Blog

Mike Follett has been on a relentless quest for attention—not his own, mind you, but yours—for longer than most marketers can even remember.

 He’s been preaching the importance of attention metrics since the early days of the internet, back when we were all still marveling at the sound of dial-up modems and clicking on banner ads without a second thought. 

In digital terms, Follett is practically a time traveler, coming to us from the ancient days of online advertising to remind us of something so fundamental that it’s almost embarrassing we still don’t get it: if people aren’t paying attention to your ads, they may as well not exist. He’s been that guy—the one up on the proverbial mountain, screaming, “If no one’s paying attention, your ad is like a tree falling in the forest when no one’s around—does it even make a sound?” And while it’s a catchy metaphor, it’s also Follett’s professional creed. He’s been repeating it for years, probably to the point of exhaustion, while the ad world has continued to sleepwalk through outdated metrics like viewability.’

For years, Follett has been the lone prophet in the desert, screaming into the wind about how the industry has it all wrong. Marketers and advertisers have been too busy drooling over viewability stats, patting themselves on the back for reaching some magical percentage that supposedly proves their ad was “seen,” even though they all know deep down it’s not really doing what it’s supposed to. Follett’s been standing on the sidelines, shaking his head, as if watching a child proudly tie their shoelaces wrong. “Just because an ad is on the screen doesn’t mean anyone’s actually seen it,” he says, and you can practically hear the sigh in his voice. It’s so simple, yet so widely ignored. For Follett, the obsession with viewability is like celebrating because your billboard is visible from the highway, even though everyone driving by is staring at their phones.

For years, Mike Follett has been the unwavering voice in the wilderness, resolutely sticking to his guns while the advertising industry stumbled from one trend to the next. As marketers jumped aboard every new bandwagon—whether it was programmatic advertising, influencer marketing, or whatever the latest shiny object of the day was—Follett refused to be swayed. He didn’t chase the buzzwords; he chased the one thing he knew really mattered: attention. In an industry that often seemed more interested in flashy presentations and empty metrics, Follett remained laser-focused on what actually drives results. It’s not that he was stubborn or unwilling to evolve with the times—it’s that he already knew the truth before the rest of the industry even realized there was a problem. Attention, not gimmicks, is what makes advertising work, and Follett wasn’t going to budge until the world caught on.

And finally, after years of beating the same drum, it seems like the industry is starting to catch up. For Follett, it must feel like vindication after spending what felt like an eternity shouting into the void. “We’ve been banging on about attention for years,” Follett says, and there’s a palpable sense of relief in his voice, “and finally, people are waking up to the fact that it’s the thing that really moves the needle.” It’s not just a metric; it’s the metric. While marketers were busy obsessing over impressions, click-through rates, and viewability percentages, Follett stayed in his lane, focused on proving that none of it mattered if no one was actually paying attention. Slowly but surely, the industry began to wake up to his message: attention isn’t just a bonus—it’s the cornerstone of effective advertising.

To Follett, attention is far more than a bullet point in a media plan or an optional metric to consider. It’s the oxygen that fuels the entire advertising ecosystem. Without attention, you might as well be shouting into the wind. He’s been saying it for years, practically screaming from the rooftops: if people aren’t paying attention, all those fancy ad campaigns, those shiny programmatic buys, and those influencer deals are nothing more than wasted effort. Attention isn’t a peripheral concern—it’s the lifeblood of advertising effectiveness, the one thing that can make or break a campaign. And now, after years of what must have felt like trying to teach a brick wall how to dance, the world is finally catching up. But for Follett, it was never a matter of if the industry would realize this—it was always just a matter of when.

But Follett isn’t just content to preach about the importance of attention—he’s built an empire around proving it. Enter Lumen Research, the company he founded to measure, quantify, and validate the one thing he knows matters: whether or not people are actually looking at your ads. This isn’t some abstract, feel-good mission; it’s based on cold, hard data, collected from actual human beings. Lumen uses eye-tracking technology to see if users are paying attention to ads or just mindlessly scrolling through their feeds. “Attention is what links media exposure to business outcomes,” Follett explains. And he’s not talking about casual glances; he’s measuring real engagement, down to the second. For Follett, the difference between an ad that’s technically viewable and one that actually captures attention is like night and day. If your ad isn’t grabbing attention, he says, you might as well be throwing money into the wind.

And Follett’s got the receipts to back it up. His company, Lumen Research, has analyzed a staggering 9,000 brand lift studies—yes, nine thousand—to prove, once and for all, that attention is the real driver of success in advertising. “We’ve shown that attention is the metric that correlates with brand outcomes like awareness and purchase intent,” Follett says, with the confidence of someone who knows he’s right. “It’s not just about whether someone could see the ad, but whether they did see it—and for how long.” This isn’t just conjecture; it’s data, pure and simple. Follett’s been vindicated by the numbers, and now he’s on a mission to get the rest of the industry to pay attention—literally and figuratively. If viewability is the attendance sheet—yeah, you showed up—attention is the report card that shows whether you actually learned anything.

But here’s the thing: despite all the data, despite the 9,000 studies and the mountain of evidence, Follett still has to deal with an industry that’s obsessed with the wrong metrics. “Too many brands are obsessed with viewability like it’s some kind of golden ticket,” he says, clearly frustrated. “But viewability is table stakes—it’s just the juice you have to pay to get into the game.” In other words, viewability is the bare minimum. It’s the participation trophy of advertising metrics. It’s not enough to just have your ad technically visible on a screen; you need to know if people are actually paying attention. And yet, so many marketers are still clinging to viewability like it’s the holy grail. “The real question isn’t whether your ad was viewable,” Follett explains, “it’s whether it was seen—and more importantly, did anyone care?” For Follett, this is the crux of the matter. He’s spent years trying to get the industry to shift its focus away from vanity metrics and onto what really matters: whether anyone actually notices your ad.

One of Follett’s favorite targets for his scorn is social media advertising. And honestly, who can blame him? “Are you really telling me that ads buried between TikTok dance videos are getting the same level of attention as a high-quality spot on a premium news site?” he asks, incredulous. It’s a rhetorical question, of course, because the answer is obviously no. And yet, brands continue to pour money into social media campaigns without any real understanding of where their ads are landing. “Context matters,” Follett says, “and brands that ignore that are just burning money for clicks.” He’s got a point—there’s a world of difference between a well-placed ad on a site where people are actively engaged and an ad that pops up between cat memes and viral dance challenges. But try telling that to marketers who are chasing impressions like they’re going out of style.

And don’t even get him started on clutter. If there’s one thing that drives Follett up the wall, it’s the over-saturation of ads on websites that are so cluttered with flashing banners and autoplay videos that you can barely find the actual content. “Cluttered sites with six ads firing at once? That’s not how you get more attention—that’s how you make sure people are tuning out,” he says, with the weariness of someone who’s had this argument far too many times. According to Follett, fewer, better-placed ads would actually increase attention, and as a result, increase the impact of the brand. It’s almost as if Follett is trying to drag the ad industry, kicking and screaming, into a future where less is more. He’s the guy at the party telling everyone to chill out with the fireworks and just focus on creating something that’s worth looking at in the first place.

But Follett isn’t just here to complain—he’s got solutions, too. He’s not content to just point out the problems; he’s also laying the groundwork for how to fix them. According to Follett, attention data can save programmatic from itself. “Attention data can cut through all the noise. It’s a beacon, a signal that says, ‘Here’s the good stuff,’” he explains. In his vision, attention data will help marketers identify which sites are actually worth investing in—sites where people are paying attention, not just clicking for the sake of clicking. “Sites with fewer ads, cleaner layouts—that’s where attention flows naturally,” he says. And here’s the kicker: those sites are often high-quality news outlets, the kind of places where people actually engage with the content they’re consuming. “This is how we start to funnel money toward cleaner, more enjoyable sites,” Follett says, with the confidence of someone who’s already seen the future.

So, what’s the takeaway here? Follett’s not just some old-school ad guy screaming into the wind. He’s a man with a vision—a vision that says the future of advertising belongs to those who understand that attention is the most valuable currency of all. And if the rest of the industry doesn’t catch on soon, they’re going to find themselves left in the dust. In Follett’s world, attention is king, and everything else is just noise.

Alright, everyone, hold onto your overpriced coffee cups because today we’re diving deep into the psyche of one of ad tech’s OG disruptors—Dave Morgan.

 You know, the guy who’s been playing 4D chess in TV advertising while the rest of you are still trying to figure out how to beat the algorithm on TikTok. Morgan, for those of you who’ve been living under a pile of discarded NFTs, is the Chairman and Founder of Simulmedia—an outfit that’s redefining how TV advertising works.

 Before that, he built Tacoda and Real Media, and yes, he’s been shaping the space since before “programmatic” was even a thing. And no, “programmatic” isn’t some fancy way to say you’re automating everything in your life, like a Roomba on steroids.

Let’s be clear, Dave Morgan isn’t your typical ad tech sage. He’s more like the Gandalf of TV advertising—minus the fluffy speeches and with way more side-eye. He’s the guy at the fancy industry mixer, casually sipping his scotch while everyone’s getting jazzed about the latest buzzword bingo. And just when the hype reaches its peak, he leans in, smirks, and says, “That’s not even remotely how this game is played.”

CTV: A $30 Billion Mirage?

Let’s start with the elephant in the room: Connected TV, or as the acronym-loving crowd calls it, CTV. If you’ve been paying any attention, you’ve probably noticed that everyone in the industry is hyping it up like it’s the second coming of digital advertising—some kind of magical cure for all the garbage banner ads, pre-roll disasters, and creepy retargeting that’s been following you around like a stalker on your worst day online. The industry treats CTV like it’s the panacea for all the sins of digital media, boasting projections of $30 billion in ad spend this year alone, as if tossing cash at a problem makes it go away.

But, folks, Dave Morgan isn’t here for your Kool-Aid. If you’re sipping the CTV hype, Dave’s about to knock that cup out of your hand with a big ol’ dose of reality. “There’s this notion that there’s an open web on CTV. There isn’t,” Morgan says, not even bothering to sugarcoat it. And he’s not wrong. For all the talk of CTV being the Wild West, where brands can stake their claim and advertisers have a level playing field, the truth is a little more exclusive. “If it’s not controlled by one of the nine major companies, it’s not real,” Dave continues. Essentially, if you’re not in with the big nine—think Amazon, Roku, Google, and their ilk—you’re playing in the minors, hustling on the outskirts while the big leagues control the game.

That dreamy idea of a democratized CTV landscape where anyone with a decent idea and some programmatic magic can hit it big? It’s like believing Facebook actually cares about your privacy. Sure, they say they do, but in reality, you’re just the product being sold. CTV’s no different. If you’re not on the inside, you’re the guy in the parking lot trying to sell bootleg mixtapes while the party rages inside the mansion.

Let’s not forget how everyone’s falling over themselves about the money. Oh, the money. With $30 billion on the line, people act like CTV is the next gold rush, throwing around figures so massive, it feels like you’re reading about a government bailout rather than ad spend projections. But Dave’s not buying into the frenzy. “We’re in a build-it-now, fix-it-later situation,” he says, and it’s a line that hits harder than a slap in the face with a reality check. Think about that for a second. This supposed $30 billion savior of the advertising industry? It’s more like an IKEA project—half-built, with missing pieces, and no real instructions. Sure, it looks good from afar, but up close, it’s wobbling on a shaky foundation.

Morgan doesn’t stop there. Ad serving in sports, one of the biggest growth areas for CTV, is also a hot mess. “Nobody’s even got a real-time ad server for sports on CTV,” he adds, almost incredulously. That’s right, despite all the posturing and promises from ad tech companies, we’re nowhere close to being able to deliver real-time, dynamic ads in sports—one of the biggest moneymakers in TV. Instead, what you’re watching are ads that were stitched together ahead of time like some kind of Frankenstein’s monster, sewn up with whatever tech could be cobbled together in time for the broadcast. You thought those ads during the big game were happening in real-time? Nope. They were stitched in like they were part of a pre-recorded sitcom.

Morgan’s take? We’re trying to push a system that isn’t ready for primetime, much less capable of handling the monumental growth being promised. He’s the guy pointing out that we’re building a rocket but forgot to check if we packed the parachutes. “It’s the shiny new thing everyone’s chasing,” he says, “but the infrastructure is still nowhere near where it needs to be.” It’s like a high-speed train barreling down a half-finished track, and everyone’s just hoping it doesn’t derail before it reaches the station.

The Easy Button Fantasy

Let’s talk about the industry’s favorite bedtime story—the “easy button.” If you’ve ever sat through a pitch where a company promises that their platform will “optimize your ads with one click,” you’ve been sold a dream, my friend. It’s as real as those “work from home” schemes your aunt keeps posting about on Facebook. According to Morgan, the easy button mentality is wrecking the ad tech world faster than crypto bros wrecked their portfolios last year.

“We’re simplifying things to the point of breaking,” Morgan says, with a tone that suggests he’s about ten seconds away from throwing his hands up and walking out of the room. Marketing used to be this noble profession where people actually had to think. Now, it’s “five percent of their job,” according to Morgan, and the rest of the time? They’re stuck managing a giveaway on Instagram or some “viral” TikTok challenge.

What’s the real problem? It’s not just lazy marketing—it’s an epidemic of ad tech companies bending over backward to give marketers exactly what they want, even when they have no idea what they want. The industry has turned into a wish-fulfillment machine, cranking out low-effort “solutions” that just paper over deeper problems. It’s like building a sandcastle while a tsunami’s coming in.

Morgan’s frustration is palpable. “We’re letting people push pricing down, delivering fake stuff, and then burning the market,” he says. It’s like a bad episode of “Shark Tank,” where everyone is throwing buzzwords around like confetti, hoping someone will actually make sense of them. But the kicker? The people pushing the easy button don’t even understand how advertising works. “They’ve been trained on banner programmatic and think that’s how brands are built,” Morgan laughs. Spoiler: It’s not.

Shoppable TV: Real Innovation or Digital Duct Tape?

Ah yes, shoppable TV. The buzzword du jour that’s supposed to “blur the line between entertainment and retail.” Picture this: You’re binge-watching Stranger Things, and suddenly, there’s a pop-up offering you a chance to buy Eleven’s sneakers. Isn’t that just what we’ve all been waiting for? According to Morgan, not so much. “We’re slapping a shopping cart on your Netflix binge watch,” he says, and it’s hard to argue with him.

Sure, Roku’s teamed up with DoorDash, and Amazon’s pushing shoppable content like a Black Friday sale that never ends, but Morgan sees right through it. He’s been around long enough to know that just because something is “new” doesn’t mean it’s better. “Look at QVC,” he says. “They’ve been doing this for decades, and while it may not be sexy, it works.” The lesson here? Just because you slap an “innovative” label on something doesn’t mean you’ve reinvented the wheel. Sometimes, it’s just a shinier version of what we already had.

The real winners, according to Morgan, are companies like Walmart. “Walmart Connect understands how TV ads and in-store experiences come together,” he says, giving a nod to Ryan Mayward over at Walmart, who’s got his hands deep in the retail media cookie jar. You want to see the future of shoppable TV? It’s not in some pie-in-the-sky Netflix integration—it’s in understanding how to move product, both online and in stores, in a way that makes sense.

Programmatic: The Wild West of Ad Tech

Let’s not forget the mess that is programmatic advertising. The digital supply chain is more bloated than a post-Thanksgiving dinner belly, and nobody seems to know where all the money’s going. “There are too many middlemen,” Morgan says flatly. “I keep hoping they’ll all get sucked out of the market, but they just keep hanging on.” It’s like a scene from a zombie apocalypse movie where no matter how many you take down, more keep popping up.

Morgan’s real gripe isn’t just with the bloat—it’s with the moral vacuum that’s been created in the process. Rebates, undisclosed fees, sketchy deals—it’s all part of the game, and most people don’t even want to know how deep the rabbit hole goes. “People don’t want to admit how much waste is in the system,” he says. And why would they? Admitting it would mean getting fired. It’s like discovering your kitchen’s infested with rats but deciding to burn the house down rather than deal with it.

Fraud and the Dark Underbelly of Ad Tech

Now, let’s get into the dark stuff—fraud. This is where the skeletons in the ad tech closet really start to pile up. If you’ve been in this industry for more than five minutes, you know fraud isn’t just an occasional hiccup; it’s baked into the very system. It’s the worst-kept secret, whispered behind closed doors and over overpriced drinks at every conference. The dirty little truth that nobody wants to acknowledge? “Half of their stuff is junk,” Dave Morgan says, not mincing a single word. “More than half has to be fake for them to get a margin.” Let that sink in for a minute. We’re talking about the majority of inventory in the market being either fake or so low-quality it makes you question the integrity of the entire system. It’s like buying a knockoff Rolex in Times Square but somehow managing to do it with millions of dollars at stake—and nobody’s calling the cops.

Morgan’s not pulling any punches here, and why should he? The fraud problem in ad tech is the kind of ugly truth that everyone’s happy to sweep under the rug because, frankly, it’s just too damn lucrative. We’re not talking about a few bad apples here; we’re talking about an orchard of rotting fruit. “The system’s too lucrative to fail,” Morgan says, summing up the core issue. The sheer volume of money sloshing around in programmatic advertising is enough to keep the wheels turning, no matter how much of it is wasted. Everyone’s making their cut, so why rock the boat? It’s like a casino where the house always wins—only in this case, the house is a labyrinthine mess of middlemen, kickbacks, and opaque deals that would make even the shadiest Wall Street broker blush.

And the real kicker? The system isn’t just built to handle fraud—it’s designed for it. “A lot of people don’t have the intellectual curiosity—or the desire—to know how it works,” Morgan says, hitting the nail on the head. It’s not just that people don’t know how deep the fraud runs; they don’t want to know. Pulling back the curtain on this mess is like opening Pandora’s box—once you see what’s inside, you can’t unsee it. The system is a Rube Goldberg machine of misaligned incentives, and most people are just happy to let it keep clanking along as long as their paycheck clears.

And really, who wants to admit they’re part of the problem? If you’re an agency or a marketer, confessing that half the inventory you’re selling is garbage is like admitting you’ve been peddling snake oil. It’s career suicide. “There’s so much money tied up in it that nobody wants to be the one to blow the whistle,” Morgan explains. It’s a classic case of willful ignorance—everyone’s in on the grift, but nobody’s willing to speak up because there’s just too much cash on the table. Imagine if a doctor knew that half the pills they were prescribing were sugar, but shrugged it off because the drug company was paying them under the table. Welcome to ad tech.

Morgan paints a bleak picture of just how deeply fraud is entrenched in the ecosystem. “You can’t deliver real stuff at the prices some of these companies are promising,” he says, pointing to absurdly low CPMs that are mathematically impossible without cutting major corners. For a real advertiser, the landscape looks less like an opportunity and more like a digital minefield. Every time you think you’re reaching an audience, there’s a decent chance you’re paying for bots, fake clicks, or straight-up ghost ads. It’s like throwing a party and realizing halfway through that half the guests are cardboard cutouts.

So, what’s the solution? Transparency, obviously, but that’s about as popular in ad tech as a tax audit. “We need to stop letting people sell lies,” Morgan says. He’s not asking for a revolution—just for a system where buyers actually know what they’re paying for. Crazy idea, right? Yet, here we are, still talking about this in 2024, while the fraudsters laugh all the way to the bank. It’s a game of smoke and mi

The Real Takeaway: Dave Morgan’s Big Picture

So, what’s the moral of the story? Well, if you’re looking for a neatly tied-up conclusion that’ll make you feel good about the state of ad tech, you’re in the wrong place. The industry is a mess, a convoluted jungle of middlemen, opaque deals, and outright fraud. And Dave Morgan, having seen it all from the front row, isn’t the kind of guy to sugarcoat that reality. He knows it’s not going to fix itself because the rot goes too deep. But here’s the kicker: Morgan isn’t just sitting around complaining about the state of things. He’s still in the game, pushing for the one thing this industry desperately needs but keeps dodging like a bad Tinder match—accountability.

Morgan’s been around the block enough times to know that the system isn’t built for easy fixes. The entire ad tech ecosystem, as he sees it, is too lucrative to fail and too flawed to thrive long term. But he’s not the kind of guy to throw up his hands and walk away. Instead, he’s advocating for transparency—not just the kind that gets you a gold star from your compliance department, but real transparency. The kind where you actually know where your ads are being placed, who’s selling them, and how much you’re paying for the privilege. In a world where most people are happy to stay in the dark, Morgan’s calling for everyone to flip on the lights and take a good, hard look at the mess we’ve all created.

Here’s the thing: Morgan’s not here for the industry buzzwords or the empty promises of “disruption” or “innovation” you hear at every ad tech conference. Those are just shiny distractions. “I don’t care about the fluff,” Morgan says. He’s after the truth, the ugly, inconvenient truth that nobody wants to confront because, well, the truth doesn’t sell software or win awards at Cannes. But that’s exactly what makes him the rare voice of reason in an industry that’s often more about appearances than results. Morgan’s been inside the machine long enough to know what’s really going on, and he’s not afraid to call it out.

And let’s be real—most people in ad tech don’t want to hear what Morgan has to say. Why? Because the truth is uncomfortable. The truth means admitting that a lot of what’s happening behind the scenes is straight-up broken. It means acknowledging that for every fancy dashboard you’re looking at, there’s a whole lot of garbage inventory and questionable data lurking behind the curtain. “Most people don’t want to know,” Morgan says. And that’s the crux of the problem. People are too busy patting themselves on the back for their “innovative” solutions to admit they’re part of a dysfunctional system.

But if you’re sitting there sipping your $6 oat milk latte, thinking about how to optimize your latest funnel or push your next programmatic campaign, just know that Dave Morgan is out there somewhere, shaking his head. He’s watching the industry try to duct-tape itself together, and probably muttering under his breath, “That’s not how any of this works.” Because here’s the thing—if you’re still treating ad tech like a game of darts, where you just throw money at a wall and hope something sticks, you’re missing the point entirely. The future of advertising doesn’t belong to the loudest hype or the most complicated tech stack. It belongs to those who actually understand how to fix the broken system.

And what does fixing it look like? It’s not glamorous. It’s not going to get you trending on Twitter or give you the keynote spot at AdWeek. But it’s necessary. “We need to build a better ecosystem,” Morgan insists. One where fraud is weeded out, transparency is the norm, and everyone—marketers, agencies, platforms—takes responsibility for cleaning up the mess we’re in. It’s not just about stopping the bad actors; it’s about holding ourselves accountable for the decisions we make every day in this business. That’s the kind of change Morgan is pushing for, and honestly, it’s the only kind that’s going to save this industry from itself.

If there’s one person who could navigate the mind-numbing intricacies of the digital ad ecosystem and still walk away with a smirk, it’s Anthony Katsur. I really like this guy.
 As the CEO of IAB Tech Lab, Katsur doesn’t just know where the proverbial bodies are buried in the industry—he probably had a hand in digging a few of those graves. We’ve had him on The ADOTAT Show before, and it’s no surprise we had to bring him back for more, because when someone’s juggling privacy standards, cookie apocalypses, and CTV chaos, there’s always a fresh fire to put out or a new digital labyrinth to untangle.

Katsur has been at the heart of adtech long enough to watch entire fads rise, fall, and be recycled under different names, all while keeping a straight face. He’s seen Google play chicken with the entire industry over cookies, the Wild West of Connected TV (CTV) grow into an unruly toddler on a sugar high, and witnessed privacy standards evolve from corporate jargon to full-blown regulatory gauntlets. And now, here he is, talking to us about the latest curveballs coming at the adtech world—curveballs that he’s not just watching but actively trying to bat away.

Three Years of Digital Firefighting: Katsur’s Take on Surviving IAB Tech Lab’s Rollercoaster

Most people might celebrate their three-year work anniversary with a cake or a half-hearted office party, but Anthony Katsur? He’s been wrangling the chaos of digital advertising at IAB Tech Lab for three years, and he’s still standing—barely. And when I say barely, I mean this man’s had his hands in so many fires that it’s a wonder he’s still got skin left.

When I asked Katsur about his most “I can’t believe this is my job” moment, the list was long and storied. From analyzing the Privacy Sandbox (more on that nightmare later) to rubbing shoulders with tech gods like Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher, Katsur’s had his share of “what is happening right now?” moments. But let’s get one thing straight—he’s not just there to shake hands and kiss babies. He’s orchestrating some of the most critical conversations about the future of digital advertising, and he’s loving every second of the insanity.

The real kicker came with the Tech Lab’s analysis of Google’s Privacy Sandbox last year, a watershed moment where Katsur’s team didn’t just poke holes in Google’s shiny new ideas—they used a flamethrower. And for good reason: the Sandbox, as it stands, could decimate publisher revenue while leaving adtech scrambling for cover. It’s like being invited to a party where the host forgot to buy snacks and then asked you to foot the bill. Katsur? He’s not afraid to call it like he sees it, even when Google’s the one holding the purse strings.

But let’s not kid ourselves—the guy thrives on this madness. He loves his job, and in an industry that’s been flipping tables and reinventing itself faster than a toddler hyped up on Pixy Stix, that’s saying something.

---

Cookies and the Apocalypse That Wasn’t

Remember when Google told us they were finally going to pull the plug on third-party cookies? Well, here we are, years later, and cookies are still hanging on for dear life. Every time we brace ourselves for the big moment, Google hits us with another delay like a broken record that won’t stop skipping. It’s like we’re all trapped in some surreal waiting room where the receptionist keeps saying, “The doctor will be right with you,” but the doctor’s halfway to Tulum sipping a margarita.

So, how does Katsur feel about this digital limbo? Is he rolling his eyes every time Google pulls another fast one? Not quite. In fact, Katsur has more sympathy for the search giant than you’d expect. According to him, what Google’s trying to do is a herculean task. They’re playing tug-of-war with privacy regulations, advertising use cases, and the relentless demands of regulators like the CMA in the UK. It’s a balancing act that makes the Flying Wallendas look like amateurs.

But don’t mistake Katsur’s sympathy for leniency. He’s quick to point out that while the third-party cookie might not be the sole cause of privacy woes, it’s certainly been the whipping boy of the digital advertising world. Cookies, he says, have been abused and over-promised, a scapegoat for privacy issues when the real problem lies in how they’ve been used. Katsur sums it up perfectly with one of his now-famous analogies: “Blaming the cookie for privacy lapses is like blaming the car for a drunk driving accident.” You know, it’s not really the cookie’s fault, but we’ve all let things get a little out of hand.

So where does that leave us? According to Katsur, the third-party cookie is already halfway in the grave—Apple and Mozilla have already dumped it like last season’s fashion trends. For Google, it’s not a question of if, but when. And when the time comes, we’ll all need to find a new data crutch. Luckily, Katsur’s got a plan for that, too.

---

The Global Privacy Platform: A Lifeline or a Lead Balloon?

Enter the Global Privacy Platform (GPP), Katsur’s pride and joy—a set of standards meant to help the ad industry navigate the stormy seas of global privacy laws. Sounds great, right? Well, sure, if you can get companies to actually adopt it. While dozens of companies have already signed on, from big publishers to major adtech players, there’s still a sense of dragging feet. It’s the age-old dilemma: everyone loves the idea of compliance… as long as someone else does the heavy lifting.

When I cheekily asked if some companies were just hoping regulators would get bored and move on, Katsur didn’t hold back. “No one is under the illusion that regulators are just going to forget about privacy,” he says. And he’s right. We’re in the early stages of what Katsur calls a “new privacy regime,” one that kicked off with the GDPR and has since spread like wildfire across the globe.

Now, every corner of the world has its own privacy standards, from California’s stringent laws to the comprehensive regulations coming down the pipeline in India. It’s like an endless game of regulatory whack-a-mole, and Katsur’s GPP is the hammer we’re supposed to use to keep up.

But here’s the catch: implementing privacy standards isn’t cheap, and it’s definitely not quick. For most companies, it’s not a question of cost, but of resources. Getting privacy compliance slotted into the corporate roadmap is like trying to add a new track to a high-speed train—good luck fitting that in without derailing everything else. Katsur, though, remains confident. He knows that privacy isn’t going away anytime soon, and the companies that fail to get on board will be left scrambling when the hammer finally comes down.

---

CTV: The Toddler on a Sugar High

Now, let’s talk about the wildest ride in adtech today: Connected TV. If the digital ad ecosystem were a zoo, CTV would be the cage where they keep the hyperactive toddler who’s just downed a 64-ounce Big Gulp. The energy is off the charts, the rules are nonexistent, and no one quite knows how to wrangle it all. But Anthony Katsur? He’s got a plan—or at least he’s working on one.

According to Katsur, CTV is the final frontier of advertising. It’s like space, uncharted and full of potential, but also littered with technical debris that needs serious cleanup. One of the biggest challenges? Creative formats. There’s no standardization, no agreed-upon definitions of what makes a pause ad, a squeeze ad, or any other format you can imagine. It’s like trying to build a skyscraper when no one can agree on what a brick looks like.

But the chaos doesn’t stop there. Katsur points out that the industry is obsessed with treating linear TV and streaming as a zero-sum game. As linear TV declines, streaming supposedly wins by default. But Katsur sees things differently. He envisions a world where advertisers don’t care whether their ads are delivered through a satellite dish, rabbit ears, or streaming. All that matters is getting their brand in front of consumers on that big flat screen hanging on your wall.

Of course, that’s easier said than done. With fragmented data sets, inconsistent audience definitions, and creative IDs spread across 14 different global frameworks, it’s a wonder anyone’s figured out how to advertise on CTV at all. But Katsur’s Tech Lab is on the case. They’ve developed the Ad Creative ID Framework to bring some much-needed order to the chaos. The goal? Universal reconciliation across screens and streamers, because if we can’t agree on how to measure ads, what’s the point?

---

AI: Messiah or Grim Reaper?

Ah, AI—the tech world’s favorite boogeyman. Depending on who you ask, it’s either going to steal all our jobs or usher in a new golden age of productivity and innovation. Katsur? He’s somewhere in the middle. While he acknowledges that AI will disrupt the industry (and probably put a few people out of work), he doesn’t think we’re quite ready for the apocalyptic AI takeover just yet.

Katsur sees AI’s biggest potential in two areas: dynamic creative and contextual relevance. Let’s be real—ad personalization has always been the holy grail of marketing, and AI just might be the tool we need to finally make it happen. Katsur’s especially bullish on dynamic creative, where AI can tailor ads to individual viewers on the fly. It’s like having a personal ad agency in your pocket, and it’s only going to get more sophisticated from here.

But AI isn’t without its dark side. There’s real concern about AI bias, the kind that perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reinforces societal divisions. Katsur’s answer? Open-source AI models. If we can peer under the hood of these algorithms and see how they’re built, we can root out the biases before they cause any real harm. Transparency, as always, is Katsur’s go-to solution.

---

The Katsur Legacy: Grit, Innovation, and Leaving the Industry Better Than He Found It

When you ask Anthony Katsur about his future in adtech, he’s not aiming for sainthood. He’s not even trying to be the guy who “saved” adtech from itself. What he wants is much simpler, and infinitely harder: to leave the industry better than he found it.

Katsur’s proud of the work the Tech Lab has done over the past three years. He’s pushed the organization to move faster, innovate more aggressively, and set standards that keep the industry ahead of the curve. But he’s also keenly aware that the adtech ecosystem is a thankless beast. No matter how much progress he makes, someone’s always upset. But that’s the nature of the job, and Katsur’s got the grit to handle it.

His legacy, he hopes, will be one of transparency, integrity, and a relentless drive to push the industry forward—even when it didn’t want to be pushed. He wants to be remembered as the guy who didn’t just follow the rules but helped rewrite them.

As for the future? Katsur’s always thinking five years ahead, planning for challenges that most of us haven’t even begun to consider. Whether it’s privacy, CTV, or AI, he’s confident that with the right approach, the adtech world can not only survive but thrive. And if he has his way, the internet might just be a little less annoying by the time he’s done.