Category: Adtech

Posted on

From Digital Dragnet to Detective Drama: Gayla Huber is Compliance’s MVP

Welcome to the digital wild west, where brand bandits roam freely and marketing cowboys shoot from the hip. In this chaotic frontier, one name sends shivers down the spines of fraudsters and trademark terrorists alike—Gayla Huber. She’s the founder and fearless leader of Integrity Shield, a company that’s less of a business and more of a mission to restore order in a realm where most people are content to let chaos reign. Think of her as the Gandalf of brand protection, with a dash of Indiana Jones and a sprinkle of Sherlock Holmes. She’s been wielding the sword of compliance for over 20 years, and trust me, you don’t want to be on the wrong end of that blade.

Gayla Huber is based in Kansas City, where the barbecue is as famous as the Chiefs, but don’t let the midwestern charm fool you—this woman is a force of nature. Picture a digital vigilante who doesn’t need a cape or a mask, just a laptop and an ironclad set of principles. When she talks about her work, you can almost hear the soundtrack to an epic Western playing in the background, with Gayla standing tall against the skyline, ready to take on the next gang of digital desperados.

So what drives Gayla Huber? What’s the fuel that keeps her motor running while others are coasting in neutral? It’s simple—her love for the hunt, the thrill of outsmarting bad actors who think they’re a step ahead but end up falling into the traps she’s so meticulously set. “It’s like herding cats on roller skates,” she says with a laugh, “or sometimes like defusing a bomb while playing Twister.” For Gayla, it’s all part of a day’s work.

A Day in the Life of the Digital Detective

In a world where brands are getting ambushed by non-compliance nightmares and digital disasters faster than a cat on a hot tin roof, Gayla plays the role of the digital detective. One minute she’s speaking softly, using “honey” to coax compliance out of reluctant affiliates, and the next, she’s going full “warrior mode” when things go awry. Her team has shut down scam artists from Kuala Lumpur to Kansas City, often having to navigate foreign courts and obscure regulations to do it. “Recently, we had to figure out how to get through the Malaysian courts to stop trademark infringement,” she recounts. “It’s not exactly a walk in the park.”

Imagine a 21st-century sleuth whose idea of fun is unraveling the spaghetti bowl of internet traffic. When asked about her most elementary “my dear Watson” moment, Gayla lights up. “I love it when we crack a case wide open. Like when we uncover traffic that a company had no idea was coming from dubious sources. It’s like finding a hidden passage in a haunted house.”

Her days are filled with moments that would make a lesser person’s hair curl. Digital pirates, counterfeiters, and the odd scammer who thinks they can outwit her—these are the bread and butter of Gayla’s daily grind. She deals with them all with the deftness of a matador dancing around a bull. “We have what we call ‘Porn Fridays,'” she says with a wry grin. “Not as fun as it sounds.” Her team, armed with digital magnifying glasses, dives deep into the most sordid corners of the internet, where no trademark infringement is too small to escape their notice.

Compliance in the Age of Chaos

For Gayla, the battle isn’t just about catching the bad guys—it’s about teaching brands to protect themselves before the wolves start circling. She’s got a front-row seat to some epic compliance fails that would make even the most seasoned marketer’s blood run cold. “The brands that spend all this time and money to get trademarks and then just leave them undefended,” she sighs. “It’s like building a fortress and then forgetting to put a lock on the front gate.”

And Gayla’s had to step in like a SWAT team for brands who’ve found themselves neck-deep in digital quicksand. “We use a lot of honey first,” she admits. “But when people don’t comply, and when it really puts a brand at risk, we go full-on warrior mode.” Warrior mode can mean anything from working with platforms to take down fraudulent content to collaborating with international authorities. And she doesn’t stop until the job is done.

It’s a delicate dance. Too much force, and she risks scaring off potential allies. Too little, and the bad guys walk away unscathed. But Gayla’s got a knack for finding that perfect balance, using just enough pressure to make sure her clients’ reputations remain intact without leaving too many bruises along the way. “The goal isn’t always to take things down,” she explains. “Sometimes, it’s just about getting them fixed. That way, the content can stay up, and the revenue can keep flowing.”

The Digital Cat and Mouse Game

If you think Gayla’s job is all about busting heads and taking names, think again. She’s also part psychologist, part teacher, and part diplomat. Imagine trying to explain complex digital compliance to a room full of third graders hopped up on sugar, and you’ll have some idea of what she faces daily. “It’s like herding cats, but these cats have degrees from Harvard and think they know better,” she jokes.

The digital compliance landscape isn’t just littered with bad actors; it’s also filled with people who simply don’t know any better. “Unfortunately, the government has made it so hard to understand all the regulations and every little aspect of it. A lot of people just don’t have any idea they’re even breaking the rules,” she explains. Gayla’s approach is more Mr. Rogers than Dirty Harry. She doesn’t want to scare people; she wants to help them. “We don’t say things like, ‘You must comply,’ because that just gets people worried,” she says. “Instead, we reach out and help them understand what they need to do to get it fixed.”

And then there are the excuses—the colorful, often ridiculous justifications people come up with when they’re caught red-handed. “We’ve had everything blamed on a rogue intern, the weather, and even the alignment of the stars,” Gayla says, barely suppressing a chuckle. “The best one was when someone said, ‘My kid did it.’ That was a new one.”

From Drama to Detective Work: A Love for the Chase

When asked if she ever imagines herself as the star of her own private detective drama, Gayla just laughs. “I don’t need to imagine it. We’re already living it!” She describes her team as a group of digital detectives, each with their own specialty, constantly figuring out new ways that bad actors try to skirt the rules. “We have the best team,” she says proudly. “They’re like bloodhounds on the scent, sniffing out different methods and tactics that people are using to get around our system.”

And that detective work is what gets her out of bed every morning. “The thrill is in the chase,” she says. “If someone sends us a piece of information and says, ‘We know they’re doing this, but we can’t figure out how,’ that’s when I get excited. That’s the fun part—figuring out how they’re hiding.”

One of her favorite recent cases involved unraveling the tangled web of digital traffic sources for a major client. “It was like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle, but with all the pieces scattered across the globe,” she recalls. “When we finally cracked it, it was like solving a mystery that had stumped everyone else.”

Passion for the Long Game

While some CEOs dream of selling out, cashing in, and spending their golden years sipping piña coladas on a beach somewhere, Gayla isn’t interested in taking her foot off the gas. “I’m definitely more of a compliance empire kind of person than a vineyard owner,” she laughs. “I’m not the type who drinks a lot, anyway.”

Gayla’s got bigger plans than just hanging up her hat. She’s passionate about building a global compliance network that can outmaneuver the bad actors at every turn. But don’t think for a minute that she’s planning to dominate the world from some ivory tower. “I’m not really the personality that’s going to say, ‘I’m going to take over the world,’” she confesses. “But when it comes to compliance, I’m very passionate. I would absolutely take over the world on compliance.”

A Seasoned Warrior with a Soft Side

Despite her tough-as-nails exterior, Gayla has a soft side, shaped by personal tragedy. She admits that losing her sister in 2015 changed her perspective on everything. “I think everyone who’s ever lost someone close to them knows that it really resets what you think about life and business and everything else,” she says. “Today, I really like to kind of pause, take a moment. Definitely not set things on fire, because it’s not worth anyone’s mental health.”

It’s a philosophy that guides how she leads her team. “I’m calm and collected now,” she explains. “What really matters to me today are my people and my clients and the industries that I serve. So, no setting things on fire unless absolutely necessary.”

The Perils of the Digital Landscape

Gayla doesn’t just protect brands from the usual suspects—she’s out there battling in the trenches against more creative foes. Ask her about the sneakiest tactic that makes her blood boil, and she’s got plenty of stories to tell. “It’s the little things, like when they try to rip off a trademark by doing slight variations of the word,” she fumes. “It doesn’t technically break the rules, but it makes extra work for my team, and that’s just annoying.”

And as for those repeat offenders who keep trying to sneak under the radar? “We find a lot of the same people year after year,” she explains. “Sometimes they think they’re clever, changing names or tweaking their tactics, but we always catch them. It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole, but with higher stakes.”

Her secret to staying ahead of the game is simple: never stop learning. “You have to stay curious,” she says. “I let myself get spammed all the time. If something looks new or different, I don’t just ignore it. I dig in, figure out what’s going on. Even if it’s not for a client, I want to know what’s happening out there.”

Building a Culture of Integrity

Beyond her own drive, Gayla has built a company that reflects her values. “I want my company culture to stand out,” she says. “We may be remote, but we still feel like a team.” With people like Ashley Arnaud working to keep that culture alive, Gayla has managed to create an environment where everyone feels valued and accountable. “We’re not afraid to hold people accountable,” she adds. “And we’re always teaching—because there’s no college course for what we do.”

She’s fiercely protective of her team, her clients, and the integrity of the industry she’s come to love. “When people try to hide things, or they think they can outsmart us, they don’t realize that we’re not here just to make a quick buck,” she says. “We’re here to help, to build long-term relationships, and to make sure the good guys win.”

The Future: More Than Just a Job

So what’s next for Gayla Huber? World domination? Maybe not quite. But she’s not slowing down, either. Whether she’s talking about teaching new hires the intricacies of the internet or navigating the ever-changing landscape of digital compliance, Gayla remains a constant, unyielding force. She’s not just in it for the money; she’s in it for the love of the game. And if she has her way, she’ll be playing it for a long time to come.

Gayla might joke that lead generators will survive alongside the cockroaches in a nuclear apocalypse, but there’s no mistaking her commitment. She’s a guardian of the digital world, wielding her laptop like a sword and her knowledge like a shield. For those who dare to play by their own rules, beware: Gayla Huber is always one step ahead, ready to pounce.

So next time you’re out there, thinking of bending the rules or pushing the limits, remember there’s a woman in Kansas City who’s seen it all—and she’s got her eyes on you. Stay bold, stay curious, but don’t get caught. Because Gayla Huber is on the case, and she’s not stopping until the digital frontier is a safer place for us all.

Posted on

Google’s Monopoly Game: All the Pieces, All the Power

Roll up, roll up! Welcome to the greatest show in Silicon Valley—a legal battle royale where the DOJ is hell-bent on bringing Google’s ad tech empire to its knees. Imagine the Colosseum, but instead of gladiators, we have a battalion of lawyers, tech execs, and enough corporate emails to fill a library. And at the center of this modern circus, the ringmaster, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, cracking the whip on a tech giant with enough market power to make Rockefeller look like an amateur.

It all started back in 2009. Google wasn’t content just being the king of search; it wanted to rule the entire digital ad market, too. Enter David Rosenblatt, Google’s then-president of display advertising, who allegedly set the stage for domination with a battle cry: “We’ll be able to crush the other networks, and that’s our goal.” Subtle? Not so much. This wasn’t a strategy meeting; it was more like a locker room pep talk before the big game. Rosenblatt didn’t just want to win—he wanted to wipe the floor with the competition. And the DOJ? They’re not amused.

The “Trifecta of Monopolies”

The DOJ has painted a picture of Google as the digital ad world’s Godzilla, stomping through the industry and leaving competitors in the dust. According to their complaint, Google has created a “trifecta of monopolies.” Think of it like this: Google controls the tools that let advertisers buy ads, the tools that let publishers sell ads, and the marketplace where these ads are traded. That’s like running the only auction house in town, owning the gavel, and setting all the rules for who can bid. Nice work if you can get it.

During the trial, the DOJ paraded a series of juicy emails and documents, revealing just how tightly Google gripped the ad ecosystem. One gem featured Rosenblatt comparing Google to being “both Goldman and NYSE.” In plain English? Google wasn’t just a participant in the market; it was the market. Forget about neutrality; this was a case of rigging the game while claiming to be a referee. And the DOJ is now asking the judge to make them pick a side—either be the bank or be the stock exchange, but you can’t be both.

“An Act of God” to Switch

And it gets better. The documents rolled out by the DOJ also included Rosenblatt’s colorful admission that trying to get publishers to switch to another ad platform was like trying to part the Red Sea. “It takes an act of God to do it,” he quipped, which is a great line for a stand-up routine but less so when you’re under oath. If Google was a nightclub, it had locked all the doors from the inside and swallowed the key. You want out? Good luck.

Even former Google executive Brad Bender couldn’t escape the spotlight. Having worked his way up from DoubleClick (which Google controversially acquired in 2007) to VP of product for display and video ads, Bender had a front-row seat to Google’s power plays. Forced onto the witness stand after failing to quash a subpoena, Bender found himself cornered by the DOJ’s line of questioning. In one revealing moment, he admitted to forwarding Rosenblatt’s notes, calling them a “worthwhile read.” Yeah, worth reading if you like stories about unchecked ambition and market manipulation.

Header Bidding: The Bête Noire

The DOJ didn’t stop there. They dug into the minutiae of Google’s tactics, from Project Poirot to unified pricing rules, portraying them as clever tricks to maintain dominance. Header bidding—a workaround developed by publishers to bypass Google’s iron grip—was a particular bone of contention. Header bidding threatened Google’s fee structure, so Google rolled out Open Bidding to counter it. The Trade Desk’s Chief Revenue Officer, Jed Dederick, summed up the confusion: “It’s like Coca-Cola selling their product to a local bodega for 70 cents and to Walmart for a dollar. It didn’t, and wouldn’t, make sense to us unless there was something else happening.”

And what was that “something else?” According to Professor R. Ravi, the DOJ’s tech guru and an academic in optimal resource allocation (don’t worry, he made it sound way more exciting in court), it was Google’s auction dynamics. He testified that features like Project Poirot and unified pricing were designed not to optimize the market but to give Google a leg up. Picture a horse race where one horse gets a head start, and you’ll get the idea.

Google’s Legal Tightrope

Now, let’s talk stakes. The DOJ wants to break up Google’s ad tech business, which would mean a forced divestment of key components like the Ad Manager product. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s the digital ad equivalent of amputating a limb. Google, naturally, isn’t thrilled about this prospect. They argue that the DOJ doesn’t understand how the digital ad market works, warning that a breakup would lead to chaos and inadvertently boost rivals like Amazon and Meta. In Google’s telling, it’s not a monopoly; it’s just really, really good at its job. And if you disrupt it, who knows what kind of Frankenstein’s monster might rise from the ashes?

But here’s where it gets juicier. Enter Jeff Green, CEO of The Trade Desk, a heavyweight in the ad tech world with a market cap of $50 billion. Now, Green wasn’t invited to the trial, but that didn’t stop him from weighing in on the drama unfolding in the courtroom. Watching from the sidelines, he fired off a scathing critique that painted Google in all its monopolistic glory. He accused the tech giant of playing a rigged game where it held all the cards: “the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, the judge, and the jury.” It was a harsh but fitting metaphor for a company accused of stacking the deck in its favor—while still insisting it’s just another player in the game.

Green’s comments were a pointed reminder of the absurdity that’s become Google’s business model in the eyes of its competitors. He argued that there’s only one logical remedy to this situation: Google needs to step down from at least one of its roles in the advertising ecosystem. It’s a bit like a boxing match where the referee is also the coach and the bookie—only in this case, Google isn’t content just managing the fight; it wants to call the winner before the first bell rings. Green suggested that of all the roles Google plays, giving up its ad exchange (AdX) would be the least costly and most straightforward route to restoring some semblance of fairness in the market.

In Green’s view, the analogy couldn’t be clearer: if you’re going to rob the bank, you shouldn’t also get to be the sheriff and the judge who decides your own punishment. His comments were aimed at cutting through the legal fog, bringing the conversation back to the fundamentals of fair play and market integrity. With Google facing the possibility of a forced breakup, Green’s remarks offered a solution that might seem radical to some but entirely reasonable to those fed up with the status quo. He was, in essence, calling for a return to a level playing field—one where Google doesn’t get to hold all the power, all the time. And while the DOJ didn’t directly enlist Green for their case, his words echoed the sentiments of many in the industry who feel that Google’s stranglehold on digital advertising has gone on long enough.

The Professor’s Primer on Auction Dynamics

As if the trial needed more drama, in came Professor R. Ravi, the DOJ’s resident math wizard, who’s made a career out of studying the optimal allocation of resources. He broke down the mechanics of Google’s Project Poirot, a bid-shading program designed to lower Google’s costs when competing against other exchanges. The professor argued that these maneuvers weren’t about market efficiency—they were about stacking the deck in Google’s favor. Ravi explained that Google’s “unified pricing rules” and “dynamic revenue sharing” ensured that AdX always had the upper hand, subtly tweaking the rules to its benefit.

Ravi’s testimony made it clear: Google wasn’t just playing the game; it was rewriting the rulebook on the fly. And if anyone thought the DOJ was grasping at straws, Ravi’s analysis painted a picture of a company so deep in its own manipulation that it might not even realize how far off course it’s veered.

Judge Brinkema’s Showdown

Now, we’re all waiting to see how Judge Leonie Brinkema, the no-nonsense umpire of this legal circus, will call it. She’s already shown she’s not afraid to take Google to task, lambasting them in a pre-trial hearing for their suspiciously convenient habit of deleting employee chat records—chats that, oh, by the way, might have been super relevant to this case. Her frustration was palpable, and Google’s chances of skating by on charm alone are looking slim.

The DOJ’s demands are clear: Break up the ad tech giant, or at the very least, strip away some of its overwhelming control over the market. Google’s defense hinges on the argument that any forced breakup would cause more harm than good, destabilizing the industry and sending competitors like Amazon and Meta on a power trip. In other words, they’re asking the judge to keep the devil they know rather than unleashing the demons they don’t.

What’s Next in This High-Stakes Drama?

As the trial marches on, every email, every witness, every offhand comment from a former exec is dissected like a frog in a high school biology class. And with billions of dollars on the line, you better believe both sides are playing to win.

Google’s future hangs in the balance, and the outcome could redefine not just its business model but the entire digital ad landscape. If the DOJ succeeds in forcing a breakup, it could open the floodgates for new competitors to emerge, fundamentally altering how ads are bought and sold online. And if they fail? Well, Google’s grip on the market could tighten even further, leaving little room for anyone else to breathe.

Stay Tuned for the Grand Finale

So, where does that leave us? Waiting, watching, and wondering if the DOJ has what it takes to bring down one of the most powerful companies in the world. Google has been at the top of the ad tech game for over a decade, but its reign might finally be facing a real challenge. The trial may be far from over, but one thing is clear: the DOJ is determined to make this a fight worth watching.

So, grab your seats and settle in—this courtroom drama is just heating up. And in the world of antitrust, nothing is off-limits. After all, as Google knows all too well, it’s not just about how you play the game; it’s about who makes the rules. And right now, the DOJ is calling the shots.

Posted on

Attention Metrics: Industry Savior or Snake Oil?

In a masterclass of déjà vu, both AdExchanger and Digiday unleashed a “scoop” yesterday announcing that the IAB and MRC are collaborating on attention measurement accreditation. 

Slow clap.

We had Angelina Eng on our show weeks ago spilling the same beans. But hey, if you don’t watch the hottest show in adtech, that’s on you, not me. Eng gave us a front-row seat to the coming circus of guidelines the IAB is rolling out, breaking attention into bite-sized pieces: visual/audio tracking, neurological observations, data signals, and good old-fashioned surveys. Spoiler: We’ve got one part of this puzzle already, but the rest? Well, you’ll have to sit tight until the first quarter of 2025. Talk about the attention economy needing patience!

You’ve read all the bs, now let’s get into the details folks.

The Attention Rabbit Hole
The IAB’s master plan is like trying to get everyone at a family reunion to agree on one pizza topping—it’s ambitious, a bit unrealistic, and fraught with the potential for drama. Their idea is to craft a sparkling new framework that forces everyone—from media buyers to ad tech vendors—to speak the same language when it comes to measuring attention. Enter the buzzwords: visual and audio tracking, neuro-something-or-others, and data proxy signals. These are the magic beans that the IAB believes will grow into a beanstalk of industry-wide consensus. But let’s be honest; this is less about achieving clarity and more about covering up the fact that we’ve been playing an elaborate game of “pin the metric on the donkey” for years. The old impression-based model is starting to feel like a relic from the Stone Age, and everyone is scrambling to redefine relevance.

At the heart of the IAB’s vision is the hope—no, the prayer—that by next year, everyone will finally sing from the same hymn sheet, er, scroll. But that’s a tall order in an industry that thrives on buzzwords and vague promises. The challenge here is monumental. Herding the scattered tribes of advertisers, publishers, platforms, and vendors into a unified front on what attention really means is akin to getting a group of caffeinated toddlers to walk in a straight line. You’ve got factions defending their turf, vested interests, and different interpretations of what “good” looks like. Each party has its own version of what attention measurement should prioritize—be it viewability, engagement time, or neurological responses—turning any effort at standardization into a diplomatic nightmare.

And even if, by some miracle, the IAB manages to draft a set of guidelines that doesn’t immediately implode under the weight of its own contradictions, getting universal buy-in is another story. Think of the ad industry as a rebellious teenager—always pushing boundaries, never satisfied with the status quo, and constantly inventing new ways to dodge the rules. Just when you think you’ve pinned them down, they slip out of your grasp, invent a new acronym, or find a loophole to exploit. So, while the IAB dreams of a future where attention metrics are universally understood and applied, the rest of us are bracing for yet another round of chaos and confusion.

Let’s dive into the four attention commandments:

Visual/Audio Tracking: Think “Black Mirror,” but for your eyeballs and eardrums. From eye tracking to facial coding, these methods hope to capture where your gaze lingers and what your ears endure. It’s all very Big Brother, but in the name of engagement, right?

Physiological/Neurological Observations: Want to know what your heart rate thinks of that new Pepsi ad? This one’s for you. Heart rate, brain waves, and maybe even a soul scan—because nothing says “effective marketing” like a mild stroke.

Data Signals: This one reads like an NSA manual. The idea is to grab every signal your device emits like it’s the Fourth of July and weave it into some semblance of attention scoring. It’s like tracking Santa’s sleigh, but with less magic and more metadata.

Survey-Based Methods: The old-school way. Ask people how much they loved or loathed that detergent ad. Nothing like self-reported data to put the “con” in consumer insights.

The MRC Gets Into the Game – Or Just Stands There
The Media Rating Council (MRC), self-appointed guardian of what counts as a “viewable” ad, has now dipped its toes into the murky waters of attention metrics. They’ve come to terms with the fact that attention isn’t just a passing fad but might actually mean something. So, in their typical bureaucratic fashion, they’ve declared that attention measures must tick a few boxes: ads need to be seen (viewability), not clicked by bots or accidental thumbs (invalid traffic filtration), and must have a real-life human present (user presence). But audibility? Meh, that’s an optional extra—unless you’re in the business of selling audio ads to the hearing-impaired. Because, you know, context is key.

And now, they’re all about these new-fangled data signal proxies. Think of them as the latest elixir on the digital marketing shelf. Everyone’s mixing them up in hopes they can create a perfect cocktail—where each ad impression is not only “seen” but felt deep in the soul (or at least in the wallet). It’s all about blending these signals like a pro bartender crafting the ultimate concoction. But in reality? Picture someone waving their hands frantically at a magic show, desperately hoping for a rabbit to appear out of the hat.

But let’s get down to brass tacks: the MRC’s new love affair with data proxies is really just a new chapter in the long book of digital ad metrics. These proxies, they say, will combine diverse data points—like a mixologist who adds a dash of eye-tracking, a hint of mouse movement, and maybe a splash of device orientation—to tell us whether a consumer was really “paying attention.” But here’s the twist: while this may sound like some groundbreaking, data-driven magic, it’s often just more theater. Everyone’s nodding along, but no one’s quite sure if the emperor has clothes on.

Meanwhile, the industry is left to ponder if these proxies are truly the new gold rush or just another fool’s errand. Proponents argue they offer a way to cut through the noise, a new beacon in the fog of digital ads. But detractors suggest it’s more like panning for gold in a dried-up riverbed. Sure, the shimmer of possibility is there, but dig deep, and all you might find are a few shiny rocks masquerading as precious nuggets.

The real kicker is that, even if these proxies could work magic, we still have to agree on what “attention” really means. Is it a gaze that lingers for 2.5 seconds longer than the average? A double-tap on an Instagram post at 3 AM when the consumer’s half asleep? The MRC, in all its wisdom, is trying to draw a line in the sand, but when the entire landscape is shifting like quicksand, that’s a tall order. For every guideline, there’s a counterpoint, and for every standard, a dozen exceptions.

But Wait, Are Attention Metrics the New Snake Oil?

Last year, the advertising world saw a stampede of marketers leaping onto the attention metrics train like a bunch of kids chasing the ice cream truck on a hot summer day. Audi, Coca-Cola, the NBA—all of them decided that simply counting eyeballs wasn’t enough anymore. They’re done with the old days of indiscriminately casting a wide net; now, they want to know precisely how long those eyeballs linger and whether they’re twinkling with interest or glazing over like yesterday’s donuts. In the race for ROI, they’ve decided that “attention” is the secret sauce, the golden fleece, the unicorn that will magically turn their ad dollars into sales gold.

But not everyone is buying a ticket for this ride. Enter Professor Byron Sharp, who’s become the advertising industry’s version of the Grinch who stole Christmas. Sharp stands at his soapbox, waving his arms like an air traffic controller in a storm, shouting that the whole attention metrics frenzy is nothing more than a carnival sideshow. His argument? Counting the seconds someone accidentally stares at an ad because they were too lazy to click “skip” doesn’t amount to effective marketing. Sharp, along with his colleagues, claims that chasing attention is like hunting a mythical dragon—one that might breathe a lot of hype, but not a lot of fire.

Sharp’s skepticism cuts deep into the heart of the attention metrics movement. He points out that more attention doesn’t automatically mean more sales, more brand love, or any substantial value beyond an empty marketing budget. He’s not alone, either. A growing cadre of critics echoes his doubts, arguing that while attention metrics might sound like the Holy Grail, they could just as easily be another false idol. They argue that advertisers are throwing good money after bad, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle by optimizing for fleeting glances and momentary awareness that, in reality, might not be worth the pixels they’re printed on.

Sharp’s critique is more than just a curmudgeonly rant against the latest trend. It’s a call for sanity in an industry that often leaps from one shiny new object to another like a hyperactive squirrel on an espresso drip. He suggests that the obsession with attention metrics could lead to creative and strategic shortcuts, where marketers focus more on capturing attention than delivering meaningful content. After all, what good is an ad that grabs your attention for a few seconds if it doesn’t leave any lasting impact? Sharp warns that by overvaluing attention, we risk turning advertising into a game of “gotcha,” where the only winners are the platforms raking in the ad dollars.

But the debate doesn’t end there. Sharp’s opponents argue that he’s missing the forest for the trees. Attention, they say, is not just about the quantity of seconds but the quality of engagement. Even a fleeting moment, they claim, can plant the seed of brand recall, influencing purchase decisions down the line. To them, the real question isn’t whether attention matters, but how to capture and hold it in ways that are genuinely valuable. They see attention metrics not as a fad, but as a necessary evolution in how we understand and measure advertising effectiveness.

Still, Sharp’s supporters contend that the industry’s fixation on attention metrics is like chasing shadows—there’s just not enough substance to justify the hype. They argue that while some attention is necessary (after all, you can’t sell to people who aren’t paying attention), obsessing over how much attention you get is a bit like worrying about how many likes your cat photos get on Instagram. Sure, it’s nice, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything important is happening. Instead, they urge a return to fundamentals: build great brands, create compelling content, and let attention follow naturally, rather than bending over backward to manufacture it.

Attention Fans Speak Up

Karen Nelson-Field and Mike Follett are leading a full-scale charge in the debate over attention metrics, positioning attention not just as another industry buzzword but as the foundational metric that should guide all advertising decisions. Nelson-Field, through her work at Amplified Intelligence, argues that attention is the “Holy Grail” of advertising—an essential link between the mere exposure of an ad and genuine engagement from the audience. Her approach is backed by rigorous, independent studies conducted across six countries, demonstrating that attention is not only measurable but also directly linked to advertising effectiveness, brand growth, and customer retention. Essentially, she believes that if you’re not measuring attention, you’re flying blind in a storm, and no amount of traditional metrics like impressions or clicks will give you the true picture of an ad’s impact.

Backing her up, Mike Follett of Lumen Research has also been on the offensive, presenting data that shows how attention metrics outperform traditional measurements in predicting campaign outcomes. According to Follett, while old-school metrics might tell you how many people could have seen your ad, attention metrics tell you who actually did see it and for how long. This, he contends, is crucial information that translates directly into real-world results. His studies suggest that ads which capture higher levels of attention are more likely to be remembered, which in turn increases the likelihood of purchase—a metric every marketer dreams of improving.

Joining the fray is Mark Ritson, the self-styled provocateur of marketing academia, who has been banging the drum for attention metrics as the definitive measure of success. Ritson argues that “dwell time,” or the length of time a viewer spends with an ad, is not just another metric but the metric that indicates the true effectiveness of an ad. According to Ritson, attention creates salience; salience drives preference, and preference impacts the bottom line. He’s pushing the notion that the more time a consumer spends with an ad, the more likely they are to engage with the brand—and possibly even become a loyal customer.

Yet, while Nelson-Field, Follett, and Ritson are painting a rosy picture of the potential of attention metrics, they’re not blind to the challenges. Nelson-Field has cautioned that this new focus on attention needs to avoid the pitfalls of previous measurement obsessions—like the doomed fascination with clickbait-style engagement metrics that once promised to revolutionize digital marketing but instead devalued both content and brand trust. She argues that the industry must focus on “real human attention,” insisting that any metrics not grounded in genuine human engagement (like those that don’t use actual human gaze data) are just more snake oil in a different bottle.

The proponents of attention metrics are also sounding the alarm about the need for ethical practices in this new era. Nelson-Field, for example, warns against using attention metrics to drive advertising into the “cheapest, darkest corners of the internet”—a mistake made in the past with click-driven content. Instead, she’s advocating for the responsible use of attention data to maintain high-quality content and transparent media trading. Her “Attention Revolution” column calls for the industry to treat attention as the “North Star” for ad effectiveness, cautioning that while disruption can be beneficial, it must be validated against actual brand growth and not just short-term metrics.

In the coming months, expect to see a flood of vendors peddling various attention measurement tools. Nelson-Field predicts that while some will offer genuine advancements, many will not. The challenge will be to separate the “quick-fix” measures from those that genuinely add value by capturing real human engagement. As she puts it, the goal is to create a new measurement category that offers more certainty than the industry has seen in a long time—one that can withstand new challenges and continue to evolve in a dynamic media environment.

Attention Metrics: The Darling or the Dud?

So, what’s the verdict here? Is attention the next big thing or just another fad like the pet rock? For every marketer who thinks attention metrics are the magic bullet, there’s another who thinks they’re more like a water gun. The IAB and MRC are diving in headfirst, hoping to calm the waters with their new guidelines, but the industry is left wondering if this is the moment we finally get some clarity or just another chapter in the book of marketing jargon. Are we setting the stage for a revolution in how we measure ad effectiveness, or simply giving ourselves more data to drown in?

One thing’s for sure: the debate isn’t going away anytime soon. As the industry grapples with defining what “attention” really means and how to measure it, there’s a lot at stake—billions of dollars, reputations, and, dare we say, the future of how we connect brands to consumers. Will attention metrics emerge as the guiding star of digital advertising, or will they fade into obscurity like so many trends before them? Stay tuned, folks; this show is just getting started.

Posted on

Can Curation Houses Be the Couples Therapist We All Need?

Programmatic advertising is like that friend who never stops binge-watching “The Real Housewives” — you know it’s not great for you, but you can’t stop. For media buyers, it’s the ultimate double-edged sword, a love-hate relationship between efficiency and effectiveness. And into this chaotic, conflicted landscape gallops the new messianic figure of ad tech: Curation Houses.

Now, if you’re already rolling your eyes, I get it. Another savior in a market that’s had more “saviors” than Hollywood has had superhero reboots. But Curation Houses aren’t just another silver bullet. They’re the hot new thing promising to be the solution to a programmatic landscape filled with wasted budgets, misaligned incentives, and inventory that often feels more like dumpster diving than data-driven targeting.

The Basics: What Even Are Curation Houses?

In the simplest terms, curation gives you a front-row seat to the supply-side inventory, but with a twist — a programmatic one. Think of it as a self-service suite for ad-buying enthusiasts. Curation platforms allow brands, publishers, and data providers to combine their first-party data with inventory sourced from third-party publishers, all packaged neatly into a PMP (Private Marketplace) deal ID, ready to be channeled through demand-side platforms (DSPs).

So, it’s essentially a matchmaking service, but instead of swiping left or right, you’re setting the rules — think filtering inventory based on location, or crafting audiences with the kind of contextual targeting that’s more aligned with your performance KPIs than some generic horoscope of online behaviors.

Scott Messer, who knows his way around a murky ad stack, sat down with us for a interivew (to be published in a few weeks) sees the current state of programmatic as a kind of purgatory where “media buyers are stuck in a cycle of buying bulk supply deals that sound fancy but are essentially just packaged junk.” But here’s the kicker: the rise of Curation Houses suggests there may actually be gold at the end of this rainbow, not just the usual fool’s gold.

Why Should You Care?

Let’s get real. For years, curation has been trapped in the dark, cobweb-filled basement of DSPs and SSPs, cobbled together like Frankenstein’s monster, with buyers often ending up with results as reliable as a one-star Uber ride. But now, the “second coming” of curation is shifting the power dynamics. Publishers are finally getting smarter, context-driven inventory management that bypasses the need for third-party cookies. Imagine a world where publishers can finally monetize data they could never sell at scale, and advertisers actually get what they pay for. Crazy, right?

Messer calls this a game-changer: “By facilitating more direct relationships between publishers and buyers, curation houses can drive data licensing revenue, provide deeper insights, and create liquidity in the market.” Translation? No more black box deals where you have no clue where your money is going or what it’s doing.

Separating the Wolves from the Sheep

But wait, there’s a catch. Not all Curation Houses are created equal, and some are just peddling the same old inventory with a fancier name. According to industry insights, curation can be a double-edged sword—promising transparency and quality but often delivering “more smoke and mirrors than magic” when not executed properly. As Lotame points out, some curation houses are masters of distraction, using jargon and fancy AI claims to sell what is essentially repackaged, mediocre inventory. In an ecosystem where trust is about as common as a unicorn, it’s easy to be dazzled by the hype and overlook the hard truths.

Drew Stein from Audigent recognizes this problem too, but he’s betting on curation as the real deal—if done right. Stein doesn’t just see curation as a trendy buzzword; he sees it as a fundamental shift, a way to move data from the buy side to the sell side, leveraging dynamic pricing and real-time optimization to drive down costs and drive up performance. “Dynamic pricing… is frankly cheaper for the buyers,” he explains, underscoring the importance of using data and technology to cut through the murkiness of the current system. Audigent is doubling down on this vision, working to integrate real-time data and AI capabilities through partnerships with industry heavyweights like Onetag and TransUnion to make sure they’re delivering the goods, not just the gloss.

But don’t be fooled by just any shiny new label. While Audigent and a few others are truly redefining the game, many curation platforms are more smoke and mirrors than substance. As Lotame notes, even with promises of enhanced transparency and control, the real value of curation depends heavily on the integrity and quality of the data being used. The challenge, then, is figuring out which curators are genuinely adding value and which are just wolves in sheep’s clothing, hoping you won’t look too closely while they pocket their margin. This is especially critical as we transition into a post-cookie world, where transparency and trust are everything.

In short, be skeptical and savvy. The curation craze has everyone jumping on the bandwagon, but the truth is, not every player is making magic happen. Some are just hoping you won’t notice the sleight of hand while they rake in their margin. Before you buy into the promise of “incremental lift,” make sure you’re not just buying another flashy PowerPoint pitch. As Stein puts it, curation done right is a game-changer; done wrong, it’s just another hustle in the ever-chaotic world of ad tech.

The Efficiency Dream (Or Nightmare?)

With increased efficiency through curation comes a reduction in waste — the digital ad world’s equivalent of Marie Kondo-ing your closet. Curation sifts through and refines data, ensuring only the good stuff gets through. Think of it like sorting the wheat from the chaff, or in this case, the quality impressions from the metric ton of low-value junk. As marketers struggle with a fragmented audience landscape and declining effectiveness of third-party cookies, programmatic curation offers a way to cut through the complexity, making sure every ad dollar is spent wisely.

Audigent points out that “curated marketplaces can be created and developed with key industry trends in mind,” such as sustainability, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I), and privacy. These curated packages allow for more tailored verticals like entertainment and B2B, fostering greater collaboration between publishers and advertisers while promoting a sustainable ecosystem where everyone wins — advertisers get better targeting, consumers see more relevant ads, and publishers can monetize more effectively.

Adding to this, a report from OpenX highlights how curation offers a clear and consolidated path for advertisers by reducing reliance on a web of intermediaries. The result? More efficient ad placements and better inventory control. As OpenX emphasizes, their curated supply eliminates low-quality “Made for Advertising” (MFA) content and supports more sustainable practices by optimizing their supply chain, offering both transparency and enhanced targeting capabilities that directly tie ad spend to desired outcomes. This means that curated supply portfolios allow buyers to optimize their supply paths based on consumer interests, publisher rates, and brand values, rather than getting lost in the noise of endless options and hidden fees.

However, while curation offers numerous advantages, it’s not without its challenges. Dan Owens of Multilocal warns that curation is still a young methodology, surrounded by noise and confusion about its tools and applications. The key is partnering with trusted providers who can navigate the curation landscape, provide privacy-compliant first-party data, and offer curated packages that genuinely align with an advertiser’s campaign goals. The bottom line? Programmatic curation promises a path toward greater efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness, but only if executed with a clear strategy and reliable partners. As the industry continues to evolve, leveraging curated data smartly will become crucial to success in the post-cookie world

The Real Winners in Curation’s New World Order

To thrive in this brave new world, Curation Houses can’t just rest on their laurels and hope their shiny new tech will dazzle the room. They need to get serious about bringing unique data partnerships to the table, serving up exclusive inventory like it’s artisanal avocado toast, and cutting through the buzzword-bingo that fills every pitch deck these days. As Nick Hill from EssenceMediacom aptly points out in ExchangeWire, “The real winners in the curation era will be those who can demonstrate unique access to new signals or a fresh approach to unlocking the rich value within publishers’ audiences.” In other words, don’t just talk the talk—show us the magic.

But let’s not get carried away. The ad tech industry is notorious for promising revolutions that end up looking more like a new coat of paint on the same rusty clunker. The old-school way of doing things—relying on DSPs to maximize their margins while delivering mediocre results to advertisers—is still kicking around, stubbornly refusing to die. The only thing they’ve revolutionized is their ability to prioritize their bottom line over your campaign’s success. If you’re not vigilant, you could find yourself back at square one, swimming in the same murky waters that Scott Messer so colorfully describes as “programmatic purgatory.”

So, what does it take to rise above the noise? For starters, transparency needs to be more than just a buzzword thrown around at industry panels. Curation Houses need to make their operations as clear as a summer day. Show exactly where the ad spend is going, what value it’s driving, and how it stacks up against all those dazzling AI predictions. If they can’t provide that, they might as well be selling snake oil in a fancy bottle.

Moreover, they must champion the idea of direct relationships. No more layers upon layers of middlemen skimming a bit off the top until there’s nothing left for the publisher or advertiser. Think of it like farm-to-table dining, but for ad dollars: fresh, direct, and not handled by a hundred different vendors along the way. Real transparency, combined with unique data, is the secret sauce that will set the true innovators apart.

In the end, the future of Curation Houses will depend on their ability to deliver on these promises. As the industry continues to evolve, those that can cut through the noise with real value and measurable results will thrive. The rest? They’ll likely end up as cautionary tales, relegated to the annals of ad tech history, as yet another trend that never quite lived up to the hype.

Drew Stein, the brain behind Audigent, saw the writing on the wall early on: the old data networks were “busted,” and something needed to shake up the stale game of programmatic advertising. “Curation” wasn’t even a buzzword when Audigent kicked off, but Stein knew there was magic in the idea. He describes it as “the application of data through the supply path,” turning the tables by shifting power from the buyers to the sellers. The new play? Dynamic pricing and real-time optimization that’s “frankly cheaper” for buyers and privacy-friendly—because who wants their data shipped all over the web like a digital hot potato?

Stein isn’t just peddling another ad tech miracle cure; he’s pointing to a future where data gets to stay close to home, cozy and secure, without being slung around like the contents of a yard sale. He sees curation as the ultimate strategy for maintaining control, driving efficiency, and finally getting some respect for your data—keeping it in the family, so to speak, where it belongs. As Stein puts it, you get “all the best parts of programmatic and more,” without the usual mess of inefficiency and privacy concerns.

Can Curation Truly Save Us, or Are We Just Drinking the Kool-Aid?

Maybe. Or maybe this is just another flavor of the month in ad tech’s endless parade of “game-changers.” You know how it goes: today’s savior is tomorrow’s cautionary tale. But if you listen to folks like Wei Hsueh from Equativ, there might be a genuine opportunity in this mess. “With direct access to publisher supply,” Hsueh argues, “buyers can bypass intermediaries, ensuring a more streamlined distribution of resources and ad spend.” That sounds pretty nice if you’re tired of the middlemen sucking up every spare penny like programmatic vampires.

Nishanth Raju over at Lotame chimes in with a similar pitch. He says, “Curated deals deliver scale, incremental reach, and optimized supply paths to advertisers at the right price while meeting or exceeding KPI benchmarks observed at open auctions.” Translation? Curation might just turn your ad spend from a game of darts in the dark to something resembling an actual strategy. But, hey, we’ve all heard the buzzwords before: “scale,” “incremental reach,” and “optimized supply paths” are the mantras of an industry that loves to sell sizzle but often forgets about the steak.

So, can Curation Houses be the white knights galloping in to save programmatic from itself? They certainly seem to offer a glimmer of hope in an industry where trust is about as common as a unicorn. Scott Messer, who has seen more programmatic catastrophes than most of us have had hot dinners, says, “2025 might just be the year when publishers take back some control, buyers find their footing, and the programmatic world starts looking less like a bad habit and more like a balanced diet.” Hope springs eternal, Scott.

But before we all start singing hallelujah and building statues in their honor, let’s pump the brakes. There’s still a ton of work to do to separate the real innovators from the charlatans who just discovered the word “curation” in a PowerPoint slide and decided to make it their personality. So, keep your eyes open, sharpen your pitchforks, and ask the hard questions. Because, let’s be real, we’ve been promised saviors before, and we all know how that story usually ends: in tears, broken KPIs, and yet another round of “what went wrong?”

Here’s the kicker: maybe this time, the savior is real. Or maybe we’re just caught up in another round of tech snake oil sales. 

But hey, without a little skepticism, where’s the fun in this industry anyway?

Posted on

Gray Hair, Don’t Care: Judy Shapiro’s Stormy Path Through Ad Tech’s Boys’ Club

In the ever-evolving world of ad tech, where buzzwords often outshine real innovation, Judy Shapiro stands out as a voice of reason—and rebellion. As the CEO of Topic Intelligence, Judy is not just another figure in the ad tech landscape; she’s a disruptor, challenging the status quo with a blend of experience, wit, and a relentless pursuit of what she calls “real marketing.”

We had the pleasure of sitting down with Judy for The ADOTAT Show’s Mad Women Series, where she offered us an unfiltered glimpse into the realities of the industry, the challenges she’s faced, and the bold ideas she’s championing to push ad tech beyond its current limitations.

The Cookie Conundrum: Google’s Big “Never Mind”

When Judy Shapiro gets started, she doesn’t just dip her toes into the conversation—she cannonballs right in, splashing cold water on the tech giants that many are too timid to criticize. Case in point: Google’s recent cookie fiasco. “I am shocked,” Judy said, and you could almost hear the collective nod of agreement from everyone who’s been watching this slow-motion car crash. Google’s dithering over cookie deprecation isn’t some noble stand for consumer privacy; no, it’s regulatory appeasement dressed up in a cheap tuxedo. Judy, with her razor-sharp wit, likened Google’s backtracking to Gilda Radner’s classic “Never mind” moments on Saturday Night Live. It’s the perfect comparison for a company that, when faced with real heat, throws its hands up and says, “Oops, just kidding!”

But let’s not forget who really gets left out in the cold here—consumers. While Google plays its corporate chess game with regulators, consumers are the pawns, moved around with little regard for their privacy or autonomy. “They have no control or power in this entire world that revolves around them,” Judy lamented, cutting to the heart of the matter with her trademark directness. It’s a harsh reality: while the industry’s big players, from DSPs to retargeting firms, pop champagne bottles to celebrate their newfound lease on cookie-based tracking, the average user is left grappling with the implications of their data being up for grabs.

The irony isn’t lost on Judy. Here’s a tech behemoth that once promised to make the world’s information accessible to everyone, now spinning on a dime to protect its bottom line while consumers get stuck with the bill. It’s like watching a magic trick where the audience knows exactly how the illusion works, but they’re still somehow mesmerized by the sleight of hand. The grand reveal? Consumers realize they’re the ones being sawed in half, privacy sliced away while the industry applauds the act.

In the end, Judy’s critique is more than just a scathing indictment of Google’s flip-flopping; it’s a call to action. She’s pointing out the elephant in the room that everyone else seems to be ignoring: the consumer, the very lifeblood of this entire ecosystem, is being treated as an afterthought. And until that changes, until consumers are given the power and control they deserve, Judy’s “shock” is likely to resonate across the industry—because, really, who isn’t tired of being the one left holding the bag?

Scale and Surveillance: The False Gods of Ad Tech

Judy is not one to shy away from controversy. Her critique of ad tech’s obsession with scale and surveillance is biting and, frankly, spot on. “The scale business is a business that is detached from reality,” she asserted, pointing out that the endless quest for impressions often leads to a complete disconnect between ads and actual people. This isn’t just a flaw in the system—it’s a design feature that serves the industry’s bottom line at the expense of meaningful engagement.

Verification, Judy notes, is another area where the industry has willfully turned a blind eye. Despite the sophisticated tools available, the verification of ad placements remains frustratingly inadequate. “They don’t want to really check whether fraud was a problem,” she said, a startling revelation that underscores the ethical lapses that plague ad tech.

A New Paradigm: Topic Intelligence

If Judy sounds angry, it’s because she is—righteously so. But that anger has been the driving force behind Topic Intelligence, the company she founded out of sheer frustration with the industry’s refusal to innovate in meaningful ways. Topic Intelligence isn’t about scale for the sake of scale; it’s about relevance. By focusing on topics rather than broad keywords, Judy’s approach ensures that ads are not just seen but are seen by the right people, in the right context.

Her company’s AI-driven contextual model, developed over three years, is designed to understand the nuances of language—ensuring that a financial ad doesn’t end up next to content about blood banks, for instance. It’s a labor-intensive approach, but one that promises to deliver far better results for advertisers and a more pleasant experience for consumers.

The Gendered Battlefield of Ad Tech

In the male-dominated world of ad tech, being a woman is no small feat. Judy Shapiro, a seasoned veteran of the industry, describes it as “playing chess in a hurricane.” It’s a vivid metaphor that captures the relentless challenges women face, not just in keeping up with the fast-paced, ever-changing dynamics of the industry but in overcoming the entrenched gender biases that still prevail. Judy’s experiences highlight a fundamental issue that many women in tech continue to grapple with—casual sexism that, though subtle at times, can be as destructive as a hurricane in its ability to undermine and belittle.

One of the most striking examples Judy shared with us was a meeting with a major venture capitalist (VC). She had gone into the meeting prepared to discuss her innovative work and the future of ad tech, only to find herself derailed by an entirely different conversation. For the entire 15-minute meeting, the VC fixated on her gray hair, a superficial detail that had nothing to do with her expertise or the business at hand. “Have you always had gray hair?” he asked, as if this were the most pressing issue in the room. The experience was not just bizarre but emblematic of the casual sexism that often reduces women to their appearance rather than acknowledging their professional accomplishments.

This encounter, while infuriating, is just one of many that Judy has faced throughout her career. Yet, rather than let these experiences deter her, they have only strengthened her resolve. Judy’s resilience, she explains, is fueled by a combination of anger and stubbornness—traits that have become her greatest assets in an industry that often tries to sideline women. “Stay angry,” she advises, because that anger is what propels her forward, pushing her to challenge the status quo and demand the respect that she and other women in the field deserve. It’s this refusal to be cowed by the systemic biases of the industry that has made Judy not just a survivor, but a force to be reckoned with.

Judy’s approach to business, particularly her passion for client outcomes, is another area where she has faced criticism—but this time, for being “too invested.” In an industry that often prioritizes quick exits and rapid returns, Judy’s commitment to long-term relationships and real value is seen as unconventional. But it’s this very commitment that sets her apart. Where others are content to chase the next big payday, Judy is focused on creating sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships with her clients. “If you do it right, performance marketers line up,” she says, underscoring her belief that real success in ad tech isn’t about short-term gains but about building something that lasts.

This philosophy hasn’t always been easy to maintain, especially in a sector where the pressure to deliver immediate results can be overwhelming. But Judy’s insistence on prioritizing client outcomes over everything else has not only differentiated her from her peers but has also attracted a loyal following. Her clients know that when they work with Judy, they’re getting more than just a service provider—they’re getting a partner who is deeply invested in their success. This level of dedication is rare in an industry often characterized by transactional relationships, and it’s one of the reasons why Judy’s approach is resonating with so many.

Trust: The Future of Ad Tech Leadership

Looking ahead, Judy believes that trust will be the defining trait of the next generation of ad tech leaders. In an industry riddled with manipulation and half-truths, those who can build genuine trust—between advertisers, consumers, and platforms—will lead the way. “Trust is going to be the next 20 years of the internet,” she predicted, and it’s hard to argue with her logic. The tools that enable users to create their own trusted web experiences will be the ones that thrive, leaving behind the hollow promises of today’s ad tech giants.

Final Thoughts: A Message to Her Younger Self

If Judy could send a message back to her younger self, it would be simple: trust your instincts. Early in her career, she admitted, she often deferred to the technical experts around her, assuming they knew best. But with the benefit of hindsight, she realizes that her marketing instincts were often spot on. “Most marketers never start ad tech firms,” she said, but perhaps they should. Judy’s journey is a testament to what can happen when you combine deep industry knowledge with a willingness to challenge the status quo.

Judy Shapiro isn’t just navigating the turbulent waters of ad tech; she’s charting a new course, one that prioritizes relevance over scale, ethics over shortcuts, and trust over manipulation. It’s a path that may not be easy, but as Judy herself would tell you, it’s the only one worth taking.

Posted on

How Jon Walsh Built Adtech’s Largest Chat Empire (and Shook Up the Job Market)

Jon Walsh isn’t just a name in adtech; he’s a phenomenon. A legend. The kind of figure who has not only witnessed the wild, often chaotic evolution of digital advertising but has also been one of its most influential architects. With over two decades in the trenches, Jon’s career reads like an adtech epic—a narrative filled with exhilarating highs, crushing lows, and a relentless drive to push the boundaries of what’s possible in an industry notorious for its volatility.

Let’s start at the beginning. Selling his first company at 31 was no small feat, but it was just the opening act in what would become a career full of audacious moves. Picture this: a young, ambitious entrepreneur navigating the shark-infested waters of acquisitions. The experience left him a bit battered but far from broken. Instead, it set the stage for what would become a series of ventures where Jon didn’t just survive—he thrived. He was like a master chess player, always thinking several moves ahead, even when the board was a swirling mess of shifting trends and fleeting innovations.

But Jon’s story isn’t just about personal success; it’s about his uncanny ability to build communities and foster connections in an industry where isolation and competition are often the norms. Enter the adtech chat community on WhatsApp. What started as a humble attempt to stave off boredom during the pandemic morphed into the largest adtech chat network in the world. Imagine trying to corral thousands of adtech professionals from every corner of the globe into a single, coherent conversation. It’s like herding cats, if the cats were also constantly arguing about blockchain, CTV, and the latest SSP developments. And yet, Jon managed to do it—not by force, but by creating a space where genuine, unfiltered dialogue could thrive. This isn’t your typical LinkedIn group filled with self-promotion and corporate jargon; it’s a living, breathing organism where ideas are exchanged, friendships are forged, and yes, sometimes digital bar fights break out.

Jon’s involvement in blockchain is another chapter worth delving into. Here’s a guy who didn’t just dip his toes into the world of decentralized tech—he plunged in headfirst, clocking in thousands of hours of research and study. He was so deep into the blockchain rabbit hole that he could’ve written a dissertation on it. But unlike many who were blinded by the hype, Jon emerged from this journey with a clear-eyed perspective. His verdict? Blockchain, for all its promises, might just be more sizzle than steak, especially in an industry like adtech that thrives on centralization and control. Yet, even as he moved away from the blockchain evangelism, Jon’s curiosity didn’t wane. Instead, it shifted towards more practical, grounded innovations—like Bitcoin—where he saw a genuine opportunity to bridge the gap between digital currency and digital products.

But let’s talk about the crown jewel of Jon’s endeavors: the adtech chat community. The WhatsApp groups he founded have grown into something far beyond a casual chat room. These are global epicenters of industry conversation, where the latest trends, controversies, and innovations are dissected by some of the sharpest minds in the field. And it’s not just about the tech talk. These groups are a lifeline for professionals who often find themselves in the isolating trenches of a fast-paced, high-stakes industry. Jon’s groups offer a rare blend of professional discourse and personal connection—a virtual water cooler where everyone from seasoned veterans to fresh-faced newcomers can share insights, vent frustrations, and maybe even crack a joke or two.

One of the most remarkable aspects of these groups is how they’ve organically grown from a few dozen participants to thousands of active members. WhatsApp’s initial cap of 256 participants didn’t stand a chance against the demand for inclusion. When the limit was raised to 512, and later to 1024, 

Jon’s groups quickly maxed out, proving that there was a real hunger for this kind of community. And Jon, ever the savvy operator, didn’t just sit back and let it ride. He expanded the network into multiple groups, each focused on different aspects of adtech—from CTV to programmatic to the intricacies of data privacy. It’s like a sprawling digital metropolis, with Jon as the mayor, ensuring that the trains run on time and that everyone’s voice gets heard.

Yet, despite the success, Jon’s not one to rest on his laurels. He’s constantly iterating, looking for ways to improve the experience for his community. Whether it’s creating spin-off groups to dive deeper into niche topics or stepping in to quell the occasional digital dust-up, Jon’s hands-on approach is a big reason why these groups have thrived. And let’s not forget the fun stuff—like the football group, where the banter flies as fast as the goals, and the occasional political chat, where Jon wisely created a separate space to keep the peace in the main groups. It’s a delicate balance, managing the egos and opinions of thousands of adtech professionals, but Jon does it with a mix of diplomacy, humor, and a no-nonsense attitude that’s earned him the respect and admiration of his peers.

Then there’s JobsInAdTech, Jon Walsh’s latest brainchild, which is turning the adtech job market on its head. In an industry where LinkedIn often feels like an overcrowded flea market—swarming with irrelevant job postings and recruiters who spam your inbox with positions that don’t even come close to matching your skills—JobsInAdTech is like finding an oasis in a desert of chaos. It’s precise, it’s streamlined, and above all, it’s built with people in mind. Jon recognized early on that the traditional job board model was outdated and, frankly, broken. It was drowning in noise, cluttered with jobs that had nothing to do with the seekers’ real expertise, and lacking any real sense of community or connection. Job seekers were treated like cattle, herded into generic roles by algorithms that couldn’t distinguish between a data scientist and a social media manager. Jon saw this for the mess it was and decided it was time to flip the script entirely.

So, he created JobsInAdTech, a platform that tosses the old model out the window. Instead of quantity, Jon chose to prioritize quality. It’s a platform where every job listing is carefully curated, every connection meaningful, and every interaction designed to respect the time and effort of both job seekers and employers. By launching the site with a free-for-all approach in its initial months, Jon didn’t just gain a user base—he built a community. People came not just because it was free, but because it was different, better, and—most importantly—trusted. This wasn’t just another job board; it was a resource, a hub for the adtech community where professionals could find real, relevant opportunities without wading through the usual muck and mire of the online job market. Jon knew that trust is hard to earn and easy to lose, so he made sure that every aspect of JobsInAdTech was designed with integrity and transparency at its core.

The success of JobsInAdTech is more than just a feather in Jon’s cap; it’s a clear reflection of his deep, almost instinctual understanding of the adtech ecosystem. Jon knows the adtech industry inside and out, not just from a technical standpoint, but from a human one. He’s acutely aware of the pain points that plague both job seekers and employers—the frustrations of endless applications, the wasted time sifting through irrelevant candidates, the disconnect between what companies need and what traditional job boards provide. Where others saw these problems as just part of the landscape, Jon saw opportunities for innovation. His approach to building JobsInAdTech was as meticulous as it was visionary. He didn’t just want to create a job board; he wanted to solve the fundamental issues that make job hunting such a soul-crushing experience for so many people.

And while Jon might not be one to toot his own horn, the results speak for themselves. The testimonials from companies and candidates alike are glowing, filled with stories of how JobsInAdTech connected them with roles they’d been dreaming of but couldn’t find anywhere else. It’s not just about filling positions; it’s about matching the right people with the right opportunities, in a way that feels almost effortless. Jon has managed to take something as mundane as a job search and turn it into an experience that’s not only effective but also, dare we say, enjoyable. People aren’t just landing jobs; they’re finding careers that align with their passions and skills, all without the usual stress and frustration.

In a world where job boards are often synonymous with disappointment, JobsInAdTech stands out as a beacon of what’s possible when someone takes the time to truly understand the needs of their industry and acts on it with integrity and insight. Jon Walsh has not just created a platform; he’s set a new standard for what job searching in adtech can and should be.

Of course, it hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Jon’s had his share of stumbles along the way—like the time he lost a major deal with YouTube to a competitor. But instead of wallowing in defeat, he used the experience to fuel his next big win. It’s this resilience, this ability to learn from mistakes and come back stronger, that defines Jon’s career. He’s not just a survivor in the cutthroat world of adtech; he’s a pioneer, constantly pushing the envelope and redefining what’s possible.

Jon’s impact on the adtech industry is undeniable, but what sets him apart is his commitment to making the industry better for everyone—not just the big players with deep pockets, but the up-and-comers, the underdogs, and the everyday professionals who make this industry what it is. Through his community-building efforts, his thought leadership, and his innovative platforms, Jon has created spaces where people can connect, grow, and thrive. He’s not just shaping the future of adtech; he’s creating a legacy that will last long after the latest tech fad has come and gone.

In a world where digital interactions often feel impersonal and disconnected, Jon Walsh is a reminder that technology can be a force for good. That it can bring people together, foster real connections, and create opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach. His story is a testament to the power of community, the importance of resilience, and the impact that one person can have when they refuse to settle for the status quo.

So, what’s next for Jon Walsh?

 If his track record is anything to go by, it’s safe to say that whatever it is, it’ll be big, bold, and way ahead of the curve. Whether he’s launching the next big platform, spearheading a new initiative in the adtech community, or simply continuing to build on the success of his existing ventures, you can bet that Jon will approach it with the same mix of vision, passion, and relentless drive that has defined his career. Because for Jon Walsh, the journey is far from over—it’s only just beginning.

Posted on

Netflix Is Messing Up Big Time: How the Streaming Giant Is Losing Its Way with Ads

Netflix, once the uncontested ruler of the streaming universe, now seems to be playing a risky game of trial and error with its new ad-supported tier. With a staggering 40 million monthly users, you’d think they’ve struck gold, right? But here’s the kicker: Netflix is messing it all up—royally. It’s like watching someone try to juggle flaming torches while blindfolded; you can’t help but wonder how long before the whole thing goes up in flames.

The streaming landscape today is vastly different from the one Netflix dominated for years. Back in the day, Netflix was synonymous with uninterrupted binge-watching, offering a vast library of content free from the interruptions of traditional television. This was their golden promise, their unique selling proposition. But as competition intensified, with rivals like Disney+, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video carving out their own chunks of the market, Netflix found itself needing to diversify its revenue streams. Enter the ad-supported tier—a seemingly brilliant idea on paper, but one that is beginning to show significant cracks.

For years, Netflix resisted the temptation to run ads, standing firm on the belief that viewers valued the premium, ad-free experience. This approach not only differentiated them from cable but also from ad-supported streaming services like Hulu. However, as growth plateaued and subscription fatigue set in among users, Netflix had to find new ways to keep the revenue flowing. The ad-supported tier was introduced with much fanfare, and at first, it seemed like they had pulled off a masterstroke. But what we’re seeing now is a company struggling to balance its original vision with the demands of a new business model that, frankly, it doesn’t seem to fully understand.

A Journey Through Frustration: The Ad Experience from Hell

When Netflix first dipped its toes into the ad-supported waters, the skepticism was palpable. Critics and industry insiders alike questioned whether the platform could maintain its premium image while selling ad space. Fast forward to today, and Netflix has a thriving new revenue stream. But for viewers, it’s starting to feel like they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. I decided to take the plunge and sign up for the ad-supported tier myself, thinking I’d indulge in some documentaries or biopics, hoping for a slightly interrupted but still enjoyable experience. What I got instead was a frustrating crash course in how not to do advertising.

Imagine settling in for a cozy evening of Netflix, only to be bombarded by the same ad over and over again. And not just the same ad, but the same ad in different formats and sizes, as if the platform couldn’t decide how best to annoy you. It’s like they’ve taken the concept of repetitive strain injury and applied it to their advertising strategy. Alan Wolk, a respected voice in the industry, noted that this isn’t just a one-off glitch. Netflix’s ads are being sold through multiple exchanges, resulting in the same ads being shown repeatedly, sometimes within the same viewing session. It’s a user experience nightmare and one that could have long-term consequences for the platform.

To put it bluntly, Netflix’s ad experience is a mess. The platform seems to be trying to accommodate every possible way to buy and sell ads—private 1:1 marketplace deals, programmatic guarantees, you name it. They’ve thrown in tools like Google’s Campaign Manager and Innovid for impression verification and extended their partnerships with DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science for fraud and viewability checks. But instead of creating a seamless, integrated experience, they’ve cobbled together a Frankenstein’s monster of an ad ecosystem that’s as confusing as it is frustrating. It’s enough to make even the most seasoned marketing teams think twice about allocating their budgets to streaming.

The FAANG Illusion: Why Netflix’s Success Is a Double-Edged Sword

Despite these glaring issues, Netflix’s ad-supported tier is being hailed as a success in some circles. This perception is largely driven by the fact that Netflix has an almost magical ability to get people to suspend their critical thinking and buy into the hype. It’s why the acronym “FAANG” still includes Netflix, even though the company has little in common with tech behemoths like Apple, Amazon, Meta, and Google, who have diversified revenue streams and a multitude of multibillion-dollar business lines. But the reality is that Netflix’s success in the ad space is a double-edged sword.

The success of Netflix’s ad-supported tier creates a narrative that streaming ads are the next big thing, which in turn drives more brands to shift their dollars from traditional media to streaming platforms. This is good news for the industry as a whole, but it also means that Netflix is under enormous pressure to deliver results. If the ad experience continues to be as clunky and repetitive as it currently is, advertisers will start to question whether they’re getting their money’s worth. And once the cracks start to show, it could be a slippery slope to irrelevance.

Moreover, the belief that “as Netflix goes, so goes the industry” is problematic. It creates an illusion of growth and success that may not be entirely accurate. Yes, the market is expanding, and yes, more dollars are flowing into streaming, but if Netflix’s ad-supported model is fundamentally flawed, it could lead to a bubble that’s bound to burst. And when it does, the fallout could affect not just Netflix but the entire streaming ecosystem.

Half-Baked and Ill-Prepared: The Ad-Supported Tier’s Growing Pains

One of the most frustrating aspects of Netflix’s ad-supported tier is how half-baked it feels. For a company that has spent years perfecting its user experience, the ad-supported model seems like a rushed, ill-conceived afterthought. Users have reported missing titles, a lack of consistent content availability, and an overall experience that feels like a step down from what they’ve come to expect from Netflix. While the ad load is lighter than traditional broadcast TV—around four or five minutes per hour—there’s still a sense that Netflix hasn’t fully committed to making this tier work.

Adding to the frustration is Netflix’s decision to phase out its Basic plan, the cheapest ad-free option. This move feels like a bait-and-switch, pushing users towards the ad-supported tier whether they like it or not. In markets like Canada and the UK, Netflix has already retired the Basic plan, and the US and France are next on the chopping block. It’s a risky move that could backfire if users feel they’re being strong-armed into a subpar experience.

But perhaps the most telling sign that Netflix’s ad-supported tier is not ready for prime time is its embarrassingly low fill rates. According to a report by One Touch Intelligence, ad fill rates for the FAST channel market, including Netflix, hover around a dismal 38%. This means that Netflix is struggling to sell ad inventory, and as a result, viewers are being subjected to the same ads over and over again. It’s a classic case of quantity over quality, and it’s doing more harm than good.

Leadership Shakeups and Programmatic Pitfalls: Is Netflix Losing Its Way?

Netflix seems to be aware that something isn’t quite right, as evidenced by the recent departure of their top ad liaison, Peter Naylor. Naylor, a veteran of the industry, was brought in to help Netflix navigate the complex world of advertising, but his exit suggests that the company is still struggling to find its footing. The move towards programmatic, automated channels to sell ad inventory is another indication that Netflix is trying to fix the problem, but it’s unclear whether this will be enough.

The shift to programmatic could streamline the ad-buying process and improve fill rates, but it also comes with its own set of challenges. Programmatic advertising is notorious for issues like ad fraud, viewability problems, and lack of transparency. If Netflix can’t get a handle on these issues, they risk alienating advertisers even further. And with competition in the streaming space only getting fiercer, Netflix can’t afford to drop the ball.

In the end, Netflix’s foray into the world of advertising feels like a series of missteps and missed opportunities. They’ve got the audience, they’ve got the data, and they’ve got the potential to be a major player in the ad space. But unless they can figure out how to deliver a seamless, engaging experience for both viewers and advertisers, they’re at risk of losing the very thing that made them great: their ability to innovate and lead.

Netflix needs to remember that in the world of streaming, content may be king, but user experience is the kingdom. If they don’t get their act together, they might find themselves dethroned.

Posted on

Meet the Monsters of the Ad Supply Chain: Greed, Inefficiency, and Cowardice

Ok, this might get me killed by the secret advertising police, if they existed — or at least some nasty comments and slander. The advertising supply chain—what a dumpster fire. It’s like someone took the worst parts of a sketchy pawn shop and a DMV waiting line and mashed them together. 

You’ve got layers upon layers of middlemen, each one more useless than the last, all feeding off the same carcass of inefficiency and greed. And the sad part? 

The folks who are supposed to be the gatekeepers—yes, you, media buyers—are too scared to rock the boat. 

So instead, they shuffle papers, collect their paychecks, and pretend the whole mess isn’t about to implode.

The Bloat of the Supply Chain: A Modern-Day Horror Story

Let’s talk about this monstrosity of a supply chain. Once upon a time, programmatic advertising was supposed to be the future—the streamlined, automated process that would make ad buying faster, cheaper, and more effective. Instead, it’s turned into a Frankenstein’s monster of inefficiency. We’ve got so many players involved that it’s like trying to untangle a plate of spaghetti with a pair of chopsticks. Every SSP, DSP, and TLA (Three-Letter Acronym) in the book wants a piece of the action, but all they’re really doing is selling you the same tired inventory over and over. 

It’s the ad industry’s version of Groundhog Day, and we’re all stuck in the loop.

And let’s not kid ourselves—most of what’s being sold as ‘premium’ inventory is about as premium as a gas station sushi. It’s the digital equivalent of selling knock-off handbags on a street corner. You’ve got ads showing up on made-for-advertising sites that no one actually visits, buried in non-viewable placements, or spread across supply chains so convoluted you need a map and a compass just to figure out where your ad is showing up. And the worst part? The people in charge of buying this crap are too lazy or too terrified to do anything about it.

The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Big Lie of Transparency

Let’s start with the fairy tale everyone in the advertising world seems to love—the myth of transparency. It’s right up there with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, only less believable. Sure, everyone talks a good game about transparency, as if just saying the word enough times will somehow make it true. But let’s be real: transparency in the advertising supply chain is about as real as a unicorn sipping a latte at Starbucks. When it comes down to it, no one actually knows where their ads are going, who’s seeing them, or if anyone’s even paying attention. The whole thing’s like playing darts blindfolded in a pitch-black room—sure, you might hit something eventually, but you’re just as likely to end up with a dart in your foot.

But the real kicker? Everyone in the industry knows this. It’s the dirty little secret that everyone’s too scared to say out loud, because once you pull at that thread, the whole thing unravels. The moment you start asking questions, like “Where exactly did my ad dollars go?” or “Why are we paying top dollar for inventory that might as well be invisible?” you’re venturing into dangerous territory. And nobody likes dangerous territory—not when it threatens the cozy status quo that’s been lining pockets for years. So, what do the media buyers do? They pretend it’s all fine, nod along in meetings, and hope no one notices the emperor is buck naked.

Let’s talk about fear—because that’s what’s really driving this trainwreck. Media buyers are terrified of pulling back the curtain and admitting the truth: they’ve been complicit in this mess from the get-go. It’s like that scene in every horror movie where the character knows something’s wrong but decides to go into the creepy basement anyway. Why? Because facing the truth is scarier than whatever might be lurking in the dark. Admitting that the supply chain is broken would mean taking on the big players—the ones with deep pockets and even deeper connections—and that’s a battle most buyers just aren’t willing to fight. After all, who wants to be the one to say that the emperor has no clothes when everyone else is still pretending to admire his fine robes?

And let’s not forget about the money—because, at the end of the day, that’s what this is all about. The current system, as broken as it is, keeps the cash flowing. It’s a gravy train with biscuit wheels, and nobody wants to be the one to derail it. So, instead of fixing the problem, media buyers keep their heads down, cross their fingers, and keep throwing money into the fire. It’s the ultimate in willful ignorance—pretend the problem doesn’t exist, and maybe it’ll go away. Spoiler alert: it won’t.

What’s truly mind-boggling is the sheer level of denial. It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash where everyone’s too busy texting to notice the impending doom. The industry keeps talking about transparency like it’s some magical cure-all, but in reality, it’s just a buzzword that gets tossed around to make everyone feel better. Meanwhile, the same old games are being played, the same old problems are being ignored, and the same old money is being wasted. It’s a vicious cycle, and the only way out is to stop pretending that everything’s fine and start demanding real change.

Audience Curation: The Marie Kondo of Advertising

But there is a way out of this mess, and it’s called Audience Curation. Think of it as Marie Kondo for the advertising world—only instead of decluttering your closet, you’re decluttering your ad strategy. Curation is all about stripping away the layers of crap that have built up over the years and focusing on what really matters: reaching the right people with the right message at the right time.

When you curate your audience, you’re not just playing a numbers game—you’re making sure your ads are seen by people who actually care about what you’re selling. It’s like switching from a shotgun to a sniper rifle. You’re not just spraying and praying—you’re taking careful aim and hitting the target every time. By focusing on real-time data and dynamically updating your targeting, you’re not just improving efficiency—you’re unlocking new opportunities. You’re finding those hidden gems of audience segments that everyone else is missing, and you’re turning them into brand advocates.

The Benefits: Less Crap, More Connection

The beauty of audience curation is that it’s not just about saving money—it’s about building real connections with consumers. When your ads are relevant and aligned with the interests of your audience, people notice. They engage. They convert. And that’s not just good for your bottom line—it’s good for your brand.

But here’s the kicker: curation also future-proofs your strategy. The ad industry is changing faster than a TikTok trend, and if you’re not staying ahead of the curve, you’re going to get left behind. By embracing curation, you’re giving yourself the flexibility to adapt to whatever comes next, whether that’s new technology, new consumer behaviors, or new industry regulations.

The Bottom Line: Get Your Act Together

The advertising supply chain is a disaster, and everyone knows it. But instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to clean up the mess, it’s time to take action. Embrace audience curation, cut through the clutter, and start delivering ads that actually make a difference. Because if you don’t, you’re not just wasting money—you’re wasting your time. And in this business, time is the one thing you can’t afford to lose.

Posted on

What Digital Marketers Need to Know About New York Attorney General’s New Website Privacy Guides for NY Consumers and Businesses

On July 30, 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the launch of two privacy guides on the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) website: a Business Guide to Website Privacy Controls and a Consumer Guide to Tracking on the Web.

The Business Guide is intended to help businesses better protect visitors to their websites by identifying common mistakes the OAG’s office believe businesses make when deploying tracking technologies, processes they can use to help identify and prevent issues, and guidance for ensuring they comply with New York law.

The Consumer Guide is intended to assist New Yorkers by offering tips they can use to protect their privacy when browsing the web, including how to safeguard against unwanted online tracking.

The OAG issued the guides following a review that purportedly uncovered unwanted tracking on more than a dozen popular websites, collectively serving more than 75 million visitors per month.

“When New Yorkers visit websites, they deserve to have the peace of mind that they won’t be tracked without their knowledge, and won’t have their personal information sold to advertisers,” said Attorney General lawyer James. “All too often, visiting a webpage or making a simple search will result in countless ads popping up on unrelated websites and social media. When visitors opt out of tracking, businesses have an obligation to protect their visitors’ personal information, and consumers deserve to know this obligation is being fulfilled. These new guides that my team launched will help protect New Yorkers’ privacy and make websites safer places to visit.”

While many websites provide visitors with information about the tracking that takes place and controls to manage that tracking, not all businesses have taken appropriate steps to ensure their disclosures are accurate and their privacy controls work as described, according to the OAG.  “Most tracking on the internet relies on cookies, which are small text files created by a web browser when visiting a website.  Cookies often contain an identifier unique to a user’s device which helps websites and other online services recognize the user as they click from one webpage to the next.  Cookies can also be used by advertising companies to track the websites a user visits, the buttons a user clicks, and the searches a user runs, and then be used to serve highly targeted ads to that person.”

To help businesses better protect New Yorkers and comply with New York consumer protection laws, Attorney General James has launched a Business Guide to Website Privacy Controls.  This new guide identifies common mistakes that businesses make and includes steps that can be taken to identify and prevent issues.  The Business Guide also provides information to help businesses comply with relevant New York laws, including ensuring that the representations made about tracking, whether express or implied, are truthful and not misleading.

The Business Guide provides areas where businesses have run into trouble and tips for avoiding these issues.

In addition to a guide for businesses, Attorney General James launched a guide to help New Yorkers understand how to better protect themselves from unwanted tracking online.  The OAG’s Consumer Guide to Tracking explains how website visitors are tracked, what cookie pop-ups do, and to what extent websites’ privacy controls can be relied on to protect users’ privacy.

The Consumer Guide discusses that on many websites, tracking cookies are created as soon as the first webpage loads, often before consumers have a chance to opt out.  Attorney General James wants New Yorkers to appreciate that using a website’s privacy controls to opt out will not delete cookies that already exist on a consumer’s computer, including those created before a webpage visitor had the chance to opt out. “This means consumers can be tracked and targeted by personalized ads even if they seemingly opted out.”

The online privacy guides released by Attorney General James are part of OAG’s ongoing work to protect New York consumers and help businesses enhance their privacy and data security.

Attorney General James also recently issued a consumer alert to raise awareness about free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services available for millions of consumers impacted by the Change Healthcare data breach.

In March 2024, Attorney General James led a bipartisan coalition of 41 attorneys general in sending a letter to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta) addressing the purported recent rise of Facebook and Instagram account takeovers by scammers and frauds.  In April 2023, Attorney General James released a comprehensive data security guide to help companies strengthen their data security practices.  In January 2022, Attorney General James released a business guide for credential stuffing attacks that detailed how businesses could protect themselves and consumers.

Takeaway:  The Business Guide identifies numerous “unfair and deceptive practice” investigation and enforcement avoidance issues that should be considered by those that operate on the Internet, including those pertaining to: (i) uncategorized or miscategorized tags and cookies; (ii) misconfigured consent-management tools; (iii) hardcoded tags; (iv) tag privacy setting; (v) incomplete understanding of tag data collection and use; (vi) cookieless tracking; (vii) identification and prevention of problems when deploying tacking technologies; (viii) ensuring privacy controls and disclosures comply with New York law; and (ix) providing effective disclosures and easy-to-use controls, including “do’s” and “don’ts”.  The Consumer Guide discusses, for example, how websites track online activity, what a cookie pop-up is, how consumers can use cookie pop-ups and how consumers can limit online tracking.

Contact the author with questions or if you require assistance with developing and implementing measures designed to comply with the New York OAG’s Website Privacy Guides.

Richard B. Newman is a digital advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.  Follow FTC defense lawyer on X.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should be construed as a complete summary or discussion of the Website Privacy Guides, and all of its obligations and restrictions. May be considered attorney advertising.

Posted on

Hustle Hard, Die Fast: Lessons from the Grind

So, here’s the headline:

 I’m dying. 

No need for violins or those melodramatic Instagram posts with sepia-toned filters. 

I’m not here to tug at your heartstrings. I’m here to give you the unvarnished truth about what it’s like to have your body turn against you in slow motion, like some twisted episode of Black Mirror. The culprit? Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Ever heard of it? Yeah, neither had I until it decided to make my life its personal demolition project.

Let’s back up for a second. For most of my life, I’ve been playing a game I didn’t even know I was in—one where my body was the underdog, and the odds were stacked against me from the start. I chalked up the constant aches, the creaky joints, and the general sense of my body being an unreliable piece of machinery to the hustle. Because, you know, that’s what we’re all supposed to do, right? Work until we break. Turns out, I was doing just that—literally.

I finally got the diagnosis: Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. A genetic condition that, in layman’s terms, means my collagen—the stuff that’s supposed to keep your body in one piece—decided to take a permanent vacation. So here I am, falling apart at the seams, and no amount of positive thinking or green juice is going to fix it. I’ve had to make peace with this reality, though, let me tell you, it’s a peace that’s often punctuated with a lot of swearing and a fair amount of bourbon.

But here’s the real gut punch: I spent most of my life chasing the wrong damn thing. While my body was busy crumbling, I was too busy grinding to notice. I wasn’t there for my kids, not really. Sure, I made the money. Paid for the Ivy League education. Harvard Med School, anyone? But my daughter and I? We’re practically strangers. I can count the meaningful conversations we’ve had on one hand—and I’d still have fingers left over.

So why did I do it? Why did I sell my soul to the devil of hustle culture, buying into that overpriced BS like it was the last avocado toast at a Silicon Valley brunch? Why did I believe that the only currency that mattered was how hard you could grind, how many sleepless nights you could endure, how many bodies you could step over on your way to the mythical “top”? Because, my friends, that’s the Kool-Aid we’ve all been guzzling for years. It’s not just about the paycheck—oh no, that would be too simple. It’s about the scoreboard, the twisted satisfaction of knowing you’re “winning,” even if it means playing dirtier than a politician in an election year.

And what are we winning, exactly? Bragging rights at the next soulless networking event where everyone’s faking smiles and checking their phones? A few extra zeros in a bank account you’re too stressed to enjoy? Hustle culture tells you that success is just one more all-nighter away, one more client crushed, one more deal closed, and if you’re not ready to sacrifice everything—family, health, sanity—then clearly, you don’t want it badly enough.

Hustle culture is the snake oil of the modern era, peddling this shiny, seductive lie that if you just work hard enough, you’ll unlock the secret to happiness, fulfillment, and everything else you ever wanted. But here’s the dirty little secret they don’t slap on the label: the grind doesn’t care about you. The grind is a merciless machine, and you’re just another cog it’s more than happy to wear down until you’re no longer useful. Then, it’ll spit you out, broken, burned out, and wondering why you ever thought that shiny lie was worth the price of your soul.

Let’s be real for a second. Do you want your legacy to be a list of jobs where you “exceeded expectations” and “increased revenue by X percent”? Is that what they’re going to carve on your tombstone? Spoiler alert: no one’s reading that crap at your funeral, because no one cares. The LinkedIn accolades you slaved over aren’t going to mean squat when you’re six feet under.

And the stats? Oh, they’re a gut punch. Seventy percent of C-level execs—the same people who preach the gospel of hustle—are secretly fantasizing about quitting for a job that doesn’t make them want to drive off a cliff every Monday morning. Forty percent of employees are so close to the edge, they’re basically living in a constant state of near-breakdown. And let’s talk about the loneliness epidemic at the top. The higher you climb on that rickety ladder of success, the more people you leave behind, until one day you look around and realize the only company you’ve got is your own exhaustion and a stack of unread emails.

That’s the prize at the end of the hustle culture rainbow: isolation, burnout, and the creeping realization that you’ve been chasing a mirage. The grind sold you a dream, and in return, it took everything that mattered. So here I am, battered, bruised, and a little bit wiser, telling you that the hustle isn’t worth the hype. Trust me, there are better ways to spend your time—ways that won’t leave you wondering, “What the hell was I thinking?” when it’s all said and done.

The worst part? Hustle culture turns you into a jerk. It’s not just about working hard—it’s about winning at all costs. I used to think nothing of putting other companies out of business, firing people without a second thought, all in the name of more money, more success, more, more, more. I was a one-man wrecking ball, and I didn’t care who got crushed as long as I was on top.

But now? Now I’m the one getting crushed, not by some competitor, but by the weight of all those years spent chasing the wrong things. I’ve tried to make amends. I’ve adopted kids from abusive families, supported a dozen more financially, tried to be the good guy for once. 

But let’s be real—it’s too little, too late. You can’t buy back lost time, and you sure as hell can’t un-break the relationships you’ve shattered along the way.

So here I am, staring down the barrel of my own mortality like it’s some kind of cosmic practical joke, and all I can think is: what the actual hell was I doing? 

Seriously, what was the point of all that relentless hustling, the late nights, the endless meetings, the deals that felt like life or death at the time but now seem as trivial as choosing a side salad over fries?

Was it worth it? 

The money? 

Sure, it paid the bills and bought some nice toys, but money isn’t much comfort when you’re lying in bed at 3 AM, wrestling with regrets. 

The accolades? The pats on the back from people who wouldn’t bother to show up at your funeral? The victories that once felt so sweet but now taste like cardboard?

It’s all about as fulfilling as a politician’s promises during an election year—lots of noise, lots of fanfare, and then… nothing. The hard, bitter truth that I’ve had to choke down like a pill that just won’t go down easy is this: it wasn’t worth it. Not one bit. All that time I spent chasing what I thought was success, I was running in the wrong direction, away from the things that actually matter.

But here’s the thing about staring down death: it has a funny way of sharpening your focus, cutting through the BS, and making you realize what really counts. And maybe—just maybe—there’s still time to do something about it. Maybe I can squeeze out a little redemption, be more than just a cautionary tale that people share at networking events to scare the newbies straight. “Don’t end up like him,” they’ll say, and maybe they’ll be right. Or maybe not.

Because here’s the deal: I’m done with the hustle. That ship has sailed, crashed into an iceberg, and is currently resting at the bottom of the ocean with all the other broken dreams and abandoned ambitions. Hustle culture has taken enough from me—my time, my health, my relationships, my peace of mind. I’ve paid more than my share, and I’m not willing to hand over anything else.

Now, I’m focused on taking back what I can. It’s not going to be pretty, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be easy. It’s going to be painful, awkward, and full of missteps because let’s face it—I’m not exactly a poster child for work-life balance or emotional intelligence. But I’m learning, slowly, how to walk away from the grind, how to say no to the things that drain me, and yes to the things that might actually fill me up.

I’m taking it one step at a time—sometimes it’s a stumble, sometimes it’s a crawl, and sometimes I feel like I’m moving backward. But the point is, I’m moving, and that’s something. I’m trying to reconnect with the people I love, to rebuild relationships that I let crumble while I was busy chasing the next big deal. I’m trying to find some peace in the middle of the chaos, to figure out who I am without the constant need to prove myself.

And maybe, just maybe, I’ll figure out how to live in a way that feels true to who I really am—not the version of me that was sculpted by hustle culture, but the version of me that’s been buried under all that noise and pressure for far too long. Maybe I’ll find a way to make the time I’ve got left mean something more than just another bullet point on a resume. Or maybe I won’t. Maybe this is just another experiment, another shot in the dark.

But here’s the thing: at least I’m trying. 

At least I’m not going to spend whatever time I have left on this earth doing the same damn thing that got me into this mess in the first place. At least I’m not going to die with my face pressed against the grindstone, too busy to notice that life was passing me by. I’m done with that. 

I’m choosing something different now, something real, even if it’s messy, even if it’s hard. Because in the end, I want to be able to look back and say, “Yeah, I screwed up, but I didn’t let it define me. I didn’t let it be the end of my story.”

Posted on

FTC Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials

On August 14, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a Final Rule combatting bogus consumer reviews and testimonials by prohibiting their sale or purchase.  The Rule allows the FTC to strengthen enforcement, seek civil penalties against violators and deter AI-generated fake reviews.

“Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors,” said FTC attorney Chair Lina M. Khan. “By strengthening the FTC’s toolkit to fight deceptive advertising, the final rule will protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.”

The Rule announced on August 14, 2024 follows an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of proposed rulemaking announced in November 2022 and June 2023, respectively.  The FTC also held an informal hearing on the proposed rule in February 2024.  In response to public comments, the Commission made numerous clarifications and adjustments to its previous proposal.

What Does the FTC Final on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Prohibit?

The FTC Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials prohibits:

Writing, selling, or buying fake or false consumer reviews. 

The Rule prohibits businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews that misrepresent they are by someone who does not exist or who did not  have actual experience with the business or its products or services, or that misrepresent the reviewers’ experience.  It also prohibits businesses from buying consumer reviews that they knew or should have known made such a misrepresentation.  Businesses are also prohibited from procuring from certain company insiders such reviews about the business or its products or services for posting on third-party sites, when the businesses knew or should have known about the misrepresentation.  The prohibitions on buying or procuring reviews do not cover generalized review solicitations to past customers or simply hosting reviews on the business’s website.  Neither will a retailer or other entity be liable for sharing consumer reviews unless it would have been liable for displaying those same reviews on its own website.

Writing, selling, or disseminating fake or false testimonials. 

Businesses are similarly prohibited from writing or selling consumer or celebrity testimonials that make the same kinds of misrepresentations. The are also prohibited from disseminating or causing the dissemination of such testimonials when they knew or should have known about the misrepresentation.  The prohibition on disseminating testimonials does not cover the type of generalized solicitations to past customers discussed above with respect to reviews.

Buying positive or negative reviews.

Businesses are prohibited from providing compensation or other incentives contingent on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative.  Violations here include situations in which such a contingency is express or implied.  So, for example, while it prohibits offering $25 for a 5-star review, it also prohibits offering $25 for a review “telling everyone how much you love our product.”

Failing to make disclosures about insider reviews and testimonials.

The Rule prohibits a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials about the business or its products or services without clearly disclosing their relationship.  Businesses are also prohibited from disseminating testimonials by company insiders without clear disclosures, if the businesses knew or should have known of the relationship.  A similar prohibition exists for officer or manager solicitations of reviews from their immediate relatives or from employees or agents of the business, and when officers or managers ask employees or agents to seek such reviews from relatives.  For these various solicitations, the Rule is violated only if: (i) the officers or managers did not give instructions about making clear disclosures; (ii) the resulting reviews – either by the employees, agents, or the immediate relatives of the officers, managers, employees, or agents – appear without clear disclosures; and (iii) the officers or managers knew or should have known that such reviews appeared and failed to take steps to have those reviews either removed or amended to include clear disclosures.  All of these prohibitions hinge on the undisclosed relationship being material to consumers.  These disclosure provisions also clarify that they do not cover mere review hosting or generalized solicitations to past customers.

Deceptively claiming that company-controlled review websites are independent.

Businesses are prohibited from misrepresenting that websites or entities they control or operate are providing independent reviews or opinions, other than consumer reviews, about a category of businesses, products, or services that includes their own business, product, or service.

Illegally suppressing negative reviews.

The Rule prohibits using unfounded or groundless legal threats, physical threats, intimidation or public false accusations (when the accusation is made with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity) to prevent the posting or cause the removal of all or part of a consumer review.  Legal threats are “unfounded or groundless” if they are unwarranted by existing law or based on allegations that have no evidentiary support, according to the FTC.  Also, if reviews on a marketer’s website have been suppressed based on their rating or negative sentiment, the Rule prohibits that business from misrepresenting that the reviews on a portion of its website dedicated to receiving and displaying such reviews represent most or all submitted reviews.

Selling and buying fake social media indicators.

The Rule prohibits the sale or distribution of fake indicators of social media influence, like fake followers or views.  A “fake” indicator means one generated by a bot, a hijacked account, or that otherwise does not reflect a real individual’s or entity’s activities or opinions, according to the FTC.  The Rule also bars anyone from buying or procuring such fake indicators.  These prohibitions are limited to situations in which the violator knew or should have known that the indicators were fake and which involved misrepresentations of a person’s or company’s influence or importance for a commercial purpose.

The Rule does not specifically refer to AI.  However, according to the FTC, these prohibitions cover situations when someone uses an AI tool to generate the deceptive content at issue.

According to the FTC, case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority might not be enough to deter clearly deceptive review and testimonial practices.  The Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act.  The Rule is intended to enhance deterrence and strengthen FTC enforcement actions.

The Rule will become effective 60 days after the date it’s published in the Federal Register.

Takeaway:  The FTC will aggressively enforce the new Rule.  The agency has challenged illegal practices regarding consumer reviews and testimonials for several decades. The agency has also issued guidance to help businesses to comply. According to the FTC, online marketplaces and social media companies could and should do more when it comes to policing their platforms.  Consult with a seasoned FTC Endorsement Guidelines and social media influencer attorney if you are interested in discussing how the Final Rule may apply to your company, or if you are the subject of an FTC CID investigation or enforcement action.  Note that any “deceptive or unfair” practice involving reviews or testimonials which the Rule does not cover is still subject to the FTC Act.

Richard B. Newman is a digital advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.  Follow FTC defense lawyer on X.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should be construed as a complete summary or discussion of the Rule and all of its obligations and restrictions. May be considered attorney advertising.

Posted on

The Unfiltered Genius of Terence Kawaja: How Adtech’s Peter Pan Refuses to Grow Up

If you’ve been anywhere near the ad tech world in the last decade, you’ve probably tripped over a LumaScape—or at least heard someone throw around the term like it’s a religious text. That sacred scroll of chaos, mapping out the sprawling, byzantine world of digital advertising, is the brainchild of Terence Kawaja, or Terry, if you’re on first-name terms with him. But while most of us are still trying to figure out if that mess of logos is a blessing or a curse, Terry’s moved on to bigger and bolder things. After all, he’s the guy who’s been navigating the labyrinth of cookies, AI, and billion-dollar M&A deals with a wit as sharp as a scalpel and the guts to say what everyone else is only thinking.

Let’s get one thing straight: Terry isn’t just another suit in a sea of ad tech wannabes. He’s the guy who’s been pulling the strings behind the scenes for years, orchestrating over $300 billion in transactions with the kind of ease most of us reserve for online shopping sprees. But despite his towering influence, Terry remains refreshingly down-to-earth—cracking jokes about power washing his patio and binge-listening to 70s workout playlists while casually discussing the intricacies of antitrust cases and the impending death of cookies.

Terry’s journey into ad tech royalty wasn’t a straight shot. He started out in investment banking, where he cut his teeth on some of the biggest deals of the early 2000s, including the colossal AOL-Time Warner merger. It was the largest deal in the world at the time, a $183 billion behemoth that made headlines for all the wrong reasons. But for Terry, it was more than just a notch on his belt—it was a turning point. “I negotiated the largest M&A fee in history at the time, $60 million,” Terry recalls. But instead of riding that wave to Wall Street immortality, he did something that left his colleagues scratching their heads: he quit. “Three months after announcing AOL-Time Warner, I announced my resignation from the firm,” he says. “Everyone said, are you smoking crack? Like, dude, you’re set up for life now. But I was bored.”

Boredom is a dangerous thing for a guy like Terry. It’s what drives him to take risks, like jumping into the chaotic world of startups at the turn of the millennium. “I joined a company as a CFO, took it public, and that was great for a while,” he says. But then the dot-com bubble burst, and Terry’s new venture came crashing down with it. “I had to become a public company CFO. I had to write all the analyst presentations. Then I had to restructure the business. I had to fire one of the co-founders, who later turns out was sexually abusing four different women at the company.” It was a brutal learning experience, but one that Terry doesn’t regret. “What I’ve decided doesn’t work for me is passing on an opportunity and watching someone else less qualified make a quarter of a billion dollars. That is razor blade and sleeping pill time.”

Terry Kawaja’s ability to see the big picture in the tumultuous ad tech landscape is what makes him a formidable force. He’s not just navigating the game; he’s often the one drawing the map. Back in 2009, he didn’t just create the LumaScape as a marketing gimmick—it was a lifeline for an industry drowning in its own complexity. “The LumaScape in its current manifestation was 2009,” Terry recalled, noting that he had been charting companies since 2005. But the turning point came in 2011 when the Wall Street Journal came knocking. “I had this light bulb idea: Landscape, LumaScape, I’ll put my brand in it. It’s going to be awfully hard for others to copy if my company’s name is actually the name of the product,” Terry explained. That single decision not only cemented the LumaScape’s role in the industry but also made it inseparable from his brand.

The LumaScape wasn’t just about slapping a name on a chaotic industry—it was about bringing order to the chaos. But for Terry, this was just the beginning. Over the years, he’s watched ad tech balloon into a beast of its own, not always in ways he might have hoped. “This industry is like Peter Pan,” Terry remarked, pointing out its refusal to grow up. The frustration in his voice is clear as he talks about the endless fragmentation and the numerous middlemen who siphon off profits without contributing real value. “When an SSP has a 20% margin, and DSP has a 20% margin, and a verification company has a 20% margin… it’s no wonder the ad tech tax exists,” he said, cutting right to the heart of the issue.

Terry’s critiques are sharp, and they don’t stop at surface-level observations. He’s acutely aware of the industry’s reluctance to face reality. The complex ecosystem, with its layers upon layers of players each taking their cut, has led to the much-discussed ad tech tax—a burden that falls squarely on the shoulders of brands and publishers. The numbers don’t lie, and Terry knows that unless the industry grows up and starts addressing these inefficiencies, the cost of doing business in ad tech will only keep rising.

Despite the challenges, Terry remains an influential figure, one who is not afraid to speak truth to power. His vision has always been ahead of the curve, and he’s not one to back down from challenging the status quo. The LumaScape, for all its notoriety, was never just about mapping the industry; it was about forcing it to confront its own complexities and inefficiencies. Terry’s light bulb moment back in 2011 was just one example of his ability to see beyond the immediate and to shape the narrative in a way that compels the industry to take a hard look at itself.

And then there’s Google, the 800-pound gorilla in the room that Terry has been keeping a close eye on for years. Google’s cookie deprecation saga is a perfect example of the company’s power—and its ability to keep the industry on edge. “Lucy keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Brown,” Terry quips, comparing Google’s endless delays to a classic Peanuts gag. “But let’s be honest, cookies are largely going away. So all of those efforts towards data collaboration, whether it’s clean rooms or alternative identities or contextual targeting solutions, that is not wasted.”

But while Terry might seem like he’s got it all figured out, he’s not above poking fun at himself—or the industry. When asked about his wildest, craziest prediction for the future of ad tech, he doesn’t miss a beat: “Google will be found guilty of antitrust in the ad tech case commencing in September.” And if that sounds like a joke, it’s not. Terry is dead serious about the challenges the industry faces, from antitrust issues to the impending death of cookies to the rise of AI and its potential to revolutionize targeting. “At the end of the day, interest is better than demographics,” he says. “I think technology will help lead the way.”

Terry’s take on the state of the industry might seem bleak, but it’s not without hope. He believes in the power of consolidation, in the idea that fewer players doing higher volumes at lower take rates with better quality is the way forward. “I think if you think of the fact that there are over 5,000 companies in ad tech, 95% of them will go out of business,” he says, matter-of-factly. “It just takes a long time because they’re getting a piece of ad spend.”

But if you think Terry is all business, think again. The guy knows how to unwind, and he’s got some surprising guilty pleasures. “Power washing while listening either to a podcast or a 70s workout playlist is so satisfying,” he admits with a grin. “I also love creating comedy. Creating is my happy place. I love thinking about a problem and how do I ideate it? How am I going to give a message about this using that in a way that’s humorous?”

That sense of humor is a big part of what makes Terry so effective—and so beloved in the industry. He’s the kind of guy who can drop lines like, “Exit large or die trying,” and make it sound both profound and hilarious. He’s unfiltered, unapologetic, and absolutely fearless when it comes to speaking his mind. “When I’m wrong and I know I’m wrong, I’m quick to apologize,” he says, his Canadian politeness shining through. “But I don’t believe in packing the audience so they’ll laugh for you. The fuck is that? I get no signal out of that.”

Terry Kawaja isn’t just your run-of-the-mill wisecracker; he’s the kind of guy who’ll drop a joke that makes you spit out your coffee, and then, before you’ve even wiped your chin, he’s already five steps ahead, plotting the next billion-dollar deal. When he says, “I like comedians that make people laugh, but also manage to do something else. There’s some other message, usually substantive,” he’s not just talking about stand-up routines—he’s laying down the blueprint for how he lives and breathes business. For Terry, a joke without substance is like a donut without the filling—what’s the point? He’s always looking to mix the sweet with the serious, making sure every laugh is laced with a deeper message that sticks with you long after the punchline.

In the high-stakes, cutthroat world of ad tech, where most folks are just trying to stay afloat, Terry’s the guy who’s not just swimming—he’s doing laps around everyone else while reading the fine print. He’s got this knack for seeing beyond the noise, cutting through the BS, and finding that hidden gem of truth that everyone else missed. It’s like he’s playing 4D chess while everyone else is still figuring out the rules to checkers. Whether he’s ripping apart the latest industry buzzword or putting together a strategy that makes you wonder if he’s got a crystal ball stashed somewhere, Terry’s always digging deeper, searching for that extra layer of meaning that turns the ordinary into something extraordinary.

And this isn’t just some artsy-fartsy philosophy; it’s the secret sauce that’s made Terry a force to be reckoned with. While others are content with surface-level success, Terry’s the guy who’s drilling down, going for the gold buried beneath. He knows that in a world full of smoke and mirrors, it’s the substance that counts—the real meat beneath the sizzle. And that’s why he’s not just another talking head in a suit; he’s the guy who’ll make you laugh, make you think, and, just when you least expect it, make you realize he’s already won the game.

So, what’s next for Terence Kawaja? More charts? More billion-dollar deals? More power washing? Probably all of the above. But one thing’s for sure: he’s not done yet. Whether he’s cracking jokes or making bold predictions, Terry is a guy who’s always thinking, always pushing the boundaries, and always ready for whatever comes next.

In the end, Terry’s story is one of grit, intelligence, and an unshakeable belief in the power of honesty—both with himself and with the world around him. He might be ad tech’s Peter Pan, but he’s also its guiding star, leading the way through the chaos with a smile, a joke, and a mind that’s always two steps ahead.

Posted on

Playing Russian Roulette with Ad Placements

Let’s talk about DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science (IAS), those two juggernauts of ad verification that everyone loves to hate. Or, depending on who you ask, loves to worship. I’m talking about the kind of reverence usually reserved for tech billionaires who promise to save the world with their latest algorithm. 

But before you start thinking I’m here to just take potshots, let’s get something straight: this isn’t about gleeful schadenfreude (well, maybe just a little). It’s about dissecting the reality of an industry that’s more smoke and mirrors than the Wizard of Oz.

Let’s start with the basics: DoubleVerify and IAS are supposed to be the gatekeepers of the digital ad world, the ones who ensure that your ads don’t end up next to content that makes you look like you’re endorsing a hate group. 

The problem? They are accused often of more like gatekeepers who fell asleep at their post while a parade of questionable content marched right past them. 

Remember that scene from The Lord of the Rings where the orcs just blow through the supposedly impregnable gates of Helm’s Deep? Yeah, it’s kind of often seems like that.

The industry is waking up to the idea that maybe, just maybe, these companies aren’t as invincible as they claim to be. Advertisers, publishers, and investors are starting to question the effectiveness of these supposed leaders. 

And it’s not just me—people are genuinely asking if ad verification is broken. Mandeep Dalip hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that these giants are “under fire,” with some even going so far as to call the whole system “broken.” But let’s dig a little deeper, because the story isn’t just about a few ad misplacements; it’s about a systemic issue that’s been brewing for years.

The Ad Misplacement Scandals
Remember the days when you could trust that your ad wouldn’t end up next to some insane conspiracy theory or a deep dive into the latest doomsday cult? Yeah, neither do I. The truth is, despite their best efforts—or at least their best marketing efforts—DoubleVerify and IAS have repeatedly found themselves in the hot seat for failing to prevent high-profile ad misplacement incidents. We’re talking about Fortune 500 ads showing up on websites that make you question your faith in humanity. Not exactly the kind of brand association that makes your CMO sleep easy at night.

But how did we get here? The truth is, the digital ad ecosystem is a chaotic mess. It’s a Wild West where everyone’s shooting from the hip, and the lawmen—our friends DoubleVerify and IAS—are often more concerned with looking good on paper than actually doing their jobs. These companies have been accused of letting their guard down, letting ads slip through the cracks and onto platforms that should have been flagged from a mile away.

Keyword Blocking: A Blunt Instrument
Now, let’s talk about keyword blocking—arguably the bluntest instrument in the ad tech toolkit. Imagine trying to perform surgery with a chainsaw; that’s essentially what these companies are doing when they implement keyword blocking. Sure, it’s great for keeping your brand away from content that might tarnish your image, but it’s also a surefire way to nuke your ad revenue if you’re a publisher.

Case in point: during the COVID-19 pandemic, traffic to news sites went through the roof as people desperately sought information. But instead of cashing in, publishers found themselves locked out of ad revenue because the keyword “coronavirus” was basically treated like the digital equivalent of the plague. Advertisers, terrified of being associated with bad news, used brand safety services to block their ads from appearing on any article containing keywords like “coronavirus,” “pandemic,” or even just “news.” The result? News sites were bleeding traffic, but the revenue tap was turned off. It’s like being stranded in the desert with a bottle of water that has a childproof cap—you’re parched, but there’s nothing you can do about it.

Publishers have been fuming over this for years, and the tension between them and the verification firms is palpable. Keyword blocking is supposed to be a safeguard, but in practice, it’s like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. The collateral damage is enormous, and publishers are left holding the bag.

Diversification: The Hail Mary Pass
So what do you do when the walls start closing in, and everyone’s questioning your effectiveness? You diversify, of course! DoubleVerify and IAS have been expanding into new territories like social media, connected TV (CTV), and artificial intelligence (AI), hoping to cover up the cracks in their traditional business with a fresh coat of digital paint. It’s the classic Hail Mary pass—when all else fails, throw everything at the wall and pray something sticks.

The move into CTV is particularly interesting, given that this space is exploding with potential. As more and more viewers cut the cord and move to streaming platforms, advertisers are following them, wallets in hand. But CTV is also a new frontier, and with new frontiers come new challenges. DoubleVerify and IAS are trying to establish themselves as the go-to verification services in this space, but the jury’s still out on whether they can actually deliver.

Social media, of course, is a different beast altogether. The platforms are walled gardens where companies like DoubleVerify and IAS can only see what the platforms let them see. It’s like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing. Sure, they can slap their “brand safety” label on it, but without full access to the data, it’s hard to trust that the picture is complete.

CheckMyAds: The Skeptics Speak
If you really want to pull back the curtain, look no further than CheckMyAds. These folks have been throwing rocks at the glass houses of ad verification for a while now, and they’ve hit a few sore spots. According to them, DoubleVerify doesn’t really “do” much of anything. Their job is to check whether ads are being served as reported, including viewability (making sure ads are actually showing up on a given website) and brand safety (checking that ads aren’t running alongside toxic content). But the kicker? DoubleVerify’s brand safety ratings are based on data that’s shakier than a house of cards.

In reality, DoubleVerify isn’t measuring anything independently. They’re just reporting on data provided by the platforms themselves. It’s like grading your own homework and then bragging about getting an A+. Sure, it looks good on the surface, but dig a little deeper, and you start to see the cracks.

And it’s not just DoubleVerify. IAS is in the same boat, paddling with one oar in a sea of data they don’t fully control. They’re relying on platforms like Twitter, Meta, and YouTube to play nice and share the data they need to provide accurate reports. But let’s be honest—these platforms are about as transparent as a brick wall. They’ll show you what they want you to see, and nothing more.

The UGC Dilemma
Now, let’s wade into the thick of it—User-Generated Content (UGC). If the internet is a jungle, UGC is its most untamed corner, where the vines are thick, the creatures are wild, and the rules are as fluid as a politician’s promises. This is where anything can happen, and often does. UGC is the internet’s version of a lawless frontier town—part boomtown, part ghost town, and entirely unpredictable. It’s where the youth congregate—Gen Z with their TikToks, memes, and whatever the latest viral challenge is that makes the rest of us feel like we’re 100 years old. But it’s also where the internet’s most unpredictable, offensive, and downright bizarre content takes root and flourishes.

For advertisers, UGC is a double-edged sword. On one side, it’s a goldmine. If you want to reach Gen Z, you’ve got to go where they hang out, and that’s smack dab in the middle of UGC-land. These are the digital spaces where trends are born, memes are minted, and cultural moments go viral before anyone else even knows they’re happening. But on the other side of that sword? Well, let’s just say it’s not all cat videos and dance challenges. UGC is also the breeding ground for the internet’s dark underbelly—the weird, the offensive, and the kind of content that makes you question humanity’s collective sanity.

Enter DoubleVerify and IAS, the supposed sheriffs of this wild frontier. Their job? To keep your precious ads from showing up next to content that could make your brand look like it’s endorsing a cult of tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. Sounds simple enough, right? Except, spoiler alert: it’s not. Because the reality is, they can’t block what they don’t see. And in the world of UGC, there’s a whole lot they don’t see. It’s like trying to herd cats in the dark—blindfolded. Sure, they’ve got their systems, their algorithms, and their fancy tech, but when it comes to UGC, even the best tech in the world is about as reliable as a weather forecast—sometimes you get it right, but other times you end up drenched in a downpour of unexpected chaos.

Here’s the kicker: some brands are perfectly okay with this. Why? Because reaching Gen Z is worth the occasional mishap. For these brands, it’s a calculated risk—like playing Russian roulette, but with their ad spend. They know that the chances of something going horribly wrong are there, but the potential payoff is too big to ignore. And guess what? DoubleVerify and IAS know this too. But you won’t hear them admitting it out loud. They’re not about to throw their clients under the bus just because a few ads end up in less-than-ideal spots. Instead, they quietly adjust, monitor, and keep things as smooth as possible, while their clients continue to chase that ever-elusive Gen Z engagement.

In the end, DoubleVerify and IAS are doing the best they can in a game where the rules are constantly changing and the stakes are sky-high. They’re navigating a digital landscape that’s more treacherous than it appears, and they’re doing it without throwing their clients under the bus. Because at the end of the day, it’s not just about blocking the bad stuff—it’s about understanding the nuances of where the digital audience lives and being flexible enough to keep up with the wild, wild world of UGC.

The Reddit Experiment
To put this into perspective, let’s talk about a little experiment that went down on Reddit. Someone decided to test DoubleVerify’s brand safety and suitability product by running ads on various types of content. The results? Over 99% of impressions landed next to safe content. Sounds impressive, right? But remember, with billions of impressions in play, that 1% still leaves room for millions of ads to end up in some very questionable places.

And let’s not forget that the internet is a vast, constantly shifting landscape. What’s safe today could be a minefield tomorrow. DoubleVerify and IAS are playing a game of whack-a-mole, trying to keep up with the endless flood of new content, new platforms, and new threats. It’s a game they’re never going to win, but that doesn’t stop them from trying.

The Law of Large Numbers
Here’s a fun fact for you: even if DoubleVerify and IAS are 99% effective—and that’s a solid A+ in any classroom—when you’re dealing with tens of billions of impressions, that 1% failure rate means millions of impressions are ending up on questionable material. Let’s break that down. Imagine you’re running a bakery and you sell a billion cookies. You’ve got a 99% success rate of not accidentally baking in a cockroach. That’s great, right? But guess what? That still leaves you with ten million cockroach-infested cookies. Not so appetizing now, is it?

This is the reality of digital advertising, where the stakes are sky-high, and even the tiniest slip-up can spiral into a PR disaster faster than you can say “brand safety.” It’s like trying to juggle flaming swords while riding a unicycle—on a tightrope—over a pit of hungry alligators. Sure, you might be 99% successful, but that 1% is going to leave a mark, and not the kind you can just buff out with a PR statement. It’s the law of large numbers in full, brutal effect.

And here’s where it gets really interesting. DoubleVerify and IAS aren’t just dealing with a lot of data—they’re dealing with **a lot** of data. We’re talking billions of impressions spread across countless platforms, websites, and apps. The sheer scale is mind-boggling, and when you’re operating on that level, even the smallest error can snowball into something that makes headlines. It’s like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole with a hundred moles popping up every second. You’re going to miss a few, and those few are the ones that end up on the front page.

But here’s the kicker: the more these companies try to tighten their grip, the more things slip through the cracks. It’s like trying to catch water with a sieve—no matter how fast you scoop, some of it’s going to leak out. DoubleVerify and IAS have built these massive systems designed to catch every possible issue, but in their quest for perfection, they sometimes create more problems than they solve. They’re not just fighting against the tide; they’re trying to hold back a tsunami with a beach umbrella.

The crux of the issue is that when you’re playing in the big leagues, perfection isn’t just hard—it’s impossible. DoubleVerify and IAS are tasked with ensuring that every single ad, out of billions, lands exactly where it’s supposed to, surrounded by content that won’t make anyone’s grandmother blush. But the reality is that in a world this big, mistakes are inevitable. And when those mistakes happen, they’re not just tiny hiccups—they’re catastrophic, headline-grabbing failures that can send a brand scrambling for damage control.

So what’s the takeaway here? DoubleVerify and IAS are doing the best they can in a game that’s rigged from the start. They’re navigating an impossibly complex landscape where even the smallest misstep can lead to a landslide of problems. But despite the odds, they’re still the ones you want in your corner when you’re stepping into the digital ad ring. Because even if they’re not perfect, they’re a hell of a lot better than going it alone.

Posted on

How Dynamic Creative Optimization is Redefining Political Ads on CTV

In the high-octane world of political advertising, capturing the wavering attention of undecided voters isn’t just a goal—it’s a battle for the soul of democracy. And let’s be honest, traditional ad campaigns are about as subtle as a freight train. Enter Dynamic Creative Optimization (DCO), the game-changer that’s injecting some much-needed nuance and intelligence into the political ad landscape on Connected TV (CTV).

We’ve all been there—watching the same political ad so many times that it feels like it’s seared into our retinas. Instead of winning hearts and minds, these repetitive ads are driving viewers to the brink of madness, or worse, indifference. That’s where DCO steps in, like a political strategist who actually knows what they’re doing. By tailoring ads to be fresh, relevant, and precisely targeted, DCO ensures that viewers aren’t just seeing ads—they’re experiencing them in a way that resonates.

By tailoring messages based on viewers’ demographics, behaviors, and preferences, DCO enables political advertisers to deliver highly personalized messages to various audience segments.

Origin, always a step ahead, partnered with TVision Insights to dig deep into the minds of U.S. streaming households. What they found is both illuminating and a little terrifying: 83% of people who saw political ads couldn’t care less. But—and here’s the kicker—over 50% said they might reconsider their vote if the ad taught them something new. So, the mission is clear: make ads that are not just seen, but felt.

DCO doesn’t just slap a new coat of paint on tired old messages; it crafts them anew, molding them to the specific interests and concerns of each viewer. This isn’t just about avoiding ad fatigue—it’s about turning political ads into a dynamic dialogue, where every ad has the potential to sway an undecided voter. And with tools like Origin’s Slingshot and Aperture, this isn’t some far-off fantasy—it’s happening now, in real-time, on the screens of millions.

Slingshot, for instance, isn’t just preventing viewers from gnashing their teeth at the sight of yet another political ad—it’s optimizing the very experience of viewing. Ads are matched to content that viewers actually care about, making them feel less like a sales pitch and more like a conversation. And if that wasn’t enough, Slingshot’s ability to keep ads fresh and locally relevant means it’s not just talking at voters—it’s talking to them.

But let’s not forget Aperture, the unsung hero of this dynamic duo. By making high-tech ad strategies accessible to even the scrappiest of campaigns, Aperture is leveling the playing field. No more overpriced, cookie-cutter ads—just pure, unadulterated relevance, delivered straight to the voters who matter most.

So, while the world of political advertising might often feel like a game rigged in favor of those with the deepest pockets, tools like DCO are shifting the balance. It’s not just about who can shout the loudest, but who can craft a message that truly connects.

In the end, Origin isn’t just optimizing ads—it’s optimizing democracy. By ensuring that every message is relevant, impactful, and intelligent, they’re not just capturing attention; they’re shaping the conversations that will define our future. Now, that’s something worth paying attention to.