Blog

Posted on

From Mad Men to Mad Brands: Unpacking the Great Ad Spend Shake-Up

First off, let’s talk about the elephant in the boardroom. Since 2019, agency holding companies have seen their share of the U.S. media market take a nosedive, losing a significant chunk of their former dominance. 

That’s like Starbucks suddenly losing a third of its coffee sales to a hipster lemonade stand—unthinkable, yet here we are.

These corporate behemoths, once the gatekeepers of the advertising world with their bulk buying power and secret handshake deals, are now scrambling to stay relevant. They’re like flip phones in the age of smartphones—nostalgic but not particularly useful. As Sir Martin Sorrell, founder of S4 Capital and former CEO of WPP, quipped last year, “The traditional agency model is under significant pressure. Clients are demanding faster, better, cheaper solutions driven by technology and data.” It’s as if the giants are realizing they’ve been sleepwalking while the world moved on without them.

Brand Direct Spending: The Rebellion Gains Momentum

Meanwhile, brand direct ad spending has skyrocketed, surging ahead like a rocket fueled by cold brew and ambition. Brands are taking matters into their own hands, cutting out the middlemen faster than you can skip a YouTube ad.

This isn’t just a blip on the radar; it’s a full-blown movement. In recent years, in-house agencies have become the new black. Surveys indicate that over 80% of advertisers now have some form of in-house agency, a significant increase from just a few years ago. It’s as if brands collectively woke up one morning, chugged a double espresso, and thought, “Why rent the boat when we can build our own yacht?”

And they’re not just building yachts—they’re crafting luxury liners decked out with all the latest tech. Many brands have reported significant cost savings and improved agility since moving operations in-house. They’re able to pivot faster than a caffeinated figure skater, responding to market trends in real-time without waiting for agency turnaround times that feel slower than dial-up internet.

Marc Pritchard, Chief Brand Officer at Procter & Gamble, didn’t mince words when he declared, “We’re taking greater control of our media planning and buying to drive better effectiveness and efficiency.” P&G streamlined its agency roster and reinvested those resources into building internal capabilities. The result? More control, greater transparency, and a direct line to their consumers.

But it’s not just the big players getting in on the action. Brands of all sizes are jumping on the bandwagon, leveraging accessible technology and data analytics tools to punch above their weight. With programmatic advertising platforms becoming more user-friendly, companies no longer need a PhD in rocket science to launch effective campaigns. It’s DIY advertising, but with fewer glue sticks and more algorithms.

The shift towards direct media buying is reshaping the advertising landscape. Digital ad spend by brands directly is continuing to grow, signaling a significant change in how advertising budgets are allocated. It’s as if everyone got the memo that the best way to get things done is to do it yourself—or at least keep a much closer eye on who’s doing it for you.

The motivations are clear. Brands are hungry for transparency, craving agility, and eyeing cost savings like a hawk spotting its next meal. They’re tired of the opaque practices and sluggish pace often associated with big holding companies. In an era where a social media trend can rise and fall in a matter of hours, speed isn’t just nice to have—it’s essential.

In essence, brands are taking back control, and the advertising world is never going to be the same. The middlemen are feeling the squeeze, and direct engagement is becoming the norm rather than the exception. The message is loud and clear: if you want something done right, you might as well do it yourself. After all, who knows your brand better than you do?

So, What’s Fueling This Advertising Exodus?

In a word: Technology.

The digital revolution has shattered the media landscape into a kaleidoscope of platforms—social media, streaming services, podcasts, influencers, virtual reality experiences—you name it. It’s like the media gods tossed the old playbook out the window and said, “Let’s see what happens when we shake things up.” And boy, did they shake things up.

This explosion hasn’t just fragmented audiences; it’s democratized the tools needed to reach them. Remember when advertising on TV required a small fortune and a network connection? Now, a teenager with a smartphone can reach millions on TikTok before you’ve even had your morning coffee. It’s as if the gatekeepers have left the gates wide open, and everyone’s invited to the party.

Platforms like Google Ads, Facebook Ads, and TikTok’s advertising platform offer user-friendly interfaces that let brands target their audiences with sniper-like precision. Digital ad spending in the U.S. continues to surge, projected to exceed previous records in 2024 and beyond, accounting for an ever-growing share of total media ad spending. That’s not just dominating the market; that’s rewriting the entire script.

But wait, there’s more. Social media ad spending alone is expected to keep climbing, outpacing traditional channels and capturing an even larger slice of the advertising pie. Streaming services and connected TV platforms are seeing ad revenues soar, with platforms like YouTube consistently raking in billions in ad revenue each year. It’s like everyone suddenly realized that eyeballs are glued to screens of all sizes, and they’re racing to stake their claim.

Projections suggest this growth isn’t slowing down anytime soon. By the mid-2020s, digital ad spending in the U.S. is expected to reach new heights, making traditional media look like that old VCR collecting dust in your basement. The writing’s on the wall, and it’s written in ones and zeros.

Linda Yaccarino, former Chairman of Advertising at NBCUniversal and now leading the charge at X (formerly Twitter), summed it up nicely when she said that the future of advertising lies in personalization and direct engagement with consumers through digital platforms. Brands are embracing this future with open arms—and open wallets. They’re pouring resources into digital strategies, influencer partnerships, and personalized content that speaks directly to consumers.

The rise of programmatic advertising has also played a significant role. Programmatic ad spend is expected to account for the vast majority of all digital display ad spending by 2024 and beyond, automating the ad buying process and allowing for real-time adjustments. It’s like having a personal assistant who’s always on, ensuring your message hits the right person at the right time.

In this new landscape, data is king. Brands are leveraging consumer insights to tailor their messages, creating a more intimate connection with their audiences. Studies have shown that a significant majority of consumers are more likely to make a purchase when brands offer personalized experiences, and brands are stepping up to the plate.

The bottom line? Technology hasn’t just changed the game; it’s flipped the board, scattered the pieces, and invited everyone to play. The democratization of advertising tools means that brands no longer need to rely on big agencies to reach their audiences. They have the power, and they’re using it to forge direct, meaningful connections with consumers.

The Paradox of Choice: Liberating Yet Overwhelming

But let’s not kid ourselves; the smorgasbord of advertising options today can be as overwhelming as trying to pick a movie on Netflix when you’re three episodes deep into indecision and starting to question your life choices. Brands—especially the smaller ones—might feel like they’re navigating a labyrinth designed by a mischievous minotaur armed with pop-up ads and autoplay videos.

It’s like walking into an all-you-can-eat buffet with a plate the size of a coaster. Sure, the options are endless, but where do you even start? Do you pile on the social media salad, grab a slice of influencer marketing pizza, or dive into the steaming hot dish of programmatic ads? By the time you’ve made a decision, the buffet is closed, and you’re left hungry and slightly confused.

Bob Liodice, the big cheese over at the ANA, summed it up when he said, “While bringing capabilities in-house offers control, it also requires significant investment in talent and technology.” Translation: just because you bought a fancy set of knives doesn’t mean you’re ready to be the next Iron Chef. Some brands think they’re too small to catch an agency’s eye and decide to go it alone, sometimes biting off more than they can chew—like ordering the spiciest item on the menu without checking the Scoville scale.

On the flip side, larger brands may feel shackled to the big holding companies, convinced that only a Titanic-sized agency can handle their colossal needs. It’s as if they’re afraid that jumping ship will leave them stranded on a deserted island with nothing but a volleyball for company. Meanwhile, doubts about transparency and effectiveness loom larger than a bad sequel to a horror franchise.

The irony? In a world bursting with choices, brands are feeling more paralyzed than ever. It’s the paradox of choice on steroids. Small brands worry about having the resources to manage complex campaigns, while big brands fret over whether their gargantuan agencies are nimble enough to keep up with the pace of change—or if they’re just lumbering giants dancing to last year’s tunes.

It’s a classic case of FOMO meets analysis paralysis. Brands don’t want to miss out on the latest marketing craze, but they’re also terrified of making the wrong move. It’s like being at a party where everyone else seems to know the secret handshake, and you’re awkwardly hovering by the punch bowl.

But here’s the kicker: the fear of making a misstep often leads to stagnation, which in this fast-paced digital age, is the biggest misstep of all. As the options multiply like rabbits on caffeine, the need for clear strategy and guidance becomes paramount. Otherwise, brands risk wandering the advertising wilderness like lost souls searching for Wi-Fi in a dead zone.

Trust Issues: The Not-So-Secret Ingredient

But let’s dive deeper into the trust issues that have been plaguing the industry like a bad Wi-Fi connection during a Zoom call. The relationship between brands and agencies has become as strained as trying to explain NFTs to your grandparents. Concerns over transparency, hidden fees, and data ownership have made brands as wary as a cat near a bathtub.

It’s like discovering that your fitness tracker isn’t just counting your steps but also selling your jogging routes to the highest bidder. Suddenly, that morning run feels less like a healthy habit and more like a data leak waiting to happen—not exactly the kind of motivation you signed up for.

Keith Weed, former Chief Marketing and Communications Officer at Unilever, nailed it when he said, “Transparency isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s essential for building trust between brands and their partners.” And when someone who’s steered a corporate giant like Unilever speaks up, you might want to put down your latte and pay attention.

When trust erodes, so does the willingness to stick with the status quo. Brands start questioning whether their agencies are strategizing in their best interest or just taking them for a ride down Expense Lane. It’s like paying for premium gas and realizing you’ve been siphoned regular all along.

This breakdown in trust has pushed brands to rethink their relationships with agencies. They’re no longer content with vague reports and glossy presentations that say a lot but mean very little. They want transparency served up hotter than a fresh cup of coffee on a Monday morning.

Brands are asking pointed questions: Where exactly is our money going? How are you using our data? Why does this invoice look like it was written in hieroglyphics? It’s a corporate version of “It’s not me, it’s you,” and agencies are feeling the heat.

The fallout? Brands are more inclined to bring operations in-house or seek out partners who won’t make them feel like they’re playing a game of financial hide-and-seek. After all, in an age where data breaches are as common as celebrity apologies, who can afford to take chances?

In the end, it’s simple: Trust is the new currency, and brands are not willing to bankrupt themselves emotionally or financially. The agencies that get this will adapt and survive; those that don’t might find themselves as outdated as a fax machine in a 5G world.

Navigating the Media Maze: You’re in Control

But seriously, what’s a brand to do in this brave new world where the advertising landscape shifts faster than you can say “algorithm update”? First off, recognize that you have options. It’s like walking into an ice cream parlor with 100 flavors after years of being stuck with plain vanilla—you don’t have to settle anymore. And let’s be honest, who wants vanilla when you can have triple-chocolate-fudge-swirl with a dash of influencer sprinkles?

Define what matters most to you. Is it transparency? Because, let’s face it, nobody likes hidden fees or finding out their ad budget is being spent on bot farms in Siberia. Or maybe agility is your jam—the ability to pivot on a dime when the next TikTok trend explodes overnight. Perhaps you’re craving specialized expertise in emerging platforms like Twitch or Discord, where the youths are hanging out these days, speaking in memes and crafting the next viral sensation. Maybe it’s a combo platter of all these things.

Don’t be afraid to mix and match your approach. This isn’t a monogamous relationship; it’s more like speed dating with purpose. Many brands are finding success with hybrid models, maintaining certain capabilities in-house—where you can keep an eye on things—while collaborating with specialized agencies or consultants for those wildcards that require a bit more flair. It’s like having your cake and eating it too, without worrying about the calories.

Debbie Morrison, the Managing Director at Ebiquity, puts it succinctly: “Brands should assess their internal capabilities and consider partnerships that complement their strengths while filling in gaps.” In other words, you don’t have to go it entirely alone—just be smart about who you bring along for the ride. Think of it as assembling your own Avengers team, minus the spandex suits (unless that’s your thing, no judgment here).

Here’s the kicker: Flexibility is your secret weapon. The digital landscape changes more often than a teenager’s selfie poses, and you need partners who can keep up. That might mean partnering with a boutique agency that’s dialed into the TikTok zeitgeist or hiring a consultant who can navigate the murky waters of programmatic advertising without getting seasick.

Customization is king. The one-size-fits-all model is as outdated as dial-up internet. You wouldn’t wear the same outfit to a board meeting and a beach party, so why would you use the same advertising strategy across all platforms? Tailor your approach to fit your brand’s unique voice and the specific channels where your audience actually spends their time doom-scrolling.

So, shake things up. Break the mold. Challenge the old narratives that say you have to choose between going it alone or handing over the keys to a big agency that’s more interested in billable hours than your brand’s soul. The power is in your hands—or at least, it’s within your grasp if you’re willing to reach for it.

Remember, in today’s digital ecosystem, standing still is the quickest route to obsolescence. Don’t just dip your toes in the water; cannonball into the deep end. Sure, it might be a little chilly at first, but you’ll quickly warm up to the endless possibilities that come with taking control of your advertising destiny.

In the immortal words of someone probably famous, fortune favors the bold. So go ahead—be bold. Your brand deserves nothing less..

Final Musings and Some Unsolicited Advice

The advertising world is undergoing a transformation more dramatic than a reality TV show reunion—minus the thrown wine glasses but with all the drama. The old guard is being challenged, and brands are embracing new ways to connect with their audiences faster than you can say “viral TikTok dance.”

As I quipped last year, “In this fast-paced digital era, standing still is the same as moving backward. If you’re not ready to pivot, prepare to be left behind.” And let’s face it, nobody wants to be that brand still trying to make fetch happen.

Brands aren’t waiting for the industry to catch up; they’re forging ahead, leveraging technology and data to create meaningful connections. They’re like digital pioneers, charting unknown territories while the old mapmakers are still arguing over compass directions.

So, here’s some unsolicited advice, sprinkled with a dash of irreverence:

  • Be audacious. The safe path is overcrowded and, frankly, a bit dull. Take risks. If you fail, at least you’ll have a good story to tell at conferences.
  • Stay curious. The moment you think you’ve got it all figured out is the moment someone else disrupts the market with a dancing hologram.
  • Take control. It’s your brand, your message, your audience. Don’t hand over the keys to someone who still thinks MySpace is a hot marketing channel.
  • Seek guidance, but choose wisely. Not all who wander are lost, but a good GPS never hurt anyone. Collaborate with those who get your vision and can help you navigate the ever-changing landscape.

In the immortal words of… well, me: “If you’re not disrupting, you’re being disrupted.” So go ahead—shake things up, break the mold, and make some noise. The advertising world is your oyster, and it’s high time you shucked it open.

After all, why blend in when you were born to stand out?

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

EXCLUSIVE: Why SambaTV is Buying Semasio

Samba TV’s recent acquisition of Semasio is a headline-grabber in a market that’s all about survival of the smartest. This move isn’t just about padding Samba’s portfolio; it’s a power play positioning the company to dominate the Connected TV (CTV) and digital advertising landscapes. Ashwin Navin, Samba TV’s co-founder and CEO, says it best (or could have): “We’re not just doubling down—we’re bringing x-ray vision to advertising. And yes, it’s probably also predicting what you’ll binge on next Thursday night.”

In a market on the brink of a cookie-less future, Samba TV is leaning hard into privacy-first and context-driven ad solutions that could reshape audience targeting.

Semasio brings a wealth of tools and data to Samba’s already expansive AI-driven platform. With over a billion user profiles and 2.5 billion monthly web page analyses, Semasio allows Samba to deliver ad placements that aren’t just precise—they’re eerily relevant. Imagine a world where every ad fits like a puzzle piece into your screen time, tailored to match the content on the page or video in front of you. Samba’s new capabilities allow them to serve up ads that feel native to the viewer’s experience, without relying on intrusive third-party cookies. As Navin explains, “Our AI isn’t just here to save a buck. It’s about using data to tell better stories and to make sure ads fit into your screen time seamlessly.”

With ad-supported streaming on the rise and OTT content consumption surging by 40% year-over-year in the U.S. alone, Samba’s timing couldn’t be better. They’re now positioned to ride the wave of streaming’s shift from linear, capturing audiences in a world where cable’s grip is loosening by the day.

The industry is on a fast track toward ad-supported VOD (FAST) and hybrid streaming platforms that capitalize on viewers’ willingness to watch ads in exchange for content. With Samba’s new combo of Semasio’s contextual and audience data with Samba’s proprietary video insights, advertisers can now reach audiences in 50 countries across digital, mobile, and CTV.

Zac Pinkham, newly appointed General Manager of Semasio, takes the helm under Samba’s banner with a clear mission: expand and deepen Semasio’s reach in the CTV and digital ad landscape. As he puts it, “Our unified targeting approach, combined with Samba’s deep measurement insights and video viewership data, will enable advertisers to achieve greater reach and increased ability to accurately measure the results.”

This is Samba’s second big play in the AI space in two years. In 2022, they acquired Disruptel, a company specializing in AI-driven content recognition through natural language processing and computer vision. The result? An ad platform capable of analyzing on-screen content down to brand logos, products, and even character names. Navin’s enthusiasm is clear: “There’s no way a human can watch all these videos, so you need an AI vision for how you do this, 24/7, at massive scale.” Combining these AI-driven insights with Semasio’s audience targeting precision, Samba is primed to lead in a world where contextual, privacy-focused ads are no longer a nice-to-have—they’re the only option.

The numbers tell a story: Samba’s data-driven approach is already impacting sectors from health to entertainment, with recent ad impressions skyrocketing for brands savvy enough to switch to this new approach. This includes high-growth verticals like health, beauty, and even pet care, whose ad impressions rose by 17% in 2024. And with 68% of the top streaming shows being drama or based on beloved franchises, advertisers have plenty of valuable real estate to work with. Samba is leveraging this data not just to track viewership but to forecast trends that can shape future ad strategies.

As Samba goes global with Semasio, they’re going toe-to-toe with industry giants like Google, which has struggled to adapt its data-centric model to the new privacy-focused ad ecosystem. Instead of relying on walled-garden data and outdated cookie-based targeting, Samba’s method feels native and adaptable, capturing viewers across platforms without violating their privacy.

Samba’s play isn’t just bold; it’s almost clairvoyant. While competitors are still figuring out how to handle data privacy or maximize CTV reach, Samba’s fully equipped to handle both, setting a high bar for what advertising can and should look like in a privacy-first, context-driven future.

Posted on

Gary V’s Ten Commandments for the Attention Economy (Thou Shalt Day Trade Thy Audience)

Lou Paskalis gives us a gem from Gary Vaynerchuk’s wisdom vault. It’s a Top Ten list for marketers that’ll leave you scratching your head—or maybe just nodding along while pretending to understand why he’s calling himself a “day trader of attention.”

So, without further ado, here’s Gary V’s marketing gospel, or as he might call it, “10 Things You Should Tattoo on Your Eyelids Before You Can Truly Excel in Marketing.”

  1. “I day trade attention and build businesses.” – Gary’s out here hustling on the Attention Exchange, buying low and selling high. Some people trade stocks; Gary flips attention like it’s NFTs.
  2. “Simplicity and gratitude are the currency of my life.” – Forget Bitcoin; Gary’s working with ‘gratitude coins’ and the ‘simplicity dollar,’ both currently worth about as much as a motivational poster. But hey, the man’s grateful.
  3. “The distribution of information is the way our society works.” – Gary’s cracked the code on society, folks. We run on the information superhighway! Who knew?
  4. “Social media has become the foundation of all societal truths, globally.” – News flash: your grandma’s Facebook feed is now the foundation of truth. If social media says it, it’s gotta be real. Just remember, don’t believe anything you read, unless it’s from Gary.
  5. “Politics is better at marketing than all corporations.” – There’s a lesson in here for every corporate marketer: if you want loyalty, try campaign rallies instead of customer reviews. Who needs brand loyalty when you’ve got political fervor?
  6. “Corporations miss the mark on how they treat people.” – Seems obvious, but in case your boss needs to hear it: stop treating people like dollar signs and more like, you know, humans. (Crazy idea, right?)
  7. “The industry is flawed with its obsession on yesterday.” – Nostalgia’s cute, but when your brand’s glory days are set in the ‘90s, maybe it’s time to reevaluate.
  8. “The industry is flawed with its obsession on tomorrow.” – Here’s a hot take: crystal ball gazing isn’t a strategy. Quit worrying about whether TikTok will still be a thing in 2050 and focus on making today work.
  9. “The industry is flawed with its lack of focus on today.” – Basically, don’t daydream or dwell—do. Right now. This very second. Don’t even finish this sentence…GO!
  10. “Convincing is a very challenging endeavor in corporations because everyone in the company has different KPIs.” – In other words, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand’s KPI is. If you’ve ever tried to herd cats, you know what Gary’s talking about.

So, there you have it, the Vaynerchuk playbook: hustle, day trade that attention, and stay grateful…for the insanity that is corporate life. Thanks, Gary! We’ll see if this one makes it to our next team-building retreat.

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.

Posted on

Laurel Rossi on Marketing’s Shiny Distractions, Linear TV’s Last Gasp, and Why the Industry’s All Bark and No Bite

Let’s be clear: Laurel Rossi isn’t here to join the echo chamber of ad executives talking about “disruption” while sipping their third champagne at Cannes. No, Rossi, who juggles the roles of Chief Marketing Officer and Chief Revenue Officer at Infillion, is here to strip marketing down to its bare bones—and she’s not interested in sugarcoating it. For Rossi, marketing isn’t about joining another panel to talk in circles; it’s about real impact, measurable outcomes, and finally letting go of the industry’s obsession with buzzwords that belong in 2010.

“If it’s not driving impact, what’s the point?” she quips. And she’s not just blowing smoke. Her career has taken her from high-powered roles at Omnicom to selling her own consultancy to Havas, where she ran massive teams like they were small startup labs, cutting fluff and boosting performance. Now, at Infillion, she’s doubling down on the very thing most marketers only like to flirt with: honesty.

Infillion’s IDVx: Where Interactivity Finally Means More than a Button

One of Rossi’s big plays at Infillion has been the launch of IDVx, a video solution that brings “interactivity” back from the land of gimmicky overlays and click-to-nowhere banners. “Most ‘interactive’ ads these days are about as engaging as a stale bagel,” she says with a laugh. “If all you’re giving people is a button to click, you’re missing the whole point of interactive video.”

IDVx, by contrast, is built on the foundation of TrueX’s interactive ad formats, which have been pioneering engagement since the days when most advertisers thought “interactivity” just meant a bigger logo. “With IDVx, we’re blending that TrueX creativity with MediaMath’s programmatic tech,” she explains, “so brands don’t have to pick between impact and scale.” It’s not just a bigger ad budget thrown at the problem; it’s a tool designed to make viewers actually want to engage. “We’re seeing engagement rates that finally back up what video advertising was always supposed to be about,” she says.

State of Video Marketing: “All Flash, No Substance”

Ask Rossi about the state of video marketing, and she’ll tell you it’s in an identity crisis. “Look, everyone’s obsessed with shiny creative campaigns, but most of them are just that—shiny,” she says. The problem? “Most brands are chasing awards instead of actual reach,” Rossi continues, “and they’re getting lost in the spectacle.” She’s seen enough “groundbreaking” campaigns that never actually broke through to viewers, and she’s had it with the idea that viral content alone is enough to justify a marketing budget.

“It’s like we’re in this race to make ads that are beautiful and technically dazzling but don’t even make a dent in recall or sales,” she says. With tools like IDVx, she’s betting on campaigns that don’t just win awards but keep people engaged long enough to actually buy something. “Interactivity was always supposed to mean immersion, not just a distraction. That’s what we’re bringing back.”

Linear TV: Still Alive—But Barely

Rossi has her foot firmly in the digital world, but she’s got a surprisingly soft spot for linear TV, too. Sort of. “Linear TV is like that reliable old dog who’s slower than he used to be but still great at making people feel something,” she says, “but it’s gotta be part of a bigger plan.” Rossi sees linear TV as the last bastion of broad reach, but she’s quick to add that “it can’t just be a dumping ground for leftover budget.” Instead, she argues, it’s about smart integration: pairing linear TV’s reach with digital precision to actually reach the right audience, not just the biggest one.

“It’s like we’re finally realizing that TV and digital aren’t enemies. They’re roommates that need to start sharing a lease,” she jokes. For Rossi, linear TV still has value, but it needs to play nicely with digital—and that’s something most brands still aren’t getting right.

Five No-B.S. Tips for Today’s Media Buyers

When it comes to advice, Rossi is quick and to the point. “You can only slice this thing so many ways,” she says, before rattling off her list of essentials:

  1. Not All Attention is Equal: “It’s not just about getting noticed; it’s about engaging with people who want to notice you,” she says. Rossi believes in what she calls “experiential attention”—the kind of attention where viewers actually choose to watch. “We’ve had enough of the ‘loud and annoying’ era,” she says.
  2. Embrace the Era of Always Shopping: “Forget the old ‘customer journey’—people are shopping all the time now, everywhere they look,” she says. To her, marketers need to stop thinking of awareness as some mystical phase of discovery and start thinking of it as a 24/7 reality.
  3. Put Women’s Sports on Your Radar: “If you’re not sponsoring women’s sports, you’re asleep at the wheel,” Rossi says. With sports stars like Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese making headlines, women’s sports aren’t just an add-on—they’re a growing cultural force. “You’re missing out if you’re not tapping into that.”
  4. Think Beyond the Game: For Rossi, live sports are just one piece of the puzzle. “Gen-Z doesn’t care as much about the game itself as they do about the commentary, podcasts, and the social content around it,” she says. “If you’re not part of the cultural conversation, you’re invisible.”
  5. CTV Isn’t Social Media: “Thinking CTV and social are the same is rookie stuff,” Rossi laughs. Brands that simply drop ads into TikTok or Instagram and expect sales are setting themselves up to fail. “It’s about balancing performance and awareness across platforms, not just shoving content into every feed.”

The Inclusion Café: Cannes, Rosé, and Real Talk on Diversity

This year, Rossi took a different approach at Cannes Lions with her brainchild, the Inclusion Café, a pop-up space at the festival that sparked the kinds of conversations that rarely happen on the Croisette. It wasn’t about platitudes or hollow pledges to “do better.” Instead, it was about tackling the real, uncomfortable truths head-on. “We had everyone from GLAAD to Group Black to the NAACP around the table,” she explains, “and we’re not here for anyone’s ‘nice try’ efforts.”

For Rossi, the Inclusion Café isn’t just a one-time stunt. She sees it as a blueprint for real change. “We’re not in the business of patting ourselves on the back for good intentions,” she says. The goal was to get brands past the stage of talking about inclusivity and into actually measuring and holding themselves accountable for it.

Her advice for brands stepping into the murky waters of inclusivity? “Stop obsessing over getting the language perfect,” she says bluntly. “People want to see actions, not just well-chosen words.” Rossi’s long-term vision for the Inclusion Café goes beyond corporate lip service, envisioning a future where inclusivity becomes a core element of brand identity, not just an add-on for marketing week.

The Bottom Line

Laurel Rossi isn’t here to play nice, and she’s certainly not here to keep repeating the same old industry fluff. She’s calling out lazy tactics, challenging stale strategies, and demanding more from an industry that’s long been comfortable with doing the bare minimum. Whether it’s bringing real interactivity to video ads, making linear TV work harder, or creating spaces like the Inclusion Café, Rossi’s out to hold advertising accountable. And if that makes her some kind of disruptor, so be it. “At the end of the day, if we’re not making an impact, we’re wasting everyone’s time.”

Posted on

Mark Coleman: The VC Who Tossed the Rulebook (And has a heart)

Meet Mark Coleman, a venture capitalist who doesn’t give a rip about the traditional VC playbook. Management fees? Nope. Early exits? Not his style. And don’t even think about trying to impress him with your ping-pong table or kombucha bar. Coleman is part startup whisperer, part reality check artist, and all about cutting through the nonsense.

In an industry that loves to fawn over “disruptors” who usually end up just reinventing the wheel with shinier PR, Coleman stands out. He’s been in the trenches, sold DoubleClick to Google (no big deal, right?), and now spends his days mentoring entrepreneurs—often while politely telling them to focus on real problems instead of playing Startup Bingo with buzzwords.

Let’s dive in, because this guy is not your average suit.

From the Sweaty-Palmed Trenches to Investor Zen

“So you’ve gone from the ramen-eating, sleep-deprived startup life to the chill investor vibe, sipping artisanal coffee while watching others do the panic dance,” quips Pesach Lattin, kicking off their conversation on The ADOTAT Show. Coleman smiles, the kind of smile that says, “Yeah, I’ve seen some things.”

“We all have careers and paths we follow,” he says, with the serene tone of someone who’s done the 80-hour work weeks and come out the other side alive. Now he’s co-founder of Tambora Ventures, the man behind the curtain for startups looking to make it in a world that’s more likely to chew them up and spit them out than turn them into unicorns.

And here’s where Coleman’s journey gets interesting: he’s not in it for the cliché “giving back” storyline that investors love to preach. No, he’s in it because he genuinely enjoys seeing smart people solve big problems. “I was blessed to be around really smart people,” he says, “and now I’m paying it forward.”

When Founders Drive Into Walls, Coleman Hands Them a Map (Not a Helmet)

Now, if you think Coleman’s the kind of investor who’s going to put out every fire you start, you’ve got him all wrong. He’s not running a daycare for over-caffeinated founders. “We don’t wait for an accident to happen to put a stoplight at that corner,” Coleman explains, matter-of-factly. Instead, he’s all about stepping in before the flames start—because, let’s face it, by the time a founder is putting out fires, it’s probably too late.

Does he enjoy watching his protégés faceplant? Of course not. But he’s also not here to sugarcoat things. “I try not to own the car that they’re driving,” he says, which is basically venture capitalist code for: Your failures are yours to own, but I’ll help you avoid the worst of them.

Coleman’s not a fan of the last-minute rescue. In fact, he avoids the whole knight-in-shining-armor routine. “We like to get ahead of the curve,” he says, sipping his coffee, probably while his portfolio founders are downing espresso shots and praying they hit their next funding milestone.

Ping-Pong Tables? Please. Focus on Margins, Kid.

Remember those startups that spend more time deciding what color their office beanbags should be than on, you know, building a product people actually want? Coleman sees right through that fluff. “I bring it down to basic marketing 101,” he says, reminding everyone that building a business is about solving a problem—not winning the coolest office award on TechCrunch.

And here’s where it gets good: Coleman has a way of cutting through the noise that makes you wish more VCs did the same. “They didn’t go into this to be bankers, to be raising money,” he says, sounding almost exasperated. “They came in to be builders.”

You can almost hear the collective eye-roll when he talks about founders who obsess over branding before they’ve even figured out if their product works. “It’s all about the innovation. Taking it to market. Following their KPIs in the journey,” he adds, dropping business wisdom like it’s a TED Talk no one asked for but desperately needs.

No Fees, No Nonsense: Mark Coleman’s Unorthodox VC Strategy

Here’s where Mark Coleman breaks all the rules. In an industry that practically lives off of management fees—standard issue 2% for most VCs—Coleman just says, “Nah, I’m good.”

“I don’t charge a management fee for my LPs,” he says like it’s the most natural thing in the world, as if every other venture capitalist isn’t listening and clutching their pearls. Why? Because he doesn’t believe in taking money out of the ecosystem. He’s not here to play fund manager; he’s here to actually, you know, fund innovation.

“I thought the big bet was my vision,” he explains. “Let’s all make money together.” If that sounds almost utopian in the cutthroat world of venture capital, it’s because it is. But Coleman is clearly thriving. He’s already on his third fund, with partners who buy into his karma-fueled philosophy.

“I’m a karma guy,” he says, casually tossing out a sentiment that would make most financiers shudder. “I pay things forward… and I haven’t changed it. It’s been working, so it ain’t broke, I’m not gonna fix it.”

The Broken VC World: Coleman’s Not Here for Your Nonsense

If you’ve ever wondered what a venture capitalist who actually calls out the industry’s BS sounds like, wonder no more. Coleman pulls no punches when it comes to his thoughts on the state of the VC world.

“It’s a broken sector,” he says bluntly. “Sadly, a lot of bad actors on both sides.” He’s not just talking about shady founders fudging numbers to impress investors (although there are plenty of those). He’s also calling out investors who don’t do their due diligence and end up funding nonsense.

“I’m not saying I’m the new sheriff in town,” Coleman says, clearly indicating he’s absolutely the new sheriff in town, “but I’m protecting as many people as I can.”

This isn’t idle talk. Coleman’s approach to investing is grounded in his own experience of being a founder, and he’s keenly aware that, without the private sector, innovation dies. “Without private money, there’s no innovation, no investment.”

DoubleClick and Google: The Deal That Changed Everything

When Coleman talks about selling DoubleClick to Google, it’s not with the typical breathless excitement of a founder who cashed out. No, this was a deal made with careful calculation and a bit of pragmatism.

“We were public, went private, took on a PE firm, and were making real-time decisions about what to do,” Coleman recalls. It wasn’t exactly a fairytale exit. In fact, Coleman had two buyers—Google and Microsoft—vying for DoubleClick at the time, and they had to make fast, strategic moves.

Google won the bidding war, but Coleman wasn’t convinced they’d actually keep DoubleClick’s technology. “I was positive they were going to sunset the technology,” he admits. Instead, DoubleClick’s tech became foundational to Google’s ad empire, outlasting even his expectations.

Looking back, does he regret selling to Google? Not a chance. “It was one of the best sales with a great company for an exit. I don’t think I would ever change it again.”

The Israeli Startup Scene: Frogs, Princes, and Kicking Tires

Coleman’s got a soft spot for Israeli startups, but he’s not starry-eyed about it. In fact, he’s been mentoring companies there for years, partly because of his deep personal connection—his wife is a first-generation Holocaust survivor—but also because he sees immense potential.

But Israeli founders, as much as they’re celebrated, sometimes need a little dose of reality, according to Coleman. “It’s too intense,” he says of the culture. The whole “move fast and break things” mentality might work when you’re building apps in Tel Aviv, but taking it global requires a different strategy.

“You can have a nickel for every meeting and a bucket full of change but no money,” he laughs, referencing how some Israeli founders get stuck in a meeting loop without sealing the deal. Coleman’s all about KPIs and moving the needle, not just endless pitch meetings.

The Superpower of Healing (No, Seriously)

At this point, you might be thinking, “Alright, but what does Mark Coleman actually do for fun?”

The answer? Not what you’d expect from a guy who’s reshaping venture capital. Coleman’s big hobby? Gardening. “I love gardening and landscaping,” he says, sounding almost Zen. And when asked what superpower he’d want, he doesn’t opt for something flashy like flying or mind control. Nope. Coleman wants the power of healing. “I’m all about longevity and health and quality of life.”

Not exactly what you’d expect from a venture capitalist, right? But that’s exactly the point. Coleman is not what you expect, period.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Be Evil (But Maybe Be a Little Bold)

Mark Coleman is not your average VC. He’s ditching the management fees, calling out bad actors, and treating his founders like family (without the passive-aggressive holiday dinners). And he’s doing it all without an alarm clock.

His advice to founders? Simple: “Just do good. I always loved Google’s ‘Don’t be evil.'”

In a world where venture capital often seems to be about making money fast and getting out before the market shifts, Coleman is a breath of fresh air. He’s in it for the long game. He’s in it for the people. And while the rest of the VC world might be broken, he’s quietly—perhaps even stubbornly—building something better.

You don’t have to agree with him. But it’s hard not to respect him. And in venture capital, that’s saying something.

WATCH THE FULL EPISODE HERE

Posted on

AdTech’s Great Purge: The Last Stand of the Bloat Masters

Terrence Kawaja’s “Great Ad Tech Cleanup” isn’t just a neat metaphor—it’s an industrial-strength decluttering of a sector that’s spent years accumulating more fat than muscle. For two decades, ad tech has lurched from manual insertion orders to programmatic automation, layering in more platforms, middlemen, and bloated fees with every step. DSPs, SSPs, verification layers, and data vendors all claim their “necessary” share, which Kawaja sums up as the “ad tech tax”—a nice way of saying “a whole lot of people getting paid for not a lot of value.”

According to Kawaja, we’re now witnessing the reckoning, and it’s not for the faint-hearted. Major players from Rocket Fuel to YuMe and Tremor Video have been gobbled up, unable to keep pace. What’s left? Leaner companies like The Trade Desk, who’ve stayed agile by trimming the fat and automating where others fell behind. It’s musical chairs for ad tech, and if you’re not at the table, you’re not in the game.

The Platform Era: Where Consolidation is the Name of Survival

Starting in 2023, the sector faced a grim reality. Rising interest rates and weary investors demanded cost-cutting and higher margins. Public ad tech companies collectively upped EBITDA margins by about 7%, making them irresistible for acquisitions. With IPOs effectively off the table, the motto became “get bought or get lost.” Kawaja argues this grand-scale consolidation was overdue, with each acquisition promising a streamlined future of fewer, stronger players. Forget your dreams of IPO glory; these firms are in survival mode.

It’s not just about slashing costs. The backdrop of shifting privacy regulations and the cookie apocalypse added another layer of pressure. The ad tech world has been scrambling to pivot to cookieless alternatives—clean rooms, first-party data solutions, contextual targeting, anything that looks like it belongs in a “privacy-first” world. Ironically, Google, the long-time ruler of digital ads, has turned into a “backseat driver,” delaying the end of third-party cookies repeatedly. Originally set for 2022, then 2023, and now slated for 2024, Google’s cookie phase-out has become a painfully expensive limbo, forcing companies to prepare for an uncertain, cookieless future.

In classic Kawaja style, he jokes that Google’s endless delays are a bit like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. While tech giants have been left spinning their wheels, smaller ad tech players, many ill-prepared, face a “clean up or get out” ultimatum. 

And if Google’s hand is eventually forced in its ongoing antitrust saga, we could even see Google Ad Manager put up for sale. Just imagine that ripple effect.

Betting Big on CTV and Retail Media

Beyond privacy pressures and investor expectations, the consolidation craze also marks a strategic pivot toward growth markets like Connected TV (CTV) and retail media. CTV is the new golden child, a landscape where programmatic advertising has taken off faster than you can say “prime time.” The Trade Desk, for example, shines here, riding the wave of automated CTV solutions. Retail media, on the other hand, is more complex. Sure, everyone’s excited about it, but we haven’t seen it unlock significant new ad budgets. Instead, retail media feels like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, as ad dollars merely shift from one channel to another.

Outbrain’s acquisition of Teads and DoubleVerify’s purchase of SciBids demonstrate this trend toward media channels that offer direct, measurable ROI. CTV and AI are both magnets for M&A, with the hope they’ll deliver a tech-heavy ad future minus the bloat of ad tax.

AI as the New Power Play

For Kawaja, AI isn’t just another buzzword; it’s the future of ad buying. With AI-driven tools promising smarter targeting and real-time campaign optimization, legacy systems may be on their way out. DoubleVerify’s 2023 acquisition of SciBids, an AI-driven campaign optimizer, exemplifies how companies are betting big on tech that reduces human error—and middlemen. By leaning on AI, Kawaja argues that ad tech can finally cut out redundant layers that eat up budgets without adding value. In theory, AI could turn the messy programmatic landscape into a streamlined ecosystem where fewer players capture more market share.

But this vision isn’t without its caveats. AI is great in theory but complex in execution, requiring expertise and budget that not every ad tech firm can muster. It’s also no guarantee that ad tech’s problems will magically solve themselves just because some algorithms are now running the show.

Challenges Loom Large: Consolidation as a High-Stakes Gamble

The “Great Cleanup” of ad tech, as Kawaja describes it, is anything but smooth sailing. Retail media, despite the hype as ad tech’s next big thing, isn’t quite the goldmine it was billed to be. Sure, it managed to secure a whopping $122 billion in global ad spending in 2023, but the problem is, much of that budget is siphoned off from other channels rather than being new, incremental spend. In other words, retail media isn’t actually expanding the pie; it’s just rearranging the slices. While retail media continues to emerge as an important ad channel, it hasn’t yet delivered the net new growth investors were hoping for.

The sector is also starting to outgrow its “experimental” label. With the IAB’s new Retail Media Measurement Guidelines aiming to introduce some long-overdue standards, advertisers finally have a roadmap to evaluate returns more consistently. Until now, brands have been hesitant to dive in, wary of putting big bucks into a channel that hadn’t quite proven itself or offered reliable ROI metrics. Many media buyers currently rank retail media ROI as subpar compared to more established channels. It’s like trying to sell a new soda without any idea of how much fizz is in each can. Meanwhile, partnerships are flourishing, with retailers linking up with giants like Meta, Criteo, and The Trade Desk, making retail media a ripe spot for mergers and acquisitions. But without robust data to show whether these big bets pay off, retail media could turn out to be just the latest flash-in-the-pan hype.

Enter AI, the new must-have for any ad tech firm looking to remain relevant. The promise of AI-driven tools—predictive ad targeting, fraud detection, and even dynamic ad creation—is huge. AI can streamline processes and slash inefficiencies in a single, powerful swipe. But AI adoption isn’t cheap or easy. Implementing machine learning and predictive modeling tools requires skilled teams and a sizeable budget, something smaller ad tech firms may struggle to provide. DoubleVerify’s acquisition of SciBids in 2023 was one of the first moves to make AI central to programmatic buying, showing how the big players are adapting AI to gain a significant edge. But for every win, there’s a question: can smaller players keep up, or will they be left behind, facing an industry barrier so steep it becomes a form of financial Darwinism?

For Kawaja, all this consolidation and adoption of new tech is more than a strategy—it’s the only path forward. Consolidation, he believes, will finally tame the unwieldy layers in ad tech, slashing the infamous “ad tech tax” that eats into profits at every turn. Investors seem to agree, as 2023 has nearly broken records for ad tech M&A. Yet consolidation alone isn’t a guaranteed fix. The industry is left with one big question: can these fewer, bigger players deliver the efficient, streamlined ecosystem Kawaja imagines? Or will they just become the last giants standing in an increasingly niche, hyper-consolidated market?

Retail media and AI are at a critical juncture. They hold the promise of transforming ad tech’s value and efficiency, but they also carry the risk of becoming another set of costly missteps. Will this “Great Cleanup” pay off, or are we simply seeing the ad tech tax shift from one layer to another? As Kawaja’s vision unfolds, ad tech finds itself both leaner and, perhaps ironically, more complex than ever.

The Brutal Forecast: Grow Up, or Get Out

Kawaja’s blueprint for the future isn’t all sunshine and roses. Ad tech needs to grow up, slim down, and cut the fat, or it risks total implosion. He envisions an industry where high-volume, low-margin firms set the standard while the bloated, inefficient ones either merge or disappear. His LumaScape might get leaner, but it’s still clear that this cleanup won’t be easy. It’s a call to action for ad tech to face reality: The future belongs to the lean, the nimble, and the efficient.

Whether the survivors can actually transform streamlined efficiency into true innovation—or if they’ll just be the last players left on the shrinking field—remains the billion-dollar question. Kawaja’s message is as blunt as it is optimistic: Clean up your act or step aside, because the Great Ad Tech Cleanup isn’t waiting for anyone to catch up.

Posted on

Curation Haters Gonna Hate: But It’s Still the Only Thing Keeping Your Ads Clean

Alright, folks, let’s talk about adtech’s latest punching bag: curation. It’s the kale of programmatic—good for you, sure, but nobody wants to chew on it unless it’s blended into something that hides the bitterness. But Adweek decided to fan the flames with an article quoting five anonymous sources who trash curation like it’s the Illuminati of ad placements.

Five anonymous sources? What’s next, a whistleblower protection program? It’s adtech, not a government takedown.

Nobody’s getting black-bagged for saying, “Curation’s not perfect.”

Adweek going cloak-and-dagger over something as mundane as ad inventory bundling tells you all you need to know about the “controversy” around curation. Publishers are clutching their pearls like they just found out they can’t autoplay videos with sound anymore. This isn’t just about their shrinking revenue streams; it’s about control. They were the kings of first-party data after third-party cookies got tossed, and now SSPs and DSPs are packaging up inventory like it’s their birthright.

Publishers have been riding the first-party data pony ever since third-party cookies got shown the door. They like to think they’re the gatekeepers of “premium inventory,” but SSPs and DSPs have other plans. Enter curation, where the magic happens. Think of it like putting velvet ropes around the sketchier corners of the internet and letting in advertisers who don’t want to slum it on a clickbait cesspool.

The publishers hate it, of course. They’re saying it’s the “emperor’s new clothes.” Tired metaphor? Try “a designer jacket found in a thrift shop”—some see a gem, others think it’s overpriced. Publishers gripe that curation slashes their revenue potential, and to be fair, adtech has more middlemen than a multi-level marketing scheme. But let’s not kid ourselves here: curation’s no greasy adtech tax; it’s the life preserver keeping advertisers afloat in the open-web mess.

And then there’s the big complaint that curation lowers inventory value. Oh, please. Some publishers act like SSPs are “cannibalizing” buyers who’d throw money at direct deals, offering curated packages at lower rates instead. Cue the declining eCPMs and crocodile tears. But, really, when was the open web ever this glittering goldmine? You’d rather sell “premium” placements next to a “1 Weird Trick to Remove Belly Fat” banner? Didn’t think so.

Let’s face it, advertisers like Coca-Cola are turning to curation for brand survival. They don’t want their ads slumming it on spammy MFA sites either. Curation is basically the web’s metal detector, sifting through garbage to find shiny coins. And while publishers moan about “the death of the open web,” SSPs are evolving into adtech’s real MVPs—Xandr, Index, OpenX—they’re building curated marketplaces of premium inventory. It’s like the nerds from high school finally throwing the best parties. Suddenly, everyone wants in, and publishers are left grumbling over their missing invites.

Meanwhile, DSPs are throwing their own tantrum. Curation cuts into their control over audience targeting, and they’re clutching onto their third-party cookie crumbs like the last slice of pizza. Now SSPs are using first-party data to create their own curated packages, and DSPs are feeling the squeeze. It’s like the tables have turned, and DSPs are no longer running the show.

Bottom line? Curation isn’t going anywhere because, surprise, it actually works. It’s not the sleek Ferrari everyone dreamed of, but it’s not a rust bucket either. In adtech’s bloated world, curation is the Honda Accord—reliable, steady, and built to last.

So yeah, curation keeps your ad spend out of the greasy hands of digital squatters. It’s the bouncer at the bar, tossing out the creeps so you can enjoy your overpriced cocktail in peace. Without it? We’re all just stumbling through an all-you-can-eat buffet at 2 a.m., not sure where the food came from or how long it’s been sitting out. Except instead of food poisoning, you’re getting brand poisoning from bad ad placements.

Remember the “good ol’ days” of programmatic? Neither does anyone else. That dream of a Swiss-watch-precise ad-buying portal turned into a swamp of scammy inventory. Billions wasted, ads stuck next to conspiracy theories. So with third-party cookies nearing their grave and brands picky about where their ads land, curation is the lifeline we didn’t know we needed. It cuts through the noise, weeds out the junk, and gives us back one thing we desperately need: control.

So let’s not kid ourselves. Curation may not be the flashy savior of programmatic, but it’s the band-aid we need for the gaping wound in ad inventory. Sure, publishers hate it because it clips their control, but this isn’t about playground ownership—it’s about cleaning up the mess before advertisers take their ball and go home.

Posted on

From Blockbuster to Bust: Netflix’s AAA Game Studio Shuts Down

Netflix just gave the axe to its Southern California AAA game studio, Team Blue, before it ever released a single game. In a move that reeks of “too big to fail” vibes, Netflix poured money into top-tier gaming talent—veterans from Overwatch, Halo, and God of War—only to shutter the studio a mere two years after opening it. You can practically hear the collective groan of every exec who thought Netflix could just waltz into the high-stakes world of AAA gaming without breaking a sweat.

Here’s the breakdown: Team Blue was supposed to be Netflix’s golden ticket into the multi-billion-dollar gaming industry, a place where $100 million gets you a shiny blockbuster game—and that’s just for starters. Netflix went all in on the promise of a “multi-device” gaming future. Think games on your PC, PlayStation, and Nintendo Switch, all under the Netflix banner. But it seems that ambition met reality like a brick wall. Instead of getting a piece of the billion-dollar gaming pie, Netflix found itself caught in the kitchen with no recipe.

Let’s talk about the talent exodus. First, they brought in Chacko Sonny, the former executive producer of Overwatch—a guy who knows his way around a gaming hit. Then, they lured Joseph Staten, a major player from the Halo franchise, and Rafael Grassetti, an art director from God of War. This was the dream team. But instead of creating the next great gaming IP, the only thing that materialized was an exodus. None of these industry big shots are sticking around, and with their departure, so goes Netflix’s dream of a blockbuster AAA game.

Now, Netflix isn’t new to gaming. Since 2021, the streamer has been dabbling in mobile games, some of which have gained traction—Oxenfree II and ports of iconic games like Grand Theft Auto to name a few. They even acquired developers like Night School Studio and Spry Fox to beef up their pipeline. But jumping from casual mobile games to AAA is like moving from LEGO bricks to skyscrapers overnight—probably not the smartest leap. And yet, here they were, betting on a “big-budget, multi-device strategy,” despite having no gaming street cred to stand on.

Co-CEO Greg Peters called investing in games “planting seeds” on a recent earnings call. Seeds? Maybe more like planting landmines. The sheer cost of creating AAA games is staggering, and let’s not forget about the market competition. Every gaming company from Amazon to Google has tried and failed to get in the game. Google’s Stadia? Yeah, let’s pour one out for that disaster. But here was Netflix, rolling the dice anyway.

Peters also threw out a few crumbs about upcoming titles based on Netflix’s pre-existing IPs, saying, “We’ve got a Squid Game coming. We’ve got a Virgin River Christmas.” Yes, you heard that right, a Virgin River game. If the thought of playing a Christmas-themed game about small-town melodrama excites you, congratulations—you are Netflix’s target audience. Meanwhile, Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s other co-CEO, boasted about the “steady drumbeat” of games, alongside new TV shows and films. But let’s be real: mobile games based on Netflix series aren’t going to turn Netflix into the next Ubisoft or EA anytime soon.

So, where does this leave Netflix? After burning through cash and pulling the plug on Team Blue, it looks like the streamer is going back to its roots. Mobile games are still on the menu, and the company recently picked up Cozy Grove developer Spry Fox. But it’s safe to say their dreams of conquering the AAA space are on ice for the foreseeable future. Sure, there’s still talk of games based on Netflix IPs, but the grand vision of a cross-platform gaming empire? That’s looking like a classic Hollywood bust.

Netflix might want to take a page from Google’s playbook—sometimes, it’s better to stay in your lane than crash and burn in someone else’s. For now, we’ll have to settle for Squid Game spin-offs and whatever the Virgin River Christmas game turns out to be. Stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath for the next Halo coming from Netflix anytime soon.

Posted on

Why Your Brand Feels Like a Cheap Date: All Flash, No Substance in the World of Performance Marketing

Performance marketing has become the fast-food option of the digital age—convenient, tempting, and delivering instant satisfaction. However, just like a diet of burgers and fries, the long-term consequences are far from healthy. The race to capture clicks and conversions is wreaking havoc on brands, chipping away at long-term value while feeding a culture of immediate gratification. It’s clear that while performance marketing can offer quick wins, it’s the slow-burn of brand marketing that builds empires.

Let’s face it—performance marketing is like a turbo boost. You hit the gas, you get a rush, but that tank is going to run dry fast. Neil Blumenthal, CEO of Warby Parker, nailed it when he said, “It’s never been easier or less expensive to start a business, but it’s also never been harder to scale one.” You can attract eyeballs, clicks, and sales, but scaling requires brand loyalty, emotional connection, and a foundation that performance marketing alone can’t build.

The Performance Marketing Illusion: Chasing Short-Term Wins

The allure of performance marketing is obvious. It’s all about measurability, something marketers love. You can track everything—clicks, conversions, cost-per-click, return on ad spend (ROAS). It’s like getting a report card every day, showing exactly where your dollars are going and how many conversions you’ve bought. For companies under pressure to prove ROI, that’s a golden ticket.

However, this addiction to short-term metrics is killing long-term brand value. As Interbrand’s 2024 report pointed out, an over-reliance on performance marketing has led to $200 billion in unrealized value for the world’s top brands in just the past year. Since 2000, the cumulative loss is a mind-boggling $3.5 trillion. These are numbers you can’t ignore, and they highlight a troubling trend: brands are winning the daily battles but losing the war.

The Bidding Wars: Performance Marketing’s Hidden Flaw

Performance marketing works on an auction system—whether it’s Google Ads or Facebook, you’re bidding for attention. The problem? The more brands adopt this strategy, the more expensive it becomes. In this escalating bidding war, your Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) climbs, leaving you fighting over a shrinking pool of active shoppers. Brands are essentially competing for the same slice of pie, and the more bidders, the smaller your slice becomes.

This is what some marketers call the CAC Valley of Death. When your acquisition costs outpace the revenue you’re generating, you’re stuck in an unsustainable loop. The moment you stop feeding the machine, the conversions stop. As John Dawes from the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute explains, 95% of potential customers aren’t in the market for your product right now. Focusing only on short-term buyers means you’re ignoring the vast majority of future customers—people who might buy in three months, a year, or longer. Without long-term brand-building, you’re essentially running on a hamster wheel of acquisition costs that only increase over time.

The Rise and Fall of Brands: The Apple Example

Let’s talk about Apple, a brand that’s long been the poster child for combining short-term performance with long-term strategy. Despite being ranked as the most valuable brand globally, Apple’s brand value fell by 3% in 2024. Why? While they’ve embraced cutting-edge performance strategies, their slower approach to AI and generative technologies has raised eyebrows. But here’s the kicker: Apple’s stock price rose by 20% this year, showing that long-term trust and brand loyalty still hold more weight than chasing trends.

Apple’s strategy prioritizes trust over short-term trends, and while they might take a small hit on immediate brand value, their long game is strong. They’ve built emotional connections with their customers over decades—something performance marketing can’t replicate. The temptation to rush into trends might offer short-term gains, but Apple’s deliberate, trust-focused approach is a masterclass in the importance of brand marketing.

Brand vs. Performance: A False Dichotomy

There’s been a lot of debate about whether brand marketing or performance marketing is the better strategy, but it’s a false dichotomy. These approaches aren’t enemies—they’re complementary. Les Binet and Peter Field, two marketing heavyweights, have argued that the sweet spot for most brands is a 60/40 split—60% into brand building, 40% into performance marketing. The reason? Brand marketing lays the foundation, creating long-term customer loyalty and emotional resonance. Performance marketing? It’s the icing on the cake—it converts the demand that brand marketing creates.

Take Nike or Coca-Cola—they didn’t become household names by winning Facebook ad auctions. They built their brands over years, embedding themselves into culture. So, when a consumer is ready to buy sneakers or a soda, Nike and Coke are the first names that come to mind. That’s brand equity—something performance marketing alone can’t deliver.

The Cost of Ignoring Brand Building

Kantar’s 2024 BrandZ report highlights a glaring issue: brands that focus solely on performance marketing risk stagnating or even declining. Between 2019 and 2021, brands that focused on brand equity saw a 72% increase in value, compared to just 20% for brands that relied primarily on performance tactics. Ignoring brand-building not only weakens your baseline sales but forces you to spend more and more on performance marketing just to keep your head above water.

This is the vicious cycle: as your brand’s foundation weakens, you become more dependent on performance marketing to make up for lost sales. But as your acquisition costs rise, your profitability plummets. It’s a zero-sum game, and without brand marketing, you’re trapped in a downward spiral.

The Way Forward: Balancing the Two

So, how do you escape this trap? The answer isn’t to abandon performance marketing—it’s too valuable for that. Instead, it’s about balance. You need both short-term performance wins and long-term brand building to create sustainable growth. Think of it like this: performance marketing is your fuel for today, but brand marketing is the engine that will keep you moving tomorrow.

The challenge is that while performance marketing offers instant results, brand marketing takes time—and patience. It’s harder to measure, harder to sell to executives, and often feels intangible. But as the evidence shows, it’s essential. The brands that thrive are the ones that invest in both.

How Smaller Brands Can Compete

For smaller brands without the big budgets of Apple or Nike, the road can seem daunting. You might not be able to afford mass media advertising, but there are still ways to balance both strategies. You can build your brand through storytelling, content marketing, and community-building on social platforms. It’s about creating a cultural narrative, one that resonates emotionally with your audience, even if you can’t plaster your logo on a billboard.

As Neil Blumenthal said, “Outsmarting the competition” for smaller brands means creating demand for tomorrow even as you convert today’s customers. It’s about finding ways to weave long-term trust into your short-term performance goals, so you’re building for both today and tomorrow.

The Final Word: Play the Long Game

Let’s get something straight: while performance marketing might be your flashy new fling, all about quick wins and sexy conversion rates, it’s brand marketing that’s going to stick with you through the ups and downs. The harsh truth is that you can’t build a legacy on a foundation of click-through rates and last-minute Google ads. It’s like trying to build a skyscraper on a pile of sand—sure, you might get off the ground for a while, but sooner or later, everything’s going to crumble.

Brands that focus solely on performance marketing are playing a losing game. The instant gratification is like eating candy—it feels great in the moment, but then you crash, hard. You might see some spikes in sales, but you’re not building the emotional connection, the trust, and the long-term loyalty that actually sustains a business. When the algorithms change or CPC skyrockets, those short-term wins won’t save you. Spoiler alert: your performance campaigns are at the mercy of factors completely out of your control.

Now, here’s the kicker: brands that manage to balance both performance and brand marketing? They’re not just winning the battle, they’re set to win the war. Nike didn’t become a global giant by optimizing Facebook ads—they built a brand people trust, aspire to, and feel emotionally connected with. Then they used performance marketing to convert that brand loyalty into sales. It’s not an either/or scenario; it’s about playing the short game and the long game at the same time. Performance marketing is your tactical airstrike, but brand marketing? That’s the ground troops that occupy the territory and hold it for the long haul.

So, stop chasing that sugar high. Stop living from click to click, sale to sale, like some desperate marketer with FOMO. You’re not building anything that will last. You need to start thinking about the long game—how your brand will resonate with consumers not just today, but next year, the year after, and beyond. A strong brand doesn’t just generate leads; it generates loyalty, advocacy, and trust, the kind of stuff you can’t measure on a dashboard but will keep paying dividends long after your latest campaign has ended.

In other words, make sure that while you’re gunning for today’s wins, you’re also setting yourself up for tomorrow’s success. A balanced marketing strategy isn’t just good business—it’s survival. Today’s clicks are great, but tomorrow’s loyalty is priceless. Win today’s battle, but always, always remember there’s a bigger war to be fought. And if you’re smart? You’ll make sure your brand is armed to win it.

Posted on

Why Jonah Goodhart Thinks Your Feelings Matter More Than Clicks

Let me paint you a picture: I’m sitting across from Jonah Goodhart—yes, that Jonah Goodhart. The ad tech wunderkind who co -founded Moat, sold it to Oracle for a king’s ransom, and then had the audacity to not sail off into the sunset. 

Instead, he’s back at it with Montauk Labs, tinkering away like some mad scientist who refuses to leave well enough alone. We’re supposed to be discussing his latest venture, but naturally, the conversation spirals into a kaleidoscope of topics—from cosmic accidents to the emotional underpinnings of insurance ads. And honestly, it’s a breath of fresh air in an industry suffocating under its own self -importance.

So here they are: ten pearls of wisdom Jonah casually tossed my way, each one sinking deeper into my jaded, tech -weary soul than I’d like to admit.

1. Embrace the Cosmic Accident

“Jonah, what cosmic accident or stroke of brilliance led you here?” I ask, half -expecting a rehearsed monologue about strategic planning and market disruption. Instead, he laughs—a genuine, hearty chuckle that cuts through the veneer of corporate pretense. “Cosmic accident? That’s about right,” he says.

He proceeds to recount how he and his brother Noah stumbled into their first venture while still in college. Picture this: two college kids capitalizing on e -commerce sites in the late ’90s that were practically begging people to take their products for free. No grand vision, no five -year plan—just two guys thinking, “Hey, free stuff is cool.”

“We didn’t know squat about advertising,” he admits. “We were just college kids who thought getting free stuff on this amazing new thing called the internet was neat.” Their ‘business’ was essentially a newsletter highlighting where to snag freebies online. Then Barnes & Noble called—not to sue them for exploiting loopholes—but to offer them a commission. You can’t make this stuff up.

“So suddenly, a business was born,” he says, still sounding slightly incredulous. It’s like tripping over a rock and finding out it’s a gold nugget. Most people would chalk it up to dumb luck, but Jonah turned that cosmic accident into a launching pad.

The lesson? Life doesn’t always need your meticulous planning. Sometimes, it’s about recognizing the opportunity in randomness. While you’re busy plotting your next move, the universe might just be waiting to drop a golden egg in your lap. So keep your eyes open—and maybe, just maybe, answer those unexpected calls.

2. Mentors Matter, Even the Unlikely Ones

“Was there a pivotal mentor or anti -hero that shaped your path?” I prod. Jonah doesn’t hesitate. “Mike Walrath,” he says, eyes lighting up. For the uninitiated, Mike’s the guy who went from selling gym memberships to pioneering digital ad exchanges. Not exactly the linear career trajectory they teach you in business school.

“Mike cold -called me,” Jonah recalls. “He said, ‘I see what you’re doing. You should buy banner ads.'” Now, let’s pause here. Most of us treat cold callers like telemarketers during dinner—necessary evils to be dispatched swiftly. But Jonah listened. Maybe he was bored; maybe he sensed something. Either way, that call led to them buying significant media over a weekend—on a credit card, no less.

Fast forward, Mike leaves DoubleClick and reaches out again: “I’m starting a company. Do you and your brother want in?” They did, and thus Right Media was born, eventually selling to Yahoo for a cool $680 million. Not too shabby for a guy who used to hustle gym memberships.

The real kicker? Mike wasn’t some industry titan or seasoned executive. He was just a guy with hustle, vision, and the chutzpah to cold -call potential clients. Jonah’s takeaway? Don’t underestimate anyone. Wisdom doesn’t always come adorned with titles and accolades. Sometimes, it’s the guy who used to peddle gym memberships who’ll lead you to your next big break.

So the next time you get an unsolicited pitch, maybe—just maybe—don’t hang up immediately. You never know who might be on the other end of the line.

3. Age Is Just a Number, So Ignore It

“Are you the Yoda or Darth Vader in your story?” I quip, expecting a smirk. Jonah chuckles, but then gets serious. Back when he and his brother started, being young wasn’t the asset it is today. Forget Silicon Valley’s fetishization of 20 -something CEOs in hoodies. In the late ’90s, youth was a liability.

“People wanted to know if I had kids, how old I was,” he says. “They’d ask, ‘Who’s the white hair in the room?'” Imagine that. Now, companies are practically throwing money at teenagers who can code a halfway decent app. But back then, Jonah and Noah were so wary of being dismissed that they dodged face -to -face meetings.

“Mike tried to meet us, and we’d always have an excuse,” he admits. “We didn’t want him to realize he was dealing with college kids.” The charade didn’t last forever. One day, someone let slip that Jonah was at a final exam when Mike called. The cat was out of the bag.

Did it matter? Not really. But it underscores how arbitrary metrics like age can be barriers—or perceived ones. Jonah didn’t let societal expectations dictate his path. He knew what he brought to the table, even if others couldn’t see past his lack of crow’s feet.

So what’s the modern takeaway? Ageism cuts both ways. Whether you’re too young or too old in someone else’s eyes, screw ’em. If you have the vision and the drive, that’s what counts. Stop waiting for the world to validate you based on outdated criteria. Forge ahead, and let your work speak for itself.

4. The Art of the Pivot Isn’t Just for Startups

“Was there a decision that made you think, ‘I must have been out of my mind?'” I ask, leaning in. Jonah nods. “Our first company had an offer on the table,” he says. “We could have sold it and been very well off. But we didn’t.”

Cue the collective gasp. They turned down a lucrative exit, and the company eventually fizzled out. Most would consider that a colossal screw -up, the kind you’d lose sleep over for decades. But not Jonah.

“Had we sold, we might’ve been stuck working for the acquirer,” he muses. “We wouldn’t have been free to start Right Media with Mike.” So, in a twist of fate, what seemed like a misstep paved the way for something bigger.

It’s like missing your flight only to find out the plane had mechanical issues. At first, you’re cursing your luck; later, you’re thanking your lucky stars. Jonah sees setbacks not as failures but as redirections.

“Failure isn’t the end; it’s just a plot twist,” he says, shrugging as if it’s the most obvious thing in the world. “Keep the story moving.”

So maybe the next time life kicks you in the teeth, consider that it might be steering you toward a better path. The art of the pivot isn’t just for startups; it’s for anyone willing to see opportunity in adversity. And if you can’t see it, maybe you’re not looking hard enough.

5. Emotion Drives Everything, Even Advertising

“Measurement is shifting towards outcomes and even emotion,” I note. “How do we measure the unmeasurable?” Jonah leans forward, eyes gleaming like he’s just been handed a winning lottery ticket.

“We are emotional beings,” he begins. “We may think we behave rationally, but it’s just not the case.” In an industry obsessed with data points and KPIs, here’s a guy preaching the gospel of feelings.

He dives into how emotions influence consumer behavior more than any A/B test ever could. “Negative emotion isn’t always bad,” he points out. “Sometimes it gets people to take action.”

He brings up life insurance ads—the ones that remind you of your mortality to sell policies. “They tap into anxiety to motivate you,” he says. “It’s twisted but effective.”

Jonah argues that with advancements in AI and machine learning, we can now quantify these emotional triggers. It’s not about manipulating consumers but understanding them on a deeper level. “If we can leverage emotion to understand content better, we can make better decisions,” he insists.

It’s refreshing to hear someone in tech acknowledge the messy, irrational nature of humanity. We’re not just data points on a spreadsheet; we’re complex beings driven by hopes, fears, and desires. And maybe—just maybe—acknowledging that makes for better business and better connections.

So the next time you’re crafting a campaign or making a pitch, remember: Tug at the heartstrings, not just the purse strings. Emotion isn’t the enemy of logic; it’s the engine that drives it.

6. Context Is King, Queen, and the Whole Damn Court

“Let’s delve into context,” I suggest, bracing myself for a jargon -filled monologue. Instead, Jonah surprises me. “My dad wrote a book called Mobian Nights,” he says. “One of his big ideas is that we cannot sidestep context.”

Wait, we’re quoting dad now? And not in a “My dad used to say” folksy wisdom kind of way. Jonah’s father is a retired professor who delves into the philosophy of context and meaning.

“The same piece of content can mean something entirely different depending on where it’s placed and who’s consuming it,” he explains. “Post an article on Medium, and it has one meaning. Post it on The Wall Street Journal, and it carries a different weight.”

He points out that the ad industry has largely ignored this nuance. “We’ve not created metrics to understand how context affects perception,” he laments. “We’ve been giving brands a false sense of security with flawed brand safety measures.”

Jonah believes that with AI, we can revolutionize how we understand and leverage context. It’s not just about avoiding negative keywords or blacklisted sites. It’s about a holistic understanding of the environment in which your content or ad appears.

So, the next time you slap an ad onto a platform without considering the surrounding content, think again. Context isn’t just an accessory; it’s the outfit. And if you mismatch, you’re not just committing a fashion faux pas—you might be undermining your entire message.

7. Work -Life Balance Is a Myth, So Find Joy in the Chaos

“So, how do you maintain work -life balance?” I ask, half -expecting the usual spiel about meditation apps and scheduled downtime. Jonah looks at me like I’ve asked him to explain quantum physics in three words.

“When you do it well, work is life and life is work,” he says. “It’s all merged.”

In an age where everyone’s preaching about ‘unplugging’ and ‘mindfulness,’ Jonah’s take is refreshingly unorthodox. He doesn’t see a divide between his professional and personal life because he’s passionate about both.

“I’m always thinking about things,” he admits. “But when I’m with my family, I try to be fully present.”

It’s not about clocking out at 5 p.m. and shutting off your brain. It’s about integrating your passions so seamlessly into your life that the lines blur—in a good way.

“Stop compartmentalizing,” he advises. “If you love what you do, the lines blur, and that’s perfectly okay.”

So maybe the quest for balance is a wild goose chase. Perhaps the goal should be to find what excites you so much that you don’t mind the overlap. Life is messy and chaotic, but that’s where the magic happens.

8. Surround Yourself with People Who Light You Up

“Any secret strategies on how to stay motivated?” I ask, expecting tips on time management or perhaps a caffeine regimen. Jonah smiles. “Work with great people who are a joy to speak with,” he says simply.

He talks about his team with genuine affection. “I’m thrilled when I get on a call with one of my teammates,” he says. “I literally see a message from them and think, ‘This is going to be good.'”

Imagine that—actually enjoying your colleagues. In a world rife with toxic workplaces and office politics, Jonah’s approach seems almost radical.

“Energy is contagious,” he asserts. “If your colleagues don’t make you feel alive, what’s the point?”

He extends this philosophy to his personal life. “I have four wonderful children and a wonderful wife,” he says. “I’m incredibly proud of them.”

The takeaway? Your environment matters. The people you surround yourself with can elevate you or drag you down. Choose wisely.

So if you’re stuck in a dead -end job with coworkers who make you want to fake a Wi -Fi outage, maybe it’s time to reassess. Life’s too short to spend it with people who don’t ignite your passion.

9. Build Habits Like Your Life Depends on It—Because It Does

“What’s the most unconventional advice you’ve ever received, and did it work out for you?” I ask. Jonah reflects for a moment. “Mike once told me to go out and do 800 meetings to understand the market,” he says. “I literally did 800 meetings.”

Eight. Hundred. Meetings. Most of us complain about attending one pointless Zoom call. But Jonah saw the value in the grind.

“It was eye -opening,” he says. “You learn what problems people are trying to solve.”

He ties this back to the importance of building good habits. “Whether it’s a habit to take a meditation pause or to work out, find what helps you,” he advises. “Consistency isn’t just key; it’s the whole damn door.”

In a culture obsessed with quick hacks and silver bullets, Jonah champions the unglamorous daily grind. It’s not sexy, but it’s effective.

So stop chasing the latest productivity fad. Build habits that move the needle, even if they require more elbow grease than you’d like. Your future self will thank you.

10. Retirement Is for Quitters

“Do you ever see yourself retiring?” I inquire, expecting a nuanced take on future plans. Jonah doesn’t miss a beat. “I don’t,” he states emphatically.

He shares a story about Warren Buffett’s colleague who retired and died the next year. “Let that be a lesson,” he says.

For Jonah, retirement isn’t a goal; it’s a non -entity. “I can’t imagine only playing golf or sitting on a beach,” he says. “I want to stay intellectually curious and positively impact others.”

It’s a stark contrast to the societal narrative that we should work ourselves into the ground and then spend our golden years doing… well, nothing of consequence.

“Passion doesn’t have an expiration date,” he declares. “If you’re lucky enough to find work that excites you, why would you ever want to stop?”

So perhaps we need to rethink the entire concept of retirement. If you’re doing something you love, the idea of stopping becomes irrelevant. Keep the fire burning until the wheels fall off.

Final Thought

As our conversation winds down, I pose one last question. “If you could go back and give your younger self one piece of advice, what would it be?”

“Build good habits, reduce stress, and surround yourself with people you care about,” he replies without hesitation. “Optimize for happiness.”

And there it is. Not some earth -shattering revelation, but a simple truth that we often overlook in our relentless pursuit of success.

Jonah Goodhart isn’t just another name in the ad tech world. He’s a testament to the power of embracing randomness, valuing unlikely mentors, defying arbitrary norms, pivoting when life demands it, understanding the emotional core of humanity, recognizing the paramount importance of context, finding joy in the beautiful mess that is life, surrounding yourself with people who elevate you, committing to the unsexy work of building habits, and rejecting the notion that passion has a sell -by date.

In a world obsessed with the next big thing, maybe it’s the timeless truths that make the biggest impact. So take a page out of Jonah’s playbook. You might just find that the keys to success—and happiness—have been right in front of you all along.