David Kohl’s Post

There are handful of folks in our ecosystem that consistently speak the truth and say what needs to be said. My friend, Dave Morgan, is one of them. In his most recent MediaPost editorial, Dave describes the epidemic of "strategic partner deals" (or a more a more cleverly-named version, "SPO deals") that are all secret code words for non-transparent volume-based rebates. There's nothing inherently wrong when commercial entities choose to trade margin for volume, but with extremely rare exception, these arrangements are anything but. -- Would anyone be surprised to hear that it's the norm for tech platforms to take margin not from their own pockets, but from the pockets of their publisher-side clients? -- Is anyone questioning that agencies generally pocket the rebates rather than passing them to their clients? TRUSTX is periodically asked to engage with an agency in a volume-based "SPO deal." Notwithstanding that we've not yet been able to determine what actual "optimization" of the supply-path is involved, we have no issue agreeing to reduce our own SSP margin once a buyer hits certain spend volume minimums. If we were to agree to such a volume-based rebate, our company policy is to send checks with transparent transactional reporting to the agency and brand directly. Sending a separate volume-based rebate payment ensures every party can validate that TRUSTX is paying from our own margin and not taking a penny from our publishers. Curiously, no agency has ever taken us up on this offer.

Why is everyone obsessed with making Google's Privacy Sandbox successful? Criteo found that "the Privacy Sandbox creates an enormous advantage for Google’s advertising business, including putting Google Ad Manager in a position to boost its market share from 23% to 83%." And as if to be a consolation prize, Todd Parsons offered, "... one thing that would help level the playing field at least somewhat, however, is if everyone in the online ad ecosystem, including publishers and other ad tech vendors, would engage in more rigorous testing." Folks ... the digital advertising industry needs an independent personal data security system that, without conflict, protects the interests of publishers, advertisers and consumers. It is in no one's best interests to adopt privacy-enhancing technologies from organizations that profit from processing personal data. Period.

Unfortunately, this is not surprising. We live in an industry that only knows how to prepare in the eleventh hour. However, what's even more disconcerting to me is this stat that Kayleigh quotes from Adobe: "62% of survey respondents said they plan to shift their spend primarily to walled garden ecosystems like social media platforms." This would be disastrous for the premium open web.

I had the pleasure of joining Lou Paskalis, Tim Brown and the Association of National Advertisers to attempt to move the needle on buying quality media in lieu of cheap CPM inventory of questionable origin. Our panel dialogue, "Is the Programmatic Juice Worth the Squeeze," concluded it is because, among other things, quality media produces outcome metrics that matter. Drilling in specifically on news media -- a publishing category that continues to be in a world of hurt, Lou writes in AdExchanger that "... many presenters attempted to debunk the myth that brands that advertise adjacent to divisive or provocative content risk exposing themselves to backlash. Stagwell Global released research that showed virtually no difference in purchase intent for brands when their ads appeared next to editorial content, whether it was inflammatory or not. The question remains: Will marketers overcome their gut feelings in light of compelling research to the contrary?" I am always encouraged by this type of research, but I've come to expect that I'll be discouraged by the lack of change in media spend across trusted, professional journalism. IMHO, what we need to demonstrate *in addition to* these consumer sentiment findings is the hard data that shows equal or better RoAS (or other measurable outcome metrics) in the news content category. Evidence supports my hypothesis of better results in news vs. other content categories. For example, one recent TRUSTX advertiser experienced a 2.5x decrease in cost-per-acquisition on a campaign that was 59% targeted within news domains. News works because it's a lean-in environment where the audience is actively engaged. I am begging brands to give news a second chance. And not because its any advertiser's duty to save journalism, but because the stuff just works.

The overarching failure here is not Yahoo, nor is it inventory declarations. This is part of a broader problem of supply-side businesses exaggerating the value of ad impressions. It's about advertisers learning through experience that open programmatic advertising is simply a dumpster fire. And unfortunately, one company's bad behavior taints the entire industry, causing brands, agencies and DSPs to devalue inventory everywhere ... even from honest suppliers. Frankly, I'm not sure its recoverable at this point. When we created TRUSTX seven years ago, our goal was to cordon off a premium slice of the open web for buyers who valued trusted, high-quality content environments without all the other bullshit. We work incredibly hard to prevent (and in some cases, ferret out) bad behaviors. We're not perfect, but I think we're delivering on our promise. At least that's what our demand partners tell us. Yet, we're a small player in a crowded space of mediocrity. Which suggests we've passed the point of no return on advertisers' perceptions of open programmatic advertising ... irrespective of how we label video inventory.

This year, I decided to arrive in Cannes two days early so I could enjoy a little biking and hiking before the intensity of the week. Having the adjustment time before diving into more than a dozen meetings and a panel discussion turned out to be the perfect mental and physical health break I needed to make the week fully productive. Back at home this weekend, I read through my notes from the many focused discussions on privacy, data protection and everything that remains to be fixed across the programmatic supply-chain. Two themes seem to have emerged: 1 - Consumer data is more valuable than ever 2 - Despite its incredible value, we can't help ourselves but give it away Meeting after meeting, we eluded to the sheer level of investment businesses are making to acquire direct consumer relationships. There can be no doubt that first-party is the new third-party. This observation probably isn't news to anyone, but what concerns me is how freely these same companies throw these investments overboard. At almost every meeting on this topic, we observed that the buying half of our industry seems all too happy linking their trusted consumer data relationships to some sort of shared identity system, despite multiple supply-chain companies having the keys. The other (selling) half is quite unhappy with this apparent necessity, but is doing it nonetheless because publisher revenue depends on it. Although discouraging, I was incredibly pleased to hear repeated support for the unique approach to data protection that Symitri is taking, which eliminates this data sharing tension while sustaining the viability of audience addressability and measurement across the open internet. Publishers are totally on-board because they've experienced the commoditizing effects of data leakage. And while fewer brands have yet to feel the same sting, there's universal agreement that we must move on from the status quo. Throwing our most trusted -- and valuable -- consumer data relationships around the supply-chain is no longer an option. Trust is a competitive advantage. Thanks Jaryd Knutsen and Rachel Pasqua for joining me on the Croisette this year. Terrific spending some quality time with so many insightful leaders, prospective clients and soon-to-be business partners. Cheers to another successful Cannes in the books.

I'm generally supportive of the PET sub-sector, which is innovating not only to protect personal privacy, but to preserve the commercial model that underlies digital, and especially open-web programmatic advertising. It does, however, worry me when browser and device companies are in the privacy and data protection driver's seat. This approach is likely to mean more fragmentation, which makes it harder for brands and publishers to coordinate their audience addressability and measurement across media types, platforms and devices. It also creates an economic unevenness that has nothing to do with the actual value of an audience (see exhibit A: cookieless Safari CPMs). By way of example, let's take a look at Google Privacy Sandbox. Notwithstanding the multiple millions of dollars of investment required of most of us in adtech, Sandbox was designed to work initially with Chrome and eventually Android. That's nice, but totally unhelpful for brands and publishers that want to protect audiences using Safari, Firefox or any app in the iOS environment. And what about CTV? Mozilla is in a totally different category than Google, and as Allison reports, "... but as to whether Anonym will create any privacy-focused technology specifically for Firefox, Mozilla’s web browser, nothing’s been planned yet." Nonetheless, I think a degree of independence and cross-platform capabilities is key if we're going to succeed in preserving the value of trusted personal data relationships.

It's really rare for a trade association to make such a substantial impact on the heels of just one groundbreaking research study. Kudos to Bob Liodice, Bill Duggan and our friends at TAG TrustNet for doing so. It was exactly a year ago in Cannes when TRUSTX and the Association of National Advertisers announced the results of ANA's Programmatic Transparency Study. On the patio at Belle Plage, with about 75 industry veterans attending an invite-only lunch panel, Tom Triscari, Lou Paskalis, Allison Schiff and I debated the possible prescriptions for dramatically reducing our industry's latest TLA, "MFA." We urged our marketer and agency colleagues to shift from exclusion to inclusion, to get serious about validating (at the log level) where their ads were running, and to eliminate non-transparent supply-paths from their programmatic media buys. None of us could have predicted the speed with which the entire ecosystem would jump on board, nor the positive results just one year later. Nice to see some generally good news coming out of our industry. I'm optimistic we can keep up the good work.

It's been a year since the Association of National Advertisers launched its groundbreaking and highly impactful study on supply-chain transparency. Since that time, the category of dumpster-fire MFA waste has been reduced significantly (although still not enough), and the media buying community has gotten a degree of religion when it comes to quality inventory. But you and I know all too well that one report does not change an industry. Only ongoing reinforcement and proof of performance will sustain the momentum. For anyone still wondering why MFA-free, transparent media supply-chains are the only way you should be buying media, please join Lou Paskalis, Tim Brown and me for a compelling dialogue on Monday in Cannes, where we'll demonstrate -- unequivocally -- that the transparency juice is worth the squeeze. RSVP at https://lnkd.in/e57H55H7 #TRUSTX #Symitri #Cannes2024 #PremiumPublishers #Programmatic #ANA #DataProtection #DataSecurity #DataPrivacy #Privacy

To my friends and colleagues who I can't easily meet for a coffee in the City or for lunch in the 'burbs, I'd love to chat over a rosé, pain au chocolat or even a stroll on the Croisette. I'm up for a compelling conversation on the future of online privacy, how we keep the lights on for premium open-web advertisers and publishers, and what you'd like to see us do to make TRUSTX and Symitri work harder for you. https://lnkd.in/eayfa7rW