Hold onto your coffee, The Trade Desk just threw us a curveball by pivoting to become an advertising network. You heard right. The beloved DSP, which marketers used for buying digital ads, is now diving into the world of ad networks.
Imagine your favorite bakery suddenly selling car parts—it’s that kind of switch.
Ad execs are spitting out their stinky feet kombucha. The Trade Desk published a list of the 100 most premium publishers across the open internet. We’re talking TV, web, and audio publishers globally, all rolled into one shiny report on the rise of the “premium internet.” CEO Jeff Green dropped this during the company’s earnings call, and boy, did it cause a stir.
Green has drawn a proverbial line in the sand. On one side, the “open web”—a wild west of poorly targeted ads, fraud, and “malvertising.” On the other, the “premium internet,” a utopia of high-quality ad inventory, first-party data, and user consent. This isn’t just a rebranding exercise; it’s a full-on identity crisis.
Publishers are losing their collective minds. They see the writing on the wall: Green’s “premium internet” sounds a lot like “we’re about to yank our ad dollars from anyone who doesn’t get with the program.” The panic isn’t misplaced. The Trade Desk has been pushing something called authenticated reach. To navigate the treacherous waters of a cookie-less world, they need email addresses—lots of them. These emails are the foundation of UID 2.0, a third-party ID that lets The Trade Desk do its thing.
Here’s the rub: many publishers can barely scrape together enough emails to fill a contact form, let alone power a massive ad ecosystem. Even those who can are wary of UID 2.0. Sharing hashed email addresses with The Trade Desk means potentially giving up control over their data. For many, that’s a bridge too far.
Publishers confide that The Trade Desk really wanted them to onboard UID 2.0, but they didn’t want to strengthen The Trade Desk’s business at the expense of their own. Can you blame them? Handing over control of your precious data to a third party is like giving your house keys to a stranger because they promised to water your plants. Sure, it might be fine, but there’s always a chance they’ll throw a rave and trash the place.
For The Trade Desk, “premium” is code for “integrated with UID 2.0.” Publishers are paranoid that TTD will start strong-arming the industry into adopting UID 2.0 and their single sign-on tool, OpenPass. Why? Because TTD gets way better data when their code is embedded on publisher pages. They can see ad placements, user details, and other juicy tidbits that otherwise wouldn’t make it to a DSP.
Publishers question why they should give ad tech vendors like The Trade Desk their data so they can make a markup from it. It’s extremely arrogant from the ad tech side. And let’s not forget the cherry on top. The list of “premium” publishers includes illustrious names like Newsweek and IBTimes, known for past ad scams. It’s like inviting a fox to guard the henhouse.
Adding to the confusion, The Trade Desk’s premium list includes mega streaming companies like Hulu and Disney+. However, savvy advertisers are scratching their heads, wondering why they’d buy through The Trade Desk when they can secure better Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) by purchasing directly from these platforms. Going direct means bypassing the middleman, ensuring more control, better data, and typically, more effective ad placements. This leaves many questioning the actual value The Trade Desk brings to the table in this new ad network guise.
When The Trade Desk was helping everyone buy across the open web, optimizing thousands of sites, it made sense. But now, with a target list of 100 publishers, it’s clear that advertisers would be better off buying directly. Or, if they’re smart, creating their own network of sites to purchase from. This move seems to undermine the very essence of what made The Trade Desk valuable in the first place.
The Trade Desk is clearly trying to position itself as a curation spot, but the problem is that there are already many excellent curation companies with data that works everywhere. In this setup, The Trade Desk is merely a broker, while the curation companies are the real stars. Any of these companies could break off, merge with another ad network, and create something superior. They’re not dependent on The Trade Desk, making its new role seem redundant and less impactful in the grand scheme of ad tech.
What does this boil down to? The Trade Desk, once a shining beacon of DSP innovation, is now just another ad network. Cue the nostalgia for the Rightmedia networks of the 2000s. It’s like we’ve gone full circle, only this time, it’s wrapped in a shiny new package and stamped with the “premium” label. Because, apparently, that’s what progress looks like in ad tech.
