciously spike during the day—a blaring red flag that something wasn’t right.

The financial implications are nothing short of staggering. Throughout 2023 and 2024, dozens of apps have been pulling off this trick, with unprotected advertisers unknowingly buying over 45,000 fake impressions per app every month. Even at a conservative CPM rate of $5, that’s at least $225,000 per app per month—money that could’ve supported real developers but instead went straight into the pockets of con artists.

In a totally fictional quote, DoubleVerify CEO Mark Zagorski probably didn’t say, “Ah, yes, the cutting edge of ad fraud—babbling brooks and soothing rain sounds. Who knew bedtime ambiance would be the new frontier of cybercrime? Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if my own meditation app starts muttering ‘Pay up, sucker’ between om chants. At this rate, ad fraud will soon include charging for dream impressions.” Zagorski didn’t actually say this, of course, but if he had, who could blame him?

This cozy racket underscores the desperate need for advertisers to implement real verification on their audio streaming buys. Otherwise, they’re just throwing money into the comforting void of “sleep sounds.” Next time you hear “ocean waves” on your favorite app, remember: that relaxing noise might just be the sound of your ad budget quietly slipping away into oblivion.

Posted on

Tired of Your Ads Showing Up Next to Clickbait? IAS Just Made Programmatic Less Embarrassing.

Digital ads are a little like confetti—thrown around in every direction with the hope some of it lands somewhere meaningful. But what if you had a way to ensure your brand’s confetti didn’t end up in the gutters of the web, next to clickbait, conspiracy theories, or other advertising black holes? Enter IAS Curation, brought to you by Integral Ad Science (IAS) and Google Ad Manager—a pairing on a mission to sanitize programmatic buys and make them a whole lot smarter.

With IAS Curation, advertisers now have a tool to ensure their ads don’t just fly into the digital abyss. Instead, these ads find prime spots alongside quality content—think of it as the ultimate VIP pass in the crowded chaos of programmatic. No more rolling the dice on where your ad will appear; IAS Curation uses sophisticated predictive science to screen and categorize pages in advance, helping brands pinpoint high-quality, brand-suitable inventory and avoid the swamp of MFA (Made-for-Ads) content and other clutter that makes every media planner groan.

IAS’s Chief Product Officer, Srishti Gupta, didn’t hold back on just how much this move matters: “Brand suitability and contextual relevance are top priorities for programmatic buyers who are looking to avoid wasting ad spend on poor quality inventory such as MFA or ad clutter.” And that’s not just corporate jargon—Gupta’s talking about saving marketers from having their hard-won budgets dumped into low-grade inventory, where the ROI is roughly the equivalent of pouring dollars down a digital drain.

So how exactly does IAS Curation work its magic? The platform leverages some serious AI chops, using natural language processing to create an assembly line of quality checks that weed out unsuitable content. When it comes time to place those precious ads, IAS Curation acts as the gatekeeper, allowing only top-tier, contextually relevant pages through. Advertisers get peace of mind knowing their ads aren’t sidling up to dubious articles or distracting layouts—this is high-tech matchmaking, ensuring every ad lands where it should.

And in case you’re wondering, this isn’t IAS’s first tango with Google. Earlier this year, IAS flexed its muscles on YouTube, expanding brand safety and suitability measurement to cover Google’s Performance Max and Demand Gen campaigns. Even in the past year, IAS has rolled out its Total Media Quality (TMQ) metrics for YouTube Shorts, giving advertisers a foothold on the platform and another layer of control over where their ads appear.

To the cynical onlooker, this might sound like another jargon-packed promise, but think about it: advertisers are tired. They’re exhausted from playing whack-a-mole with ad placements, trying to sidestep the sea of poorly-lit digital back alleys that swamp their brand with irrelevant clicks and fake views. IAS Curation provides a breath of fresh air—offering global advertisers the chance to pre-customize and enrich inventory before it ever hits their buying platform. In other words, you’re not just getting inventory; you’re getting inventory that’s handpicked, pre-approved, and a cut above the usual programmatic fare.

One industry insider quipped (totally fictional, but you know it’s true): “If IAS Curation were a dating app, it would be one where your ad actually lands a date with the prom king or queen—no more blind dates with those MFA trolls.”

The reality is that this is the new gold standard in programmatic buying. By combining brand safety, contextual targeting, and high-quality inventory into a streamlined process, IAS and Google are setting the bar high. For marketers, this isn’t just about performance; it’s about peace of mind. And in a world where “programmatic” often means “throw it in and hope it sticks,” IAS Curation brings precision, protection, and maybe a bit of pride back into the game.

So, here’s to a future where ads actually show up where they should and brands don’t have to wonder what they’re getting for their money. With IAS Curation, you’re not just buying ad space—you’re buying a top-shelf experience. Now, go forth and curate, because, let’s be honest, it’s about time programmatic cleaned up its act.

Posted on

Why Programmatic CTV Still Feels Like a Fyre Festival for Advertisers

Imagine this: you’re three episodes deep in a binge, and a perfectly timed ad pops up, tempting you with something you didn’t even know you needed. That’s the dream of programmatic CTV—advertising that is as seamlessly woven into our favorite shows as it is creepily precise. But here’s the thing: programmatic CTV is a lot like the infamous Fyre Festival.

It’s been hyped to the high heavens, but whether it will ever deliver on its promise or leave us stranded in ad-tech chaos remains to be seen.

Why Advertisers Are Hooked on CTV’s Potential

CTV (Connected TV) has burst onto the scene with all the swagger of a big-budget blockbuster. The idea is tantalizing—combine the reach and lean-back ease of traditional TV with the data-rich targeting of digital ads, and you get CTV, a channel that’s both brand-safe and interactive. And with a major chunk of ad budgets predicted to shift to CTV over the next couple of years, it’s clear that advertisers are buying into the promise. They see CTV as a solution for capturing audience attention while integrating seamlessly into omni-channel campaigns, delivering messages wherever viewers may roam.

However, there’s a catch. While CTV may boast the “perfect” blend of real-time benefits and brand safety, the industry isn’t exactly running smoothly. Right now, programmatic CTV is more pipe dream than practical reality, and if the industry doesn’t tackle fundamental issues around transparency, inventory quality, and the dreaded “ad tech tax,” we could see the same frustrating patterns that plagued digital advertising rear their heads again.

The Programmatic CTV Hype: An Illusion of Simplicity?

In its early days, programmatic advertising fundamentally changed digital media by automating the buying and selling of ad space. Initially, ad networks dominated, providing centralized platforms where advertisers could purchase digital real estate across multiple websites. However, this process was clunky, and advertisers often found themselves paying for impressions with no guarantee of reaching their target audience. With the introduction of Real-Time Bidding (RTB) in the mid-2000s, this all changed. RTB allowed advertisers to bid on ad impressions on the fly, dynamically valuing each impression based on the user’s profile and context. This transition from bulk to individual impression buying was groundbreaking, allowing brands to achieve unprecedented precision and efficiency and turning programmatic into a vital part of any digital strategy.

As RTB and programmatic matured, DSPs and SSPs (demand- and supply-side platforms) became essential, bridging the gap between advertisers and publishers. DSPs enabled advertisers to place bids on ad impressions across a network of publishers, while SSPs helped publishers manage and optimize ad sales. Ad exchanges connected the two, allowing advertisers and publishers to buy and sell ad space in a real-time auction environment. This setup brought transparency, scalability, and control over campaign metrics, turning programmatic into a $100 billion industry.

Fast forward to today’s CTV landscape, and programmatic faces a different challenge. Unlike the near-endless inventory of digital display, CTV ad slots are limited and fiercely competitive. The allure of programmatic in CTV stems from its potential to bring the same scalability and targeting precision as digital, but the stakes are higher. Where display ads are served on countless sites, premium CTV real estate is much more scarce, and viewers are more engaged. While display ad spending in programmatic is at 91%, premium video only captures about 21%, largely due to CTV’s intricate ad structure and scarcity of inventory.

This dynamic has led to direct deals and programmatic guaranteed (PG) becoming the main modes of operation in CTV. PG deals and upfronts offer a degree of stability and predictability for publishers and advertisers alike, ensuring premium ad placement but limiting transparency and pricing flexibility. The emerging role of open real-time bidding (ORTB) in CTV, therefore, is to provide more competitive pricing and better fill rates by dynamically valuing impressions as inventory fluctuates. However, challenges remain: transparency is limited, and the biddable CTV ecosystem is still young and, in many ways, struggling with growing pains similar to digital’s early programmatic days.

Playing Second Fiddle: Why Programmatic Still Can’t Beat Direct Deals

The reason programmatic CTV hasn’t fully taken off boils down to an entrenched reliance on direct deals and Programmatic Guaranteed (PG) buys, which dominate due to their predictability and the safety net they offer for both buyers and sellers. PG deals, a form of programmatic direct buy, guarantee a set price and impressions, allowing advertisers to secure quality placements with minimal risk.

However, this safety comes at a cost: the rigid, pre-negotiated nature of these deals limits transparency, a sticking point for advertisers who often find themselves in the dark about exactly which content their ads run against until after the fact.

While open real-time bidding (ORTB) could address some of these issues by creating a more dynamic and transparent auction environment, its adoption remains niche within the CTV ecosystem. ORTB is widely seen as more transparent and scalable than traditional insertion orders (IOs), but most CTV ad inventory is still locked up in PG and upfront deals. Consequently, ORTB often ends up handling the “scatter” inventory—ads left over after the main slots are filled, which lacks the prestige of prime-time content. This limits the reach and appeal of ORTB, making it less attractive to brands looking for high-quality, predictable placement options.

Compounding the issue, programmatic CTV suffers from structural limitations that go back to the legacy of direct IO models, where publishers controlled ad placements without providing pre-transaction transparency. Today’s PG deals carry similar limitations: although they are highly efficient, they still sidestep the flexibility and transparency ORTB promises. In theory, ORTB should help publishers optimize yield by competing in an open market, but without widespread adoption or support from major CTV publishers, its impact remains limited. Additionally, as live and sports programming on CTV grows, programmatic options like ORTB could better monetize these dynamic events, but they are still overshadowed by the dominant PG deals and upfront commitments.

Overall, while ORTB offers potential for a more scalable, transparent programmatic CTV market, it’s not a complete solution. The current landscape favors fixed, high-return PG agreements over the flexibility and transparency ORTB could provide, highlighting that the dream of seamless programmatic CTV is still far from a reality.

The Reality Check: Inventory Quality and the “Ad Tech Tax”

CTV advertising promised premium, uninterrupted, “lean-back” experiences for users, but programmatic CTV hasn’t always delivered on this. The inventory issue is central to the problem: on paper, CTV inventory appears premium, but in reality, it can include ad placements in apps or contexts not traditionally associated with television—think “fireplace apps” or dating apps projected onto the family’s big screen. This “unintentional” inventory can result in misplacement, diluting the brand’s image and leaving advertisers skeptical of the value behind CTV’s high CPM rates. Recent steps, like the TV by OpenX initiative, aim to clean up these classification issues by excluding non-TV content (like gaming and user-generated material) from CTV inventory pools, which could help increase buyer confidence by ensuring that ad placements align with expected viewer experiences.

Transparency is another point of contention. Unlike digital display ads, where ad space seems infinite, CTV has a capped inventory, which demands high standards for user experience. However, the additional costs of brand safety and viewability checks—referred to as the “ad tech tax”—pile up quickly. For some advertisers, these costs can double what they’d expect from a “transparent” ad buy, prompting questions about programmatic CTV’s promised efficiency. Additionally, the complexities of server-side ad insertion (SSAI) and the use of identifiers like IP addresses or app IDs create tracking challenges, making it difficult to ensure ads reach the intended audience. The IAB’s efforts with guidelines like VAST 4.1 and projects to improve SSAI transparency are aimed at clarifying these aspects and ensuring inventory quality and measurement accuracy across CTV platforms.

In an attempt to improve transparency and quality, companies are also using technologies like Demand Path Optimization (DPO) to shorten the supply chain. DPO helps publishers minimize third-party involvement, ensuring ad slots are filled by vetted buyers, reducing safety risks, and enhancing ROI. Nonetheless, while initiatives like these may address some transparency issues, CTV’s reliance on intermediaries still complicates supply clarity. Consequently, the sector continues to face structural barriers that make seamless, efficient, and premium programmatic CTV inventory feel like a work in progress rather than a reality.

Let’s be real: the industry’s “truth” about programmatic advertising is a rare commodity. Too many so-called “journalists” are dancing to the tune of ad dollars, skewing facts to paint an idealized picture of the ecosystem. The adtech media landscape is rife with sponsored narratives that hide the gritty reality behind programmatic CTV’s issues—think opacity, ballooning fees, and low-quality inventory. When the biggest names in the industry are bankrolling the stories, it’s no surprise that glowing reviews outshine genuine critiques. If you want the raw, unvarnished truth about CTV and programmatic, you’ll need to dig deeper than industry-approved headlines.

Getting There: Programmatic Needs to Evolve

To make programmatic CTV more than just a buzzword, several critical reforms are essential. First up: inventory categorization. Right now, programmatic CTV allows premium content to sit alongside low-value apps, creating an ad experience that ranges wildly in quality and purpose. Initiatives like TV by OpenX+ are attempting to tackle this by removing non-TV content and making sure “CTV” actually means CTV. Without this, advertisers could end up paying premium prices for placements that are far from the high-quality streams they expect.

Measurement is another can of worms. Advertisers need consistent and independent verification to see exactly where their dollars go, but walled gardens—looking at you, Roku and Samsung—limit transparency by keeping data behind closed doors. This has been a pain point across the industry, with only a handful of platforms starting to adopt open measurement. Standards like IAB’s Open Measurement SDK, which tracks viewability across devices, are part of the solution but need wider adoption for true transparency. As it stands, current measurement systems often show only a partial view of campaign performance, making it tough for advertisers to understand or optimize the impact of their ads on CTV.

Lastly, the viewer experience is vital if CTV hopes to thrive. Viewers have come to expect an immersive, lean-back experience on streaming platforms, but programmatic ads—often repetitive, poorly timed, and irrelevant—undermine this. Quality control is key; ad placements should feel native to the streaming experience, not awkward intrusions from an unrelated platform. Studies show that ad relevance and timing are critical to maintaining engagement, and without these, the whole medium risks a massive viewer drop-off.

For CTV to reach its potential, the industry needs to align on quality and transparency, blending TV’s viewer-friendly setup with digital’s precision—if not, programmatic CTV may continue to struggle.

Scatter Market and the Rise of Biddable CTV

As CTV grows, so does the scatter market, which essentially sells unsold inventory outside the upfronts. It’s a convenient fallback, giving publishers a chance to monetize unused inventory and allowing advertisers to buy leftover slots at market rates. With live events and sports growing in popularity on CTV, expect to see more scatter inventory available through ORTB. But there’s a caveat: scatter inventory can be hit-or-miss, and advertisers must be prepared to do their homework.

Programmatic, particularly biddable CTV, is becoming the “new scatter,” giving buyers dynamic pricing options and the flexibility to respond to live audience shifts. But this approach still has transparency gaps and quality control issues, particularly when dealing with multiple sellers who may share inventory rights. It’s not uncommon for streaming services, TV manufacturers, and distributors to all sell the same ad slot in the same content, leading to high frequency and cluttered experiences for viewers. Buyers want better control and need DSPs and SSPs to work toward a more reliable supply chain.

Will Programmatic CTV Make It?

So, is programmatic CTV the next frontier, or are we kidding ourselves? Right now, it feels more like the Wild West than a well-oiled machine. Yes, programmatic CTV has huge potential, but it’s saddled with legacy issues that make it a far cry from the ideal we’ve been sold. The allure is real, but so are the growing pains. Programmatic CTV is a powerful tool, but until the industry cleans up its act, it’ll remain a flashy but flawed solution, plagued by transparency issues, pricing inefficiencies, and quality control headaches.

The dream of seamlessly targeted CTV ads isn’t dead, but let’s not pop the champagne just yet.

CTV has all the makings of an advertising juggernaut, but for now, it’s a work in progress—an experiment at the mercy of a fragmented and often opaque ad tech landscape. Whether it ever becomes a reality worth celebrating remains to be seen.

For now, advertisers, publishers, and tech providers will have to decide: is programmatic CTV worth the hype, or just another pipe dream we’ve been chasing in the endless pursuit of the “perfect” ad placement?

Posted on

The TVOS Wars: Roku’s Reign, Rivalries, and the Art of Losing Grip on Your Own Kingdom

The so-called “TVOS Wars” might sound like something George Lucas would’ve dreamt up in his heyday, but make no mistake—this isn’t a Star Wars sequel. The battlefield? Our living rooms. The players? Roku, Samsung, Amazon, and, trailing behind with style but fewer wins, Apple TV. The prize? A multibillion-dollar market for programmatic Connected TV (CTV) advertising, which, according to eMarketer, will hit $28 billion in the U.S. alone by the end of this year. It’s a gold rush, and everyone wants their pickaxe in the pile. So why is Roku, the long-reigning monarch of CTV, suddenly finding its crown slipping?

Roku’s Tumble: A Crowded Field or an Empty Throne?

Pixalate, a watchdog for CTV ecosystems, recently unveiled their third-quarter 2024 report, and, well, let’s just say Roku’s numbers tell a story of a kingdom on the defensive. Roku’s share of the North American market took a nosedive, dropping from 53% last year to a not-so-comfortable 37%. Samsung trails at a distant but ambitious 17%, while Amazon Fire TV made a head-turning leap to 15% with a 40% growth year-over-year. Apple TV, always more about aesthetics than ad heft, is flexing its muscles too, growing by 63% to an 11% share.

“The CTV market expanding,” as Pixalate’s VP of Platform Growth & Research, Tyler Loechner, notes, is a polite way of saying Roku’s not the only show in town anymore. Loechner also commented that the likes of Samsung and Amazon are “catching up” after lagging in ad strategy. Translation: while Roku basked in its own glory, the other platforms were out getting smart and getting competitive.

Latin America Loves Roku, but EMEA Says, “Hard Pass”

Roku’s stronghold isn’t entirely crumbling. In Latin America, Roku’s a bona fide sensation, capturing a whopping 50% of the CTV ad market share—a stark contrast to its 28% last year. Samsung trails here too, but not without bruises, losing a startling 47% of its SOV year-over-year.

The real showdown, however, is in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA). Here, Samsung reigns supreme, grabbing 30% of the market, with Amazon Fire TV, LG, TCL, and even Sony taking larger chunks than Roku’s meager 5% share. A far cry from its North American dominance, where Roku commands over a third of the open programmatic CTV ad market.

And the shifts are seismic. In EMEA, Samsung’s share shot up 52%, cementing it as the top dog, while Amazon and Roku both took a backslide. “Samsung maintains strong competition through its broad international reach,” says Omdia’s Maria Rua Aguete. Meanwhile, Roku’s EMEA standing looks like an afterthought at best—a blip on the radar of a market it can’t quite crack.

Amazon Fire and Apple TV: Roku’s Unlikely Archrivals

While Roku enjoys its North American throne, it’s got a few wolves at the door. Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV aren’t just gunning for more eyeballs; they’re crafting ad strategies that make Roku’s once-formidable lead look shaky. Amazon grew its market share by 40% in North America, and Apple TV by a cool 63%, meaning they’re taking viewers Roku probably once thought were lifers.

Add to this that CTV ad spend is set to double over the next few years, and it’s clear that Roku’s sitting on a very appealing target. Samsung, for one, is eyeing that target with the intensity of a cat on a mouse hunt, planning to more than double its revenues from CTV ads, from $1.35 billion this year to $3 billion by 2029. Meanwhile, Roku is projected to rake in $5.1 billion by then, but who’s to say Samsung, Amazon, or even Walmart’s newly acquired Vizio won’t disrupt that narrative?

And Then… Roku Dropped the Ball (Or Rather, the Metrics)

So, with all this at stake, how does Roku respond? By taking a page out of Netflix’s playbook, but without Netflix’s finesse. During their recent earnings call, Roku threw a curveball by announcing they’d stop reporting on streaming household metrics—effective immediately. This announcement came on the heels of what should have been a record-breaking moment: their first billion-dollar revenue quarter, a 16% increase in total revenue, and an 82% leap over Wall Street’s expectations on net income. Wall Street should’ve been singing Roku’s praises. Instead, they dropped Roku stock by 13%. Why? Because Roku announced the reporting change like they were declaring a snow day—no heads up, no slow rollout. Investors, naturally, were left feeling blindsided.

For comparison, Netflix announced a similar change, but with a full year’s lead time. By the time the reporting shift hit, Wall Street had already digested the news, resulting in a 12% stock jump on positive earnings. Roku, on the other hand, did it out of nowhere, resulting in headlines like, “Roku Q3 Earnings Top Estimates, Company to Stop Reporting Streaming Households Metric.” More than half of those words spell out “Bad News.”

“Roku controls 50% of CTV households in the U.S.—an enormous advantage in the world’s biggest ad market,” media cartographer Evan Shapiro pointed out in a recent LinkedIn post. But as Shapiro put it, “Roku is REALLY BAD at framing its results.” He’s not wrong. For all Roku’s success, it lacks Netflix’s mastery in corporate obfuscation, resulting in self-inflicted stock stumbles.

Enter: The Trade Desk, Taking the Fight Directly to Roku

If the existing contenders weren’t enough, here’s another potential disruptor: The Trade Desk. The advertising tech giant is setting its sights on creating its own operating system, which could reshape the CTV landscape entirely. With The Trade Desk’s OS, advertisers could reach audiences more directly, potentially bypassing Roku, Samsung, and Amazon altogether. The Trade Desk’s move isn’t just about participating; it’s about redefining the playing field itself.

In essence, The Trade Desk’s strategy acknowledges a core frustration in the industry: the lack of cross-platform, audience-centric ad buys that are both scalable and measurable across multiple CTV providers. Roku’s market share doesn’t seem as unassailable when a tech behemoth steps into the ring with a plan to provide an OS that would make it easier, cheaper, and more effective for advertisers to reach their target audiences.

Roku’s entire value proposition—to serve as the gatekeeper to North American audiences—gets called into question when The Trade Desk offers a new path to those same viewers.

So, What’s Next in the TVOS Wars?

In the big picture, Roku’s dominance isn’t guaranteed. With programmatic CTV ad spend climbing 23.3% this year to $24 billion, and upfront TV ad deals now representing nearly half of all CTV spend, the stakes are higher than ever. If Roku wants to keep winning, it’ll need to master the game of corporate strategy—and maybe take some PR lessons from Netflix while they’re at it. Otherwise, Samsung, Amazon, and even Walmart’s Vizio could find ways to eat into Roku’s lunch.

Or, as Shapiro cheekily suggests, maybe Roku just needs to get better at messaging. After all, what good is a kingdom if you can’t convince Wall Street to buy into it? Stay tuned, because in the TVOS Wars, the only constant is that everyone’s ready to backstab their way to the top.

Posted on

Sprinkling Fairy Dust on CTV Ads: When Artificial Intelligence Meets Artificial Results

Connected TV (CTV) advertising was hyped as the marketer’s latest shiny toy—a seamless fusion of creativity and data-driven precision, all orchestrated by the ever-mystical artificial intelligence (AI).

The pitch? Hyper-targeted ads that not only know what you want but also when you want it, blending so smoothly into your favorite shows that you’d swear they were part of the plot.

The reality? It’s more like a badly scripted sitcom where the punchlines fall flat, and the guest stars are utterly forgettable.

The ACR Fiasco: When AI Can’t Read the Room

Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) was touted as the holy grail of contextual advertising. The promise was simple: AI would read the room, detect the emotional tone of your current binge-watch, and serve up an ad that’s not just relevant but contextually flawless. Imagine watching a spine-chilling episode of The Walking Dead and getting interrupted by an ad for knitting needles instead of, say, zombie repellant. Sounds absurd? That’s where ACR often lands.

Yan Liu
CEO/Co-founder at TVision

Yan Liu, CEO and Co-founder at TVision, doesn’t sugarcoat it: “AI is more about efficiency at this point, especially on some tasks you typically outsource. I think it will create more spam, MFA websites, and better creative for DR ads. AI is not good at linking multiple tasks yet. So I don’t think it can add tons to quality of execution or creative.” Most ACR systems can’t quite grasp the subtleties of human emotion. They recognize the genre but not the mood shifts that dictate what type of ad should follow. Instead of a seamless transition, advertisers end up with mismatched jingles that make viewers want to change the channel faster than you can say “ROI.”

Programmatic Buying: Precision or Pricey Guesswork?

Programmatic ad buying on CTV was supposed to be the sharpshooter’s dream—AI analyzing real-time data to hit the exact target with surgical precision. In theory, sounds like a marketer’s nirvana. In reality, it’s more like throwing darts blindfolded and hoping one lands in the right sector. Shared devices, fragmented data, and inflated CPMs (cost per thousand impressions) mean that “precision targeting” often misses the mark. You’re paying top dollar to reach your ideal demographic, only to have your ads shown to someone’s grandma binge-watching Golden Girls.

David Nyurenberg
Marketer, Advisor, Founder

David Nyurenberg, of Rain the Growth Agency, cuts through the nonsense: “AI has fundamentally changed how we approach CTV, allowing us to score each impression based on its likelihood of achieving the outcomes we need.” While this sounds revolutionary, it’s essentially just a fancy way of saying, “We’re making educated guesses with more data.” And let’s face it, even educated guesses can be wildly off when you’re dealing with the chaos of CTV.

Lara Koenig, global head of product at MiQ, summed up the issue: “Programmatic buying is at a midpoint in maturity; many systems still can’t escape the fragmentation that drives up CPMs while reducing accuracy.” Advertisers find themselves frustrated, managing layers of devices, apps, and ad exchanges, all claiming to deliver results—yet missing key targeting elements.

Lara Koenig Global Head of Product at MiQ

Shoppable Ads: Novelty Over Functionality

Shoppable ads were pitched as the future of CTV—ads so interactive that you could buy products without ever leaving your couch. Hulu and Roku have toyed with features like QR codes and product carousels, but let’s be real: navigating a purchase with a remote is about as enjoyable as trying to text with oven mitts on. Most viewers would rather swipe on their phones or click through on their laptops. Shoppable CTV ads remain more of a novelty than a mainstream solution, leaving advertisers scratching their heads and consumers frustrated.

Take Hulu’s clickable product carousels during prime-time shows, for example. The idea was brilliant on paper—blend commerce with entertainment, allowing viewers to instantly purchase the stylish jacket their favorite character just donned. In practice, though, the execution falls flat. Viewers are left fumbling with their remotes, trying to select tiny QR codes or navigate awkward drop-down menus while half-watching an intense drama.

Andrew King, GM and Product Lead at TripleLift, notes, “We’re already witnessing applications—smarter ad placements within content, more relevant programming schedules, enhanced insights atop campaign reports, even upscaled creative assets.” Yet, even with these advancements, the fundamental issue remains: the CTV interface isn’t conducive to seamless shopping.

Andrew King GM and Product at TripleLift – CTV

AI-Powered Brand Placement: The Awkward Cameo No One Asked For

AI-powered brand placement was sold as a groundbreaking tool that would seamlessly insert brands directly into the content you love—blending logos, products, and billboards into the very scenes of your favorite shows without the need for traditional ad breaks. The vision? A fully integrated brand experience where ads would feel as natural as the storyline itself. Some technologies aimed to embed branded elements post-production, letting characters casually sip from a strategically placed soda can or walk by a logo-embellished billboard, supposedly without pulling the viewer out of the narrative. Sounds futuristic, right? Well, not quite.

In reality, these placements often stick out like a bad CGI effect from a B-list movie. Instead of enhancing the content, these awkward insertions end up drawing attention to themselves, breaking immersion rather than adding to it. You might be watching a dramatic scene, but when an out-of-place product appears, it’s like getting hit over the head with a brand. Suddenly, the emotional moment between two characters is hijacked by a poorly rendered energy drink can that feels jarringly forced. Instead of seamless integration, these placements often feel like a desperate attempt to gain visibility, ironically doing more harm than good.

Jason Fairchild, CEO of TvScientific, believes real AI can revolutionize CTV but cautions against the current “magic fairy dust” use of AI by most companies. TvScientific focuses on two main areas:

Jason Fairchild
Co-Founder and CEO at tvScientific
  • Campaign Optimization: Using AI to drive advertiser-declared outcomes like ROAS, CPA, and CPI by automating campaign adjustments based on a vast array of data points.
  • Creative Optimization: Building and optimizing TV ad creatives at the element level, determining which ad variations perform best with specific audience segments.

Who’s Actually Delivering? A Few Shining Stars

Amidst the sea of overhyped AI tools, a few companies are actually making meaningful strides:

  • Comcast’s FreeWheel: Integrating AI into programmatic buying, FreeWheel optimizes ad placements by finding premium inventory that aligns with real-time viewership trends.
  • Origin’s Slingshot: Using AI to optimize ad delivery timing, Slingshot boosts viewer retention and ad effectiveness by aligning ads more closely with how people actually watch CTV.
  • KERV Interactive: Pioneering shoppable CTV ads, KERV adds interactive elements that allow viewers to explore products in real-time, though the remote-based interface remains a hurdle.
  • Vizio’s Inscape: Leveraging real-time viewing data, Inscape offers granular insights that help advertisers optimize placements based on actual viewer behavior.
  • The Trade Desk’s Koa: Analyzing millions of data points, Koa enhances campaign effectiveness and audience reach across multiple devices, providing a more accurate targeting mechanism.

The Future: Efficiency Over Revolution (For Now)

Yan Liu sums it up best: “AI is more about efficiency at this point, especially on some tasks you typically outsource.” AI in CTV is great for automating repetitive, data-heavy tasks, but it’s not yet the creative powerhouse it was touted to be. As Liu puts it, “AI will create more spam, MFA websites, and better creative for DR ads. AI is not good at linking multiple tasks yet. So I don’t think it can add tons to quality of execution or creative.”

Jason Fairchild of TvScientific argues that real AI can revolutionize CTV by optimizing campaigns and creatives in ways humans simply can’t manage. “We think about AI/ML in terms of automating vitally important components of our business, which is leveraging TV advertising to drive actual business outcomes for advertisers,” he explains. His company has developed patented technology that optimizes campaigns and creatives to achieve advertiser-declared outcomes, proving that AI can indeed be transformative when applied correctly.

Final Thoughts: The Emperor’s New Algorithms

So, where does that leave us? AI in CTV is still wearing the emperor’s new clothes—glamorous on the surface but lacking real substance underneath. While companies like Origin, KERV Interactive, Vizio’s Inscape, The Trade Desk, and FreeWheel are making genuine progress, the majority of AI applications in CTV remain more smoke and mirrors than actual game-changers. The real magic, as Jason Fairchild suggests, lies in AI’s ability to handle vast data and optimize campaigns beyond human capacity, but this potential is yet to be fully realized.

For marketers, the advice is clear: approach AI in CTV with a healthy dose of skepticism. Don’t buy into the hype without seeing real results. Focus on leveraging AI where it truly adds value—efficiency, data analytics, and strategic optimization—while keeping your expectations grounded. Until AI can seamlessly blend into the creative process and deliver on its grand promises, it’s best to view it as a powerful tool rather than the wizard behind the curtain.

Posted on

Alphabet Soup Streaming: Evan Shapiro’s Recipe for Acronym Detox

Evan Shapiro’s recent takedown of the TV industry’s acronym addiction is nothing short of a public intervention for a sector that has lost itself in a linguistic labyrinth. In his view, it’s time to stop pretending viewers can—or want to—decode the alphabet soup of terms like FAST, SVOD, AVOD, and TVOD. The solution, he argues, is a radical but straightforward approach: just call it Paid Streaming or Free Streaming and be done with it.

The problem isn’t just confusion; it’s a veritable obstacle to viewer engagement and ad revenue. Alan Wolk, the coiner of “FAST,” explained that terms like AVOD are so inconsistently used, they’re practically meaningless. Instead of treating audiences like acronym aficionados, he suggested simplifying: think of free services as FAST and paid ones as SVOD, period. Shapiro took it further, declaring that we all know what “free” really means in TV—yes, there are ads, and yes, that’s how it will stay.

But this issue runs deeper than terminology—it’s impacting ad spend and audience loyalty. Industry leaders like Field Garthwaite of IRIS.TV and Adam Helfgott of MadHive point out that inconsistent data standards are hindering transparency and complicating programmatic ad buying. With only around 12.5% of ad requests containing usable data for content transparency, buyers have to roll the dice on brand safety and contextual relevance. Without clear data or standardized terms, advertisers are left in a maze, trying to target audiences effectively without accidentally landing in a content mismatch or irrelevant context.

Data fragmentation isn’t just a tech headache; it’s hurting consumer experiences, particularly in the FAST ecosystem, which has grown astronomically but suffers from a Wild West mentality where platforms launch endless channels but struggle with quality control. FAST channels have become dumping grounds for low-budget content, leaving users wading through endless, poorly-curated options. Shapiro’s criticism is that instead of addressing viewers’ actual needs—reliable quality and straightforward access—the industry piles on new acronyms and concepts that don’t make it easier to watch but harder.

The stakes are high. Amagi’s latest data suggests that FAST growth is skyrocketing, yet it’s also hampered by poor discoverability and inconsistency. Shapiro’s vision? A seamless, user-first experience that doesn’t make viewers feel like they need a decoder ring to watch TV. According to him, “the Super Bowl will just play” on the TV in the future, without needing to know what streaming service is involved. That’s the kind of simplicity he’s after—a far cry from today’s maze of technical jargon and siloed apps.

If the industry heeds Shapiro’s rallying cry, the reward could be substantial. Imagine a landscape where ad placements are relevant and contextual, user data moves freely across platforms, and viewers can find what they want without fighting through a maze of platforms. But if TV execs insist on preserving their acronym-heavy language, Shapiro won’t be holding his breath. After all, he’s been down this road before, calling out the sector’s jargon overload as the enemy of transparency and engagement.

In essence, Shapiro’s calling on the industry to evolve—not by adding more layers of complexity but by stripping them away. And in his words, it’s about time we knew what the “F” in FAST really stands for.