Programmatic panels are too... vanilla.

Take a handful of outspoken professionals that have strong individual views and put them on an industry panel: suddenly their individual voices are replaced by a singular generic group point of view. This is sad because the audience doesn't attend the event to hear a group consensus, they are there to hear professionals share their individual views. Nothing destroys a healthy debate like a microphone and and an audience.

Moreover, there seems to be more industry events each year which makes it harder for individual views to shine through. One industry professional recently confidentially had this to say: "This panel is exactly the same as several previous panels on the same topic. Nothing is changing. The industry is just rehashing the same worn-out topics."

After noticing this concerning trend, it was important to understand why panelists were so shy and wanted to hide behind a common group voice. After talking to many industry professionals about this topic a theme started to emerge. Generally, their responses can be grouped together these three categories.

• Category 1 - Rocking the boat
  "I didn't want to be too controversial on stage because I didn't want to upset any of the other panelists. I like to be liked." 

• Category 2 - What will my client think?
  "I didn't want to be too controversial on stage because my clients may be listening and they may disagree with my POV."
• Category 3 - What about my career prospects?
  "I didn't want to be too controversial on stage because I may be working at a different company in the near future and I don't want to hurt my changes getting a new job."

We’re not doing ourselves a favor by not being "transparent" and sharing our true views when we are talking at events.

Industry panels need a shake up. The concept of "disruption" as now seen as healthy so what would "healthy disruption" look like at industry panel?

In order to shake it up a little GroupM has come up with a digital debating series called "Tech Talks". The concept of the debate is fundamentally different from a normal panel in a number of ways.

• There is a winner (and a loser)
  A specific technical topic will be discussed. There will be two opposing sides of the topic. One side will debate the FOR argument and the other side will debate the AGAINST argument.
• The Audience Controls
  In this digital debate audience participation is key to the success. Instead of asking questions at the end like a normal panel, in the debate the Q&A comes in the middle. The audience steer the direction of the conversation. Not the moderator!
• The Audience Votes
  In this digital debate the audience quite literally vote either FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN. The audience decides the outcome of the debate.

The first debate will be on the topic of topic of pure play technology versus full stack. This is a topic that the industry has been kicking around for years and it's time to resolve it for once and for all. The first debate of the series will take place at the Programmatic Forum on July 20 and will see representatives from DoubleClick, Integral Ad Science, TubeMogul and AdRoll go head-to-head.

The essence of this particular debate can be summarized in the following four points of view.

1. The argument in favor of Pure Play tech
   Pure Play technology will out perform Unified Tech because it will ruthlessly bid on the most cost effective inventory which matches the advertisers requirements. For example; if pure play technology can evaluate two independent impressions and if both impressions are equally likely to convert to an engagement, click or acquisition then Pure Play tech will always select the cheapest possible impression in order to maximize the media investment for the client.
2. The argument in favor of Unified tech
   Unified technology will out perform Pure Play tech because it has the ability to see all the sellers inventory and all buyers campaigns. Therefore, by having a larger view of the eco-system Unified tech will have the ability to match the right user to the right impression. This is, after all, the mantra of our industry.
3. The argument against Pure Play tech
   Pure Play tech will not out perform Unified Technology simply because of it's limited view of the inventory. It's like comparing a super-highway to a backstreet. It's true that a backstreet may produce good results from time to time, however it just doesn't have the throughput of a super-highway.
4. The argument against Unified tech
   Unified Tech will not out perform Pure Play simply because Unified Tech has two mathematical objectives. It needs to (a) get the lowest price impressions for the buyer and (b) get the highest price impressions for the seller. How can any singular mathematical formula have two opposing goals? This is often called the "church and state" argument of programmatic.

The goal of this debate is to pull apart these two diametrically opposing arguments and understand which one is true. However, at the end of the day, the winner is the industry. If it turns out that a unified stack is better, or perhaps the honor goes to pure play, that will echo throughout the industry. It will allow us to pivot, to grow and set new boundaries and challenges.

But most importantly, the debate will give me a chance to use the gavel I have purchased. And I can’t wait.