Category: Featured

Featured posts

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

The Performance Marketing Illusion: Chasing Short-Term Wins

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

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

The Bidding Wars: Performance Marketing’s Hidden Flaw

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

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

The Rise and Fall of Brands: The Apple Example

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

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

Brand vs. Performance: A False Dichotomy

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

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

The Cost of Ignoring Brand Building

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

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

The Way Forward: Balancing the Two

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

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

How Smaller Brands Can Compete

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

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

The Final Word: Play the Long Game

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Why Jonah Goodhart Thinks Your Feelings Matter More Than Clicks

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

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

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

1. Embrace the Cosmic Accident

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

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

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

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

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

2. Mentors Matter, Even the Unlikely Ones

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

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

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

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

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

3. Age Is Just a Number, So Ignore It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Emotion Drives Everything, Even Advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Surround Yourself with People Who Light You Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. Retirement Is for Quitters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Thought

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Ad Tech Survivor: Raj Chauhan’s Escape from the Island of Overengineered Data

Let’s start with the obvious: Raj Chauhan has been around the block. And I don’t mean the block you stroll around on your morning jog. No, Raj’s block is more like an endless digital loop, filled with broken banner ads, DSPs, SSPs, and a short but intense detour into cannabis—because why stick with one volatile industry when you can juggle two? He’s been playing in the digital advertising sandbox since 1995, back when we still believed AOL chat rooms were the height of innovation and “you’ve got mail” was a daily thrill.

Raj’s career is the stuff of ad tech legend—if your idea of a legend is someone who went from building ad networks in the ’90s, back when digital ads were the Wild West, to dipping into the green pastures (pun intended) of cannabis, and finally resurrecting himself as the man to watch in the future of retail media. In short, Raj’s story is the “phoenix rising” of ad tech, only with fewer ashes and more regulatory nightmares.

The Wild West Days of Digital: Raj’s Early Start

Rewind to 1995: the internet was in its awkward teenage years, and digital advertising was barely crawling. Banner ads were the new kid in town, and Raj was part of the crew that built the first ad networks. If you ask him what it was like back then, he’ll tell you it was more like a flea market than the data-driven juggernaut we know today. “There was a lot more kind of hand-to-hand combat,” Raj says, reminiscing about those days when deals were closed with a handshake, and you could actually get to know the people you were working with. It was personal. It was messy. And it worked.

But it wasn’t just the relationships that made those days different—it was the lack of noise. No algorithms feeding you data points until your head spins, no real-time bidding that takes human judgment out of the equation. “Back then, there was no concept of marketplaces,” Raj explains. “We were just serving up ads. There wasn’t a lot of data.” Imagine that: ads without data. It’s like trying to sell a car without mentioning the horsepower.

This was the golden era of banner ads—well, if by “golden” you mean clunky, inefficient, and completely devoid of targeting. Raj, like every pioneer in a new industry, was figuring it out on the fly. “We’d cobble together a hundred sports websites or cooking sites, and then we’d go to a brand and say, ‘Hey, buy across this whole ecosystem!’” he says. And surprisingly, it worked. This was the precursor to the sophisticated audience matching we have today—only it was done with a lot more guesswork and a lot less AI.

The Shift to Platforms: Ad Tech Gets “Efficient”

As ad networks grew, so did the industry’s appetite for efficiency—read: platforms. Suddenly, it wasn’t enough to just cobble together a bunch of websites and call it a day. Enter SSPs (Supply-Side Platforms) and DSPs (Demand-Side Platforms), which promised to turn digital advertising into a sleek, data-driven, real-time affair. If the early days were the flea market, the platform world was more like Amazon: streamlined, impersonal, and designed to remove human interaction entirely.

“The big change was the transition from the network world to the platform world,” Raj says. “You suddenly had data. You could target immediately, transact immediately, and have always-on campaigns.” Sounds great, right? Who wouldn’t want more data, more targeting, more precision?

But here’s the thing about Raj: he’s a relationship guy. Always has been. So while the rest of the industry was jumping into data pools headfirst, Raj couldn’t help but miss the days when deals were made over lunch instead of dashboards. “I kind of liked the interpersonal dealings of campaigns and business in the past,” he admits. There’s something very human in that—a yearning for the chaos and connection that defined the early days of ad tech, long before we started overengineering the whole damn thing.

Raj’s Detour into Cannabis: Weed, Compliance, and Sticker Nightmares

At this point, you’re probably thinking, “Okay, so Raj built ad networks. Big deal. Everyone did that in the ’90s.” And yeah, sure, plenty of people were slapping together ad networks back then. But how many of them took a hard left into cannabis in 2017? Not many.

Why cannabis? Well, why not? Raj saw an industry that was on the verge of explosion—much like digital advertising had been in the late ’90s—and figured, “Why not get in on the ground floor?” Spoiler alert: the cannabis industry was nothing like digital ads. It was, as Raj puts it, “the hardest thing I’ve ever done in my life.” And this is a guy who once built a $2 million ad network while driving a U-Haul from Malibu to San Jose.

The cannabis world, it turns out, is a bureaucratic hellscape. Raj describes it as a game with constantly changing rules. “Every quarter, every year, cannabis laws were changing, and that meant label changes,” he says. Imagine running a business where you’re constantly chasing new regulations, slapping compliance stickers on products that were already shipped from China, and praying the state doesn’t decide to rewrite the rules again next month. It’s a nightmare that makes ad tech look like a picnic.

But Raj isn’t one to back down from a challenge, and for seven years, he hustled his way through the cannabis industry, learning the hard way that no amount of innovation can solve a regulatory quagmire. “Retail and delivery businesses in cannabis are incredibly challenging,” he says, with the same weariness you’d expect from someone who’s seen some serious shit. And while the cannabis business didn’t make Raj a billionaire, it did teach him one thing: sometimes, the old adage of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is more true than you’d like it to be.

The Return: Retail Media, Connected TV, and the Voodoo Magic

After seven years in the weed trenches, Raj did what any seasoned tech veteran would do: he came back to ad tech, but this time with a twist. Enter Voodoo, his new venture that’s combining the magic of retail media with the endless potential of connected TV. If you’ve been paying attention, you know that retail media is the hot new thing—brands are desperate to turn passive TV viewers into active shoppers, and Raj sees a massive opportunity.

“The whole instant gratification mindset is changing the game,” Raj says, eyes gleaming like a kid with a brand new toy. He’s not talking about QR codes either (which, let’s face it, are about as clunky as the banner ads of old). Raj envisions a future where shoppable moments are baked right into your TV show. Watching the latest Netflix series? See a jacket you like? Click once and it’s on its way to your doorstep. “One-click shopping is coming,” he declares with the confidence of someone who’s been in the trenches long enough to know when a revolution is about to happen.

But don’t get it twisted: Raj doesn’t buy into every shiny new thing the industry throws at him. When I ask him if we’re going to see a future where people pause their TV shows to buy products, he just laughs. “I don’t think people are going to stop their shows to shop,” he says, like it’s the most ridiculous thing he’s ever heard. Instead, the future is about seamless integration—ads that fit naturally into the content, products that are a click away without disrupting the experience.

What Keeps Him Going: Innovation, Grit, and an Endless Curiosity

For a guy who’s been in the game as long as Raj, you’d think he’d be burnt out by now. But no—Raj is more energized than ever. “I haven’t been this excited about the space since 2008,” he says, referring to the early days of SSPs when the entire industry was still figuring out what the hell was happening. For Raj, it’s the innovation that keeps him going. Retail media, connected TV, shoppable moments—they’re all part of the next wave, and Raj is ready to ride it.

And if you think it’s all about the money, think again. Raj is more interested in the grind, the challenge, the thrill of building something from nothing. “You have to grind,” he says, almost like a mantra. “The devil’s in the details.” He’s not one to shy away from the hard work, and that’s what separates him from the thousands of others who came and went in the digital advertising space.

Raj may not be the loudest guy in the room, but he’s the one who knows how to play the long game. Whether it’s building ad networks, navigating the nightmare of cannabis regulations, or leading the charge in retail media, Raj is the guy who’s always thinking two steps ahead.

And if you’re wondering what advice he’d give to his younger self, the guy slinging banner ads in the ‘90s? Simple: “I would’ve started focusing on creative and measurement much earlier,” he says. Because at the end of the day, even in a world where data reigns supreme, it’s the creative that connects with people—and Raj Chauhan, the relationship guy, knows that better than anyone.

So here he is, Raj Chauhan: the ad tech survivor, the weed warrior, and the retail media wizard. Still grinding, still innovating, and still loving the game.

Posted on

The Holiday CTV Battle: Don’t Be Late to the Party, or You’ll Miss the Whole Show

If you’re not already working on your holiday marketing strategy by the time fireworks light up the sky on July 4th, you’re already behind. Gone are the days when Black Friday was the starting line for holiday shopping. Now, we’ve got October Prime Days and Halloween promotions that are practically the new Thanksgiving. If you’re not adapting, your brand is going to get crushed under the weight of early bird shoppers, and worse, competitors who get it.

Here’s the deal: brands that aren’t pushing into Connected TV (CTV) for their holiday campaigns are not just losing opportunities—they’re becoming irrelevant. More consumers are streaming content, cutting the cord, and spending hours in front of their connected screens. And it’s not just idle viewing—U.S. consumers are projected to spend over two hours a day on CTV this holiday season. In short, if you’re not there with them, you’ve already missed your first shot.

Why CTV Is the Must-Have Weapon for the Holidays

CTV is no longer just a side hustle for advertisers. It’s a full-funnel performance beast, and if you’re not integrating it into your strategy, you’re leaving massive gaps in your campaign. Think of CTV as the bridge between the emotional engagement of traditional TV and the precision of digital. You get the immersive storytelling of a holiday commercial with the data-driven targeting that makes every impression count.

With household IP targeting and audience segmentation, you can hyper-focus on consumer preferences, behavioral patterns, and even geolocation. This isn’t just throwing spaghetti at the wall—you’re targeting the people who are actually ready to buy, with the perfect message at the perfect time. Matt Voda from OptiMine nailed it when he said, “The beauty of CTV is that brands can now track the entire customer journey, from seeing an ad on TV to purchasing a product online.”

The Second Screen Experience: Instant Sales

Here’s where it gets even better: 65% of CTV viewers are on their phones while watching TV. That means that not only are they seeing your ad, but they’re ready to engage with it right then and there. By integrating QR codes into your ads and setting up cross-device retargeting, you can turn passive watchers into active buyers without any extra steps. It’s the ultimate frictionless experience, and if you’re not capitalizing on it, your competitors certainly are.

Michael Beach of Cross Screen Media says it best: “The ability to seamlessly transition from seeing a product on TV to learning about it on a phone—without friction—is critical for driving conversions this holiday season.” QR codes and second-screen interactions are the future, especially as holiday shoppers look for quick and easy ways to check out without getting off their couches.

Target the Procrastinators—They’re Still Out There

Despite the early shopping trends, last-minute buyers aren’t going anywhere. There will always be those holiday panic shoppers, scrambling to get something before the big day. CTV gives you the chance to target these shoppers with time-sensitive offers—think overnight shipping or in-store pickup. When you give them what they need in their moment of urgency, they’ll choose you over competitors who aren’t ready to adapt to their needs.

John Nardone, CEO of Flashtalking, has it figured out: “For last-minute shoppers, it’s all about offering convenience. The easier you make it for them to complete their purchase, the more likely they are to choose your brand over someone else’s.” So, make it easy. Use CTV to remind them you’re there with a solution when time is running out.

Why 2024 Is a Critical Year for CTV

This year is shaping up to be one of the most competitive holiday seasons yet. With political ads competing for airtime and driving up costs, your CTV strategy has to be sharper than ever. Brands that don’t leverage flexible, performance-driven CTV campaigns are setting themselves up for disappointment. The days of relying on cookie-based tracking are ending, and CTV’s privacy-friendly first-party data is the next frontier.

Here’s the harsh reality: if your campaign is still stuck in the traditional advertising mold, you’re losing the game before it even starts. The key to survival in 2024 is agility, personalization, and omnipresence. CTV is your way to stay in front of shoppers, whether they’re binging Netflix, scrolling TikTok, or texting about last-minute gifts.

Wrapping It Up with Origin’s Slingshot

So, what’s the next step? Enter Origin’s Slingshot technology—the tool that gives you the ability to dynamically update ads in real-time. Imagine switching from a Black Friday deal to a last-minute Christmas promotion with just a few clicks, all without creating new creative assets. This kind of flexibility is game-changing for brands that need to pivot quickly in a season full of unpredictable shifts in consumer behavior.

Slingshot allows you to target different customer segments, adjust for real-time performance, and ensure you’re always hitting the right audience with the right message. Whether you’re promoting early-bird discounts or last-minute shipping options, Slingshot gives you the edge to stay ahead of the pack. As the holiday rush reaches its peak, the brands that thrive will be the ones that can adapt, optimize, and execute with speed—and Origin’s Slingshot makes that possible.

In conclusion, don’t just compete this holiday season—dominate. If you’re still on the fence about CTV, consider this: when was the last time a radio ad made someone jump off the couch and rush to your store? This year, it’s all about reaching consumers where they’re most engaged—on their screens. Stay bold, stay curious, and get ready to own the holidays with CTV and Origin.

Posted on

DSPs: The Zombie Platforms Shuffling Through AdtechWhen innovation dies but the platforms keep walking.

We’re talking about DSPs—those clunky, overstuffed jalopies that are clogging up the digital ad freeway like a never-ending traffic jam. Right now, we’ve got a DSP market that’s bloated, overcooked, and way past its expiration date. 

And I don’t know who needs to hear this, but most of them aren’t doing anything new or useful. It’s like a room full of magicians, all trying to sell you the same disappearing coin trick, except the coin is your ad budget, and it’s disappearing into thin air.

Too Many DSPs: The Land of the Walking Dead Platforms

The adtech space is littered with DSPs like an overbooked tech conference, but guess what? Most of these DSPs are just hanging on by a thread, desperately trying to convince you they’ve got a better way to target your precious audience, all while shuffling the same deck of cards as everyone else. It’s like being at a terrible casino where every table has the same rigged game, and the house always wins. Spoiler: you’re not the house.

Once upon a time, DSPs came into this world with the promise of revolutionizing ad buying. They were supposed to make things simple—plug in your budget, and boom! You’re hitting your audience with laser-like precision. But, like an iPhone update that promises longer battery life, all we got was more bloat, more complexity, and a whole lot more of the same recycled inventory. The DSP market now looks like a middle school dance—everyone’s trying to look cooler than they actually are, and the real action is happening in the corners you can’t see.

The Reality: DSPs Are Becoming the Flavorless Spam of Adtech

Let’s be honest—this party’s not just over, it’s crashed, burned, and now the neighbors are complaining about the noise. The DSP world is a sad, bloated buffet of mediocrity that’s in desperate need of a Marie Kondo intervention. Half of these platforms wouldn’t know how to spark joy if you plugged them into the mains, and most advertisers have already Marie Kondo’d them straight into the digital garbage. We’re long past the glory days when being a DSP meant something; now it’s like trying to sell expired canned tuna in a Whole Foods. No one’s biting.

If there’s a future for DSPs—and that’s a big if—it’s going to be in the hands of 4 or 5 actual contenders who didn’t forget to pack their big-boy pants. These platforms are the ones who actually know how to do the job without accidentally setting your ad budget on fire. The rest of them? They’re either pivoting to selling snake oil under the guise of “ad optimizations” or slinking off into irrelevance like the embarrassing tech relics they are. Think Netscape Navigator, but without the nostalgia.

It’s Darwinism in real-time, folks, and evolution doesn’t have time for DSPs still struggling to figure out which end of the programmatic pool they’re swimming in. You’ve got Connected TV (CTV) walking in like the high school quarterback who grew up to be a billionaire, and it’s devouring everything in its path. CTV is the new lunchroom king, and digital DSPs are just the sad leftovers nobody wants anymore. It’s a full-on game of musical chairs, and guess what? Most DSPs are still fumbling with the remote, hoping they can get Netflix to load before they run out of time. Spoiler alert: they won’t.

Here’s the ugly truth—if your DSP can’t handle CTV, it’s not just behind, it’s about to be extinct. We’re already watching the great DSP cull happen right before our eyes. Only the ones that can actually deal with high-quality video inventory will make it to the other side. The rest? They’re going the way of the Blackberry, that once-beloved gadget now gathering dust in some tech museum no one visits. These DSPs will either get absorbed into a few major players like your quirky startup friend who finally sold out to a corporate overlord, or they’ll pivot to selling sketchy ad fraud packages with a side of desperation. In other words: fraud vendors.

And for those that don’t even make that pivot? They’ll just disappear. Gone. Poof. Like they never existed, except for the vague memory of someone once trying to explain why their DSP was different—just before they ran out of funding. You think The Leftovers was a bleak vision of society? Wait until you see what happens to half of these DSPs. One day they’re here, the next day their Twitter handle’s been repurposed by a bot.

The Great DSP Bloodbath Is Coming (And CTV Is Holding the Knife)

Let’s talk about Connected TV (CTV) and how it’s absolutely gutting the DSP market. CTV is rolling in like the Terminator—relentless, efficient, and making DSPs that can’t keep up look like they belong in a tech graveyard. Why? Because the era of static banner ads plastered across sketchy websites is dead. Advertisers are waking up to the sweet realization that premium video content is where the eyeballs (and dollars) are. If your DSP can’t handle that shift, it might as well be selling typewriters in the age of AI.

CTV Isn’t Just Disrupting—It’s Rewriting the Rules

The rise of CTV isn’t just a new trend; it’s fundamentally changing the programmatic advertising game. The days of DSPs juggling cheap banner ads across dodgy websites are over. CTV brings premium, engaging content, and advertisers finally realize they want real people watching their ads—not bots or “users” in far-flung data centers. If your DSP can’t deliver high-quality, fraud-free video ads, it’s not just playing catch-up—it’s already obsolete.

Here’s the thing about CTV: it’s where all the action is. The inventory is limited, premium, and priced like a black-tie gala. We’re talking Super Bowl-level attention on a Tuesday night for your campaign—if you can afford it. And, unlike the endless inventory of banner ads on websites no one actually reads, CTV ads aren’t cheap. They’re prime real estate, and only a handful of DSPs have the infrastructure to handle it. Everyone else? They’re standing in the corner with a sad PowerPoint, trying to convince you why they’re different.

DSPs: The Middleman Nobody Wants Anymore

Here’s where it gets fun: even in CTV, advertisers and publishers are realizing they don’t need DSPs as middlemen. Why pay a third cousin to negotiate your Netflix subscription? You don’t need them—and DSPs are making the process unnecessarily convoluted. Enter direct-to-publisher buys, and suddenly, DSPs are looking more and more like the forgotten fax machines of adtech.

With platforms like The Trade Desk’s OpenPath and PubMatic’s Activate, the programmatic world is making moves to cut out the middleman entirely. These platforms let advertisers go straight to publishers, removing the need for DSPs to take a chunk of your ad spend just for playing middleman. It’s like going back to the days of ad networks—only now it’s faster, smarter, and sprinkled with tech jargon to make it sound fancy.

The adtech giants are already making their play: OpenPath and Activate are all about premium video and CTV inventory, and they’re doing it without needing DSPs to hold their hand. Publishers like the sound of this—more control, more money, fewer middlemen. Advertisers? They’re loving the transparency, direct access, and higher ROI. This trend is only accelerating, and guess who’s left out in the cold? That’s right, your average DSP.

DSP Fraud: The Ugly Side Hustle

Let’s talk fraud, folks, because if DSPs have perfected anything, it’s how to create the perfect breeding ground for shady operators. Think of DSPs as the digital version of a cheap magic show—lots of smoke, mirrors, and sleight of hand, but the only thing disappearing is your ad dollars. It’s like they’ve set up a clearance sale for fraudsters, and guess what? You’re the sucker buying the same counterfeit goods over and over again. Bots, click farms, ghost websites—it’s all part of the act, and DSPs are just standing there with jazz hands, hoping you won’t notice that your hard-earned budget is going down the drain.

But let’s be clear: the problem is baked right into how these DSPs operate. They’re masters at piling on layers of complexity—pixel tracking, attribution modeling, programmatic bidding algorithms that sound way fancier than they are—and behind all that tech mumbo jumbo, fraudsters are running rampant. You think you’re targeting your ideal audience, but half the time, your ads are being clicked on by some bot in a server farm. It’s like buying a seat at the high-stakes poker table only to find out everyone else is bluffing with monopoly money, and you’re the only one still playing with the real thing.

And the kicker? This has been going on for years, and DSPs have more or less shrugged it off. Programmatic display ads have become so riddled with fraud that we’ve started treating it like an annoying roommate—yeah, they’re a pain, but we’ve learned to live with it. It’s as if we’ve accepted that a decent chunk of our ad budget is going to disappear into the digital ether, never to be seen again. Fraud in display is so common it’s like that leaky faucet you keep meaning to fix but never do, so you just put a bucket underneath and hope for the best.

But here’s the thing: CTV is a whole different ballgame. In the world of Connected TV, CPMs are through the roof, and advertisers aren’t just throwing around pocket change here. We’re talking serious dollars being funneled into premium ad slots during prime-time content. No one’s playing around when it comes to CTV—brands expect their ads to be seen by actual humans, watching actual content. If your DSP is serving those ads to a bunch of bots or streaming on some shady knock-off channel nobody’s ever heard of, you’re not just going to get a slap on the wrist—you’re getting roasted.

Now, if you think the fraud in programmatic display is bad, just wait until CTV ad spend really starts skyrocketing. The fraudsters are already drooling over the opportunity to wreak havoc on this emerging space. They’re gearing up to swarm the market like flies on a steak, and DSPs that aren’t built to handle this level of transparency? They’re going to get crushed. Bots will evolve, fake impressions will multiply, and if your DSP can’t sort out the legitimate traffic from the fraud? You’re toast.

The fact is, advertisers simply won’t stand for the same shenanigans in CTV that they’ve tolerated in display ads. When you’re paying top dollar for a prime spot in someone’s living room, you expect more than just a “trust us, it’s working” report from your DSP. You want real transparency. Not that half-baked, convoluted garbage DSPs have been dishing out for years. If a DSP can’t provide a crystal-clear look at where the ad’s running, who’s seeing it, and whether those impressions are real, they’re done. CTV is the new frontier, and DSPs that can’t handle it are about to find themselves on the wrong side of history.

The Future: Only a Few DSPs Will Live to See Tomorrow

So, where does that leave us? Buckle up because the future is going to be lean and mean. In a few years, we’re going to see 4 or 5 DSPs ruling the roost, and the rest will be footnotes in the sad history of adtech’s great DSP implosion. Those that survive will have to evolve—they’ll need direct connections to premium publishers, bulletproof fraud protection, and real-time bidding systems that don’t feel like you’re just burning money.

We’re headed for massive consolidation, and DSPs that don’t have a unique selling point are going to be snapped up like clearance items at a going-out-of-business sale. You don’t need a crystal ball to see this coming—it’s basic math. With CTV in the driver’s seat and everyone trying to grab a slice of that pie, the only DSPs that will survive are the ones that can handle the heavy lifting of video ads, cut out fraud, and actually make a difference.

Everyone else? They’ll become the RadioShacks of adtech—relics of a bygone era, desperately trying to sell the same inventory you’ve seen a million times, but no one’s buying anymore. And honestly? Good riddance. The DSP bubble is about to pop, and it’s long overdue.

End scene.

Posted on

Data, AI, and Pants: Why Jennifer Jackson Says Only 4% Are Truly Dressed for Succes

Jennifer Jackson’s career path reads like the script of a tech-world reboot where the hero doesn’t save the day with algorithms or gadgets but with a deep-seated love of data and a refusal to take marketing at face value. From chemical engineer to marketing exec, Jackson is the ultimate plot twist. She’s one of those people who, after mixing chemicals and formulas, realized, “You know what? The real chemistry here is between me and marketing strategy.” And, let’s be clear, we should all be thankful she made the switch.

Before becoming CMO at Actian, Jennifer spent her time leveling up digital marketing strategies at Teradata, where she basically rewrote the company’s digital playbook. Think of her like the GM who comes in to turn around a floundering sports team: within a few seasons, the branding and customer engagement were winning trophies, and the fans—aka stakeholders—were back in their seats. She’s not just someone who pushes numbers around a spreadsheet; she’s leading the charge on how data can reshape an entire organization’s market strategy.

At Actian, she’s turned the place upside down in the best way possible. In her first act, she expanded the marketing team by 5x. Yeah, five times. That’s like walking into a one-bedroom apartment and turning it into a mansion with nothing but grit, some top-tier hires, and a data-driven vision. Actian’s marketing under her leadership became the kind of well-oiled machine that Silicon Valley dreams of. She’s focused on storytelling—but not the cheap kind. No, she’s all about compelling content that resonates, engages, and converts. It’s the stuff that doesn’t just grab attention but holds onto it like it’s a lifeline in a sea of SaaS competitors.

What makes Jackson different from every other marketing leader trying to ride the AI hype wave? For starters, she’s not just spouting AI buzzwords; she’s making sure her team is data-ready for AI. That’s the difference between Jennifer Jackson and the rest of the AI enthusiasts who dive headfirst into generative AI without thinking twice about whether their data even knows how to swim. She knows that without proper data quality and prep, your AI initiatives are doomed before they even leave the dock. Jackson isn’t one for hype. She’s for reality checks, delivering brutal truths to companies about their lack of data preparedness while handing out practical solutions. It’s a “tough love” approach, but it’s exactly what businesses need to hear if they don’t want their AI projects to end up like a tech industry cautionary tale.

She’s got a checklist for that, too—a GenAI Data Readiness Checklist. This isn’t some flowery list of things you “could” do; it’s a get-your-act-together guide to ensure companies don’t blow up their AI projects by overlooking basic stuff like data quality, integration, and management. According to Jackson, 87% of people agree that data readiness is essential, but only 4% are actually prepared. It’s like saying 87% of people agree that wearing pants is important, but only 4% actually put them on in the morning.

Beyond the practicalities, Jackson has a keen eye on the broader marketing world. She’s not interested in throwing around half-baked strategies or copycat ideas. In the SaaS space, where everyone thinks they’re revolutionizing something, Jackson doesn’t believe in easy wins. She’s built marketing teams that dive deep into messaging, data analysis, and operations—crafting an approach that’s both sophisticated and nimble enough to adjust on the fly. If B2B marketing seems a little like herding cats, Jackson’s out there with an army of catnip, getting things done.

And let’s not gloss over the fact that she knows how to harness the power of AI without letting it become the be-all and end-all. AI in Jackson’s world is like a very useful intern—good for research, content ideation, and the occasional coffee run, but it doesn’t replace the real brainpower that comes from human marketers. She’s been experimenting with AI as a productivity booster, whether for generating campaign ideas or handling routine content adaptation. But make no mistake: for Jennifer Jackson, humans and their creativity remain at the core. She sees AI as a tool, not a replacement—helpful for jumping off the starting blocks but not for crossing the finish line.

What does the future look like with Jackson at the helm of Actian’s marketing ship? Buckle up, because it’s going to be a wild ride of leveraging advanced data analytics, diving deeper into generative AI (but responsibly), and pushing the boundaries of what content can achieve in the B2B space. She’s got a no-nonsense approach to staying ahead in a landscape crowded with martech vendors. If your tech stack can’t scale, if your content doesn’t pop, if your data is a mess—well, you’re not going to cut it. Jackson has seen the top of the mountain, and she’s bringing Actian right to the summit with her.

Her formula for success is deceptively simple: data-driven strategies, a strong team, and authentic storytelling. But if it sounds easy, it’s because she’s one of those rare people who makes everything look effortless. Behind the scenes, though, it’s all meticulous planning, strategy, and—yes—data. Because as Jackson would tell you, “the data never lies.”

Posted on

The CMO Who Doesn’t Play by the Rules: Chris Koehler’s Mission to Break Down Silos

Chris Koehler, Twilio’s Chief Marketing Officer, isn’t just another marketer who throws around buzzwords like “disruption” and “innovation” while making it sound like he’s reading from a teleprompter at a TED Talk. No, this guy’s the real deal—think of him as the marketing world’s Swiss Army knife. Koehler’s resume reads like a “choose your own adventure” novel: customer success, product management, marketing analytics, even some consulting thrown in for flavor. It’s this general manager mindset, rather than the narrow “I’m a marketing guy” mentality, that sets him apart.

He didn’t just wake up one day and say, “Let’s sell some APIs.” Instead, he’s spent 25+ years leading everything from demand generation at Adobe to marketing at Box, and now Twilio. He’s the type of guy who looks at marketing and asks, “How does this grow the entire business?”—not just, “Can I get more people to click on this banner ad?” His non-traditional path is a masterclass in thinking holistically. And honestly, if more CMOs thought this way, they wouldn’t need to jump ship every two years when their campaigns fail to produce.

Why Twilio? Why Now?

So, what’s the draw of Twilio for Koehler? Let’s just say the man’s been fangirling over their Segment CDP (Customer Data Platform) for years. When the chance came to hop on board, it was like destiny. Plus, Twilio isn’t your average Silicon Valley startup throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. The company’s deep dive into AI and customer engagement has them poised to become the next big thing, and Koehler is steering that ship with the confidence of a guy who’s played this game before.

“I’m a longtime Segment customer,” Koehler admits, making it clear that this wasn’t a job; it was a calling. Twilio, with its insane focus on customer engagement through CPaaS (Communication Platform as a Service), is exactly the type of company a CMO like Koehler wants to lead. The tools are already there, and now he’s ready to unleash AI and martech like a kid who’s just unwrapped the ultimate Lego set on Hanukkah.

What’s Broken in B2B Marketing? Buckle Up

Ask Koehler what’s wrong with B2B marketing today, and he’ll let loose. The silos are killing us. Everyone’s running their own little fiefdom: sales, customer experience, marketing. And surprise! None of these departments talk to each other. The result? A disjointed customer experience that leaves people more confused than a Kanye tweet storm.

Koehler’s mission at Twilio is to break down these silos like a wrecking ball. He’s putting CX, marketing, and sales on the same page, sharing data and insights to create a seamless customer journey from first touch to final transaction. If you’ve got killer marketing but your customer experience feels like a trip to the DMV, guess what? You’ve failed. Koehler’s out here telling us that the future of business isn’t about killer campaigns—it’s about killer experiences. And frankly, he’s not wrong.

Koehler’s Three Marketing Pillars: A Crash Course

Koehler’s marketing philosophy? It’s deceptively simple but powerful, like the first time you saw a “skip ad” button on YouTube. His strategy revolves around three core principles:

  1. Customer-Centric Focus: Koehler’s not interested in spray-and-pray marketing tactics. He puts the customer front and center, making sure every interaction feels relevant and empathetic. It’s not about pushing product features; it’s about solving problems for the customer.
  2. Data-Driven Decisions: Data isn’t just a tool for Koehler—it’s the entire playbook. At Twilio, they’re using data to constantly refine and optimize their campaigns. Koehler’s team doesn’t just set it and forget it; they’re learning from every customer interaction to get better. Imagine if your Fitbit also did your taxes—that’s how data-driven Koehler’s team is.
  3. Agility: Marketing plans are cool, but being able to pivot when the market changes is cooler. Koehler’s team is built to be nimble, adapting to customer behavior in real time. It’s the digital equivalent of always having a “get out of jail free” card in Monopoly.

AI: The Not-So-Secret Sauce

Speaking of data, let’s talk AI. Koehler sees Twilio’s AI-powered tools as the future of customer engagement. Segment’s CDP lets his team pull data from across the customer journey and use predictive AI to anticipate what customers want before they even know it themselves. Add in some generative AI for personalized campaigns, and you’ve got marketing that doesn’t feel like marketing—it feels like magic. And yes, that’s probably the dream every marketing exec has been selling you for a decade, but Koehler’s actually doing it.

For Koehler, AI is the real equalizer. While every company under the sun is trying to crack the code of personalized 1:1 marketing, Twilio is already putting the pieces together. It’s no longer about selling at scale; it’s about personalizing at scale. The future isn’t mass marketing—it’s hyper-targeted, data-driven experiences that feel like they’re made just for you. Creepy? Maybe. Effective? Absolutely.

What’s Next? (Hint: It’s Not a Return to the ‘Good Old Days’)

The future of marketing, according to Koehler, is a lot less about mass communications and a lot more about individual connections. We’re talking AI, customer data, and 1:1 personalization at scale. It’s the stuff that’s been hyped for years, but now, with Twilio’s tech stack, it’s actually becoming a reality. The tools are there; the data is there. It’s just a matter of executing with precision.

But Koehler’s not just focused on the external. Internally, he’s building a marketing team that reflects the agile, customer-first philosophy he espouses. He’s creating a culture of constant experimentation, where failure isn’t the end—it’s part of the process. In a world where marketing departments are often weighed down by bureaucracy and red tape, Koehler’s fostering a “fail fast, learn faster” approach.

And Did We Mention the Side Hustles?

Let’s not forget Koehler’s extracurriculars. As if leading Twilio’s global marketing wasn’t enough, he’s also a strategic advisor for Cresta, where they’re using AI to turn your average customer service rep into a Jedi-level expert from day one. Oh, and he’s on the board of CareerVillage.org, an organization that helps underrepresented youth access career advice they’d otherwise never get. This guy isn’t just changing how companies talk to customers; he’s also making sure the next generation of workers is better prepared for the challenges ahead.

The Verdict: This Guy Gets It

At the end of the day, Chris Koehler is more than just a CMO—he’s a marketing rebel with a cause. He’s tearing down silos, dragging B2B marketing into the future, and using AI to make customer engagement feel personal again. Whether you’re a fan of his “whole-business” approach or just excited to see Twilio lead the AI charge, one thing’s clear: Koehler is the kind of marketing leader who’s actually worth listening to.

So, grab your popcorn, because Twilio’s about to show the rest of the marketing world how it’s done—under Koehler’s unapologetically forward-thinking leadership.

Posted on

ThinkPad to Think Big: Rabin’s No-Nonsense Path to Lenovo’s Future

David Rabin, Lenovo’s CMO for the Solutions and Services Group (SSG), is like the guy in a high-stakes poker game who looks at everyone else frantically tossing chips around and says, “Let’s not lose our heads here, folks.” He’s seen more martech trends come and go than most of us have had bad lattes. But unlike those who get whiplash from chasing every new shiny tool, Rabin has built a career on cutting through the noise with the sharp edge of common sense. And maybe a little bit of old-school customer obsession—just a bit.

Now, don’t get it twisted. Lenovo, for many, still conjures up images of your dad’s indestructible ThinkPad—a trusty but somewhat clunky laptop built like a brick. But Rabin’s not here for your outdated perceptions. He’s the guy tasked with shifting Lenovo from just “that hardware company” into a serious contender in the end-to-end technology solutions game. He’s been hustling at Lenovo for 18 years, and if anyone’s equipped to shake things up, it’s this guy. As Rabin puts it, Lenovo has been undergoing a “landmark transformation,” pivoting from hardware-focused to full-scale tech services powerhouse. And no, he doesn’t need another ThinkPad meme to remind him of where they came from.

But Rabin isn’t here to play nice or tiptoe around the obvious. One of his biggest gripes with B2B marketing is execs who don’t know how to stick to a strategy. “Pick a direction, stick with it, and give it time to work,” he advises, like the marketing Yoda we all need. It’s the equivalent of your personal trainer telling you to stop switching workout routines every week and actually give one a chance to, you know, do its job. Marketing doesn’t yield results overnight, and Rabin has no patience for executives who panic at the first sign of uncertainty and start changing lanes like a NASCAR driver hopped up on Red Bull.

Speaking of change, Rabin is very clear on one thing: data is crucial, but if you’re trusting it blindly, you’re cruising for a bruising. “Find the truth in data,” he says, but with a healthy dollop of skepticism. He’s seen too many marketers get duped by pretty numbers that don’t hold up under scrutiny. In Rabin’s world, gut-checking isn’t just optional—it’s required. If the data says one thing and your instincts scream another, it’s time to dig deeper. Marketers, he warns, need to triangulate their data like a survivalist with a compass, a map, and an SOS flare.

And then there’s the AI conversation—because of course, there is. While plenty of marketers are still wringing their hands over whether AI will take over their jobs, Rabin’s already making AI work for him. Lenovo’s use of AI in content creation has slashed costs by 70%, while speeding up production time by 4x. That’s not a typo. Four times faster. And here’s the kicker: Rabin doesn’t think AI is here to steal jobs. Instead, he believes it’s going to “reframe the work we do” and make smart marketers—those who actually know how to leverage AI—more valuable than ever.

But Rabin’s not all sunshine and rainbows about technology. He’s well aware of martech’s potential pitfalls. His mantra? Less is more. Lenovo consolidated its sales enablement tools from a bloated mess of dozens down to a single, streamlined platform. He’s not interested in fluff—if it doesn’t work, it gets tossed out like last year’s iPhone. As he puts it, “We get paid for impact, not outputs.” Translation: just because you’re churning out a ton of content doesn’t mean any of it’s good or useful. Rabin is the guy who will look at your 10-page marketing report and ask, “Yeah, but what did this actually do?”

When it comes to the future, Rabin’s vision is clear: AI is going to allow for hyper-personalization at speeds we couldn’t dream of a few years ago. But that doesn’t mean it’ll be a smooth ride. He anticipates a landscape of deeper fragmentation—more tools, more AI, more specialized solutions. In other words, the marketer of the future will need to be a bit of a tech-savvy juggler. And just in case you thought you could get by with today’s tactics, Rabin leaves you with a final thought: “If you don’t keep up, someone else will happily take your place.”

In a nutshell, Rabin is the no-BS CMO who’s seen it all, done most of it, and still has the energy to tell everyone else how it’s done. If you’re a marketer prone to shiny object syndrome, his advice is simple: calm down, focus, and get your act together before the competition eats your lunch.

Posted on

How Google’s 20% Cut Is Like Paying for a Penthouse and Getting a Broom Closet

So, here we are, folks. Google, the tech behemoth that knows more about your browsing habits than your mom, is in the courtroom again. And this time, it’s not just for some regulatory wrist slap or to pay a fine that barely dents their Scrooge McDuck-level vaults. No, this time, Uncle Sam is out for blood. The DOJ is accusing Google of playing Monopoly—not the fun family game that ruins Thanksgivings, but the kind that allegedly turns the online ad world into their personal fiefdom. Picture Google as the Godfather of ad tech, sitting back in a dimly lit room, stroking a digital cat while everyone else in the industry trembles in fear. And the Department of Justice? Well, they’re trying to break into that room and flip the table.

The case is as juicy as a prime-cut steak, and no one is walking away unscathed. In one corner, you’ve got the DOJ, painting a picture of Google as the ultimate puppeteer, pulling all the strings so that every ad dollar, every bid, every click, leads back to its massive ad empire. In the other corner, you’ve got Google, slicker than a used car salesman at a Sunday service, insisting that everything they’ve done is just really good business. And by “really good,” they mean the kind of good that makes everyone else in the room wonder why they even bothered showing up.

Monopoly or Business Genius? The DOJ and Google’s Battle of Narratives

Let’s start with the obvious. The DOJ isn’t pulling any punches. They’ve spent the first couple weeks of this antitrust trial laying out a case that makes Google look less like a scrappy Silicon Valley innovator and more like a black hole that’s slowly sucked the life out of the ad tech universe. According to them, Google has orchestrated an ad empire that works like an all-consuming vortex—once you’re in, there’s no escaping. They’ve bought up competitors, tied their products together like a Gordian knot, and made sure that every online ad transaction ultimately lines their pockets. It’s the corporate equivalent of being stuck in a casino where the house always wins, except the casino is also selling your data to the highest bidder.

To drive the point home, the DOJ has paraded a series of witnesses, from publishers to ad execs, who’ve all taken the stand to air their grievances. It’s like a public therapy session for anyone who’s ever tried to do business with Google and came away feeling like they’d just been hustled by a smooth-talking magician. Julia Tarver Wood, one of the DOJ’s top litigators, put it in plain terms: “The rules are set so that all roads lead back to Google.” In other words, Google isn’t just playing the game—they’re the ones writing the rulebook.

Google: The Godfather of Ad Tech, But With Way More Nerds

And that brings us to the heart of the DOJ’s case. They argue that Google has turned the ad tech stack—everything from publisher tools to advertiser tools to the actual exchanges where ads are bought and sold—into their personal playground. Through a series of acquisitions, most notably DoubleClick, Google essentially built a walled garden where publishers and advertisers are forced to play nice if they want to stay in business. Want to sell ad space? Better use Google’s DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), because almost everyone else does. Want to buy ad space? You’ll probably be doing it through Google’s AdX exchange. Oh, and by the way, if you’re thinking about trying a competitor, good luck with that. Publishers who dared to break away from DFP quickly realized that without access to Google’s AdX, they were basically playing digital solitaire.

The DOJ has a laundry list of complaints, but one of the most damning is that Google’s dominance has led to what they call “clunkier” tools and higher prices for customers. It’s like being forced to drive a car with square wheels because the manufacturer decided it didn’t need to innovate anymore. Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, testified that DFP is slow, outdated, and about as fun to use as a fax machine in 2024. 

But here’s the kicker: it doesn’t matter, because no one’s willing to leave Google’s ad ecosystem. Why? Because rejecting DFP means losing access to Google’s AdX, which is like throwing away your map in the middle of the desert—you’re just not going to make it.

Prebid: The Open-Source Thorn in Google’s Side

Now, let’s talk about Prebid.org, a name that’s popped up a few times in the trial. Prebid is essentially an open-source platform designed to make ad exchanges a little less one-sided by allowing multiple ad buyers to bid on ad space at the same time—kind of like an auction house where you’re not sure if Google is lurking behind the curtain, peeking at everyone else’s bids. It’s the scrappy underdog trying to keep things competitive in a world where Google’s already bought up the entire auction house, the paddles, and probably the auctioneer too.

But here’s where it gets interesting: Prebid was almost handed off to the IAB Tech Lab, the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s tech arm. Except, as Brian O’Kelley, one of Prebid’s founders, revealed in a video deposition, Google wasn’t having it. Google, which just so happens to be the IAB’s biggest financial backer, made it very clear they did not want the IAB to take over Prebid. 

In fact, O’Kelley testified that Google was “vehemently opposed” to the idea. It’s like being at a board meeting where the biggest shareholder suddenly pipes up and says, “Actually, no. Let’s not do that thing that would let everyone compete on a level playing field.”

Google’s “Clunky” Tech: Like an 80s Station Wagon, But You Still Have to Use It

Let’s get one thing straight—Google’s ad tech isn’t the shiny, well-oiled machine it once was. It’s more like an old station wagon from the 80s: slow to start, kind of embarrassing to be seen in, but absolutely essential because it’s the only car that’ll take you where you need to go. Witness after witness at the trial described Google’s ad server, DFP, as slow and cumbersome. But despite these complaints, no one’s willing to jump ship because Google’s tied DFP to its massive AdX exchange. And if you leave AdX, well, it’s like cutting off your own oxygen supply.

James Avery, the CEO of Kevel, testified that Google’s DFP is “pretty much a foregone conclusion” for most media outlets. It’s like showing up to a party and realizing that everyone’s already drinking the same cheap beer—sure, it’s not great, but what are you going to do? Bring your own?

The DOJ’s witnesses argued that this kind of product tying—where you can’t use one thing without the other—is a major reason why Google’s been able to maintain its stranglehold on the industry. Even companies like Disney, which have the money and resources to develop their own ad tools, end up stuck using Google’s system because the alternatives just don’t have the same access to advertisers. It’s like trying to open your own pizza shop, but Google’s the only supplier with cheese, dough, and tomato sauce, and they’re only going to sell it to you if you use their ovens, their recipe, and probably wear their uniforms too.

“Irrationally High Rent”: Google’s 20% Cut—Because Why Settle for Less?

Now, let’s talk money. Specifically, the money Google takes from every ad dollar that flows through its exchange. The DOJ has been quick to point out that Google’s ad exchange, AdX, charges a 20% fee on every transaction, which is about double what the competition charges. But here’s the kicker—Google’s own internal documents show that even they think the 20% cut is a bit much. Chris LaSala, a former Google executive, called the fee “irrationally high rent” in internal company discussions. It’s like a landlord who knows the rent is too high, but they’re still cashing those checks every month because, hey, what are you going to do? Move?

This 20% cut is a prime example of what the DOJ calls “middleman” fees. You’ve got ad exchanges, ad servers, and all these other layers that take a piece of the pie before it even gets to publishers. And what’s left for the actual creators of content? Not much. Google, of course, isn’t too eager to lower that cut because, according to internal documents, doing so would “risk more platform competition.” Translation: “We like things just the way they are, thank you very much.”

The Data Advantage: Google’s Secret Weapon

Let’s not forget about the real crown jewel of Google’s empire—data. Google has data on over 2 billion users. That’s right, billion, with a “b.” And that data is what makes Google’s ad empire so powerful. Witnesses at the trial argued that Google’s access to user data gives them an unfair advantage in the ad tech game. It’s like playing poker with someone who knows all your cards and still manages to convince you to bet against them.

Jed Dederick from The Trade Desk testified that Google’s advantage comes down to one simple fact: their access to user data is unparalleled. They know who you are, what you’re buying, and probably even what kind of pizza you ordered last Friday night. And because of that, they can offer advertisers the best rates, which keeps publishers locked into their system. It’s like trying to compete in a race where Google’s the only one with a map, a GPS, and a rocket-powered car.

What’s Next? The Trial Isn’t Over Yet

So, where does this all leave us? Google’s lawyers are furiously defending the company’s actions as nothing more than smart business moves. They’ve brought in their own expert witnesses, like economist Mark Israel, who testified that the DOJ’s definition of the ad market is too narrow and that Google’s market share is actually only around 10% if you consider things like social media and mobile ads. They’re trying to argue that the ad world is much bigger than the DOJ claims, and Google’s just one player in a much larger game.

But the DOJ isn’t buying it. They’re set to make their closing arguments soon, and Judge Leonie Brinkema is expected to issue a ruling by the end of the year. If the DOJ wins, it could mean major changes for Google’s ad empire.

 Maybe they’ll be forced to spin off parts of their business, or maybe they’ll face tighter regulations. Or maybe, just maybe, Google will walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist and keep doing what they’ve always done—dominate.

Either way, one thing’s for sure: this trial is shaping up to be the tech world’s version of The Godfather, with Google playing both Michael and Vito Corleone, and the rest of us just trying to figure out how to stay out of the line of fire. 

Stay tuned.

Posted on

Elizabeth Johnson: The Data Dynamo Disrupting Digital Marketing

Welcome to the Wild West, where the metrics are made up, the KPIs don’t matter, and everyone’s got their own interpretation of success. If that sounds like a circus with no ringmaster, that’s because it often is. Enter Elizabeth Johnson, the CEO of Path Performance, and the woman who’s not just setting the tent on fire—she’s controlling the flames, making sure nobody burns their eyebrows off while insisting that, yes, we can figure this marketing mess out.

Johnson doesn’t come in with your typical PR fluff or the usual Silicon Valley chest-puffery. No, she’s the kind of person who walks into a room full of “seasoned pros” who still don’t get TikTok, slams her metaphorical fist on the table, and says, “We’re rewriting the rules. Now, who’s got the guts to follow?”

When she joined me on The ADOTAT Show, we didn’t just sip the marketing Kool-Aid—we added a shot of something stronger and started grilling. You want to know what it’s like to lead an industry stuck in neutral for the last 20 years? Ask Elizabeth, because she’s been the one pushing the boulder uphill while everyone else wonders why gravity is so hard.

Forget your vanilla marketing exec. Johnson is the kind of leader who drops truth bombs like confetti. You want to keep up? Then buckle up. Here’s why Elizabeth Johnson is the real disruptor digital shopper marketing didn’t know it desperately needed.

The KPIs Everyone Loves But Don’t Understand

Let’s get one thing straight: Elizabeth Johnson doesn’t have time for your precious metrics if they don’t actually move the needle. And by needle, I mean sales—not just your inflated egos in the boardroom.

Take ROAS (Return on Ad Spend), the industry’s favorite useless acronym. It’s the metric everyone loves to trot out at meetings, but Johnson isn’t buying the hype. “ROAS gets thrown around like it’s the golden ticket, but half the time it’s not the best measure of success,” she says, with a casual shrug that says she’s probably had to correct this misconception too many times to count.

What matters more? Incrementality. Yeah, it’s a ten-dollar word that sounds like it was ripped from a Hogwarts textbook, but in layman’s terms, it’s the metric that tells you if your marketing actually did anything at all. Think of it as the difference between spending a million bucks on ads that work versus just burning cash for the sake of saying you spent it. It’s the opposite of vanity metrics, which are basically participation trophies for marketers who aren’t paying attention.

Johnson sums it up perfectly: “It’s about understanding what happens when you don’t advertise. If nothing changes when you run your campaign, guess what? You just wasted a lot of money. Incrementality is the key to figuring out if your ad dollars are actually moving the needle.”

And no, it’s not as simple as checking a box and declaring victory. “Our team spends a lot of time making sure everyone in the room understands what it actually means and how to use it. It’s not just for show—this stuff matters.”

Data Standardization: Herding Cats in the Digital Desert

You ever try to herd cats? How about convincing a room full of egos that they all need to speak the same language? Welcome to Elizabeth’s daily grind. Data standardization, folks—it’s about as glamorous as cleaning out the office fridge after a three-day weekend, but it’s absolutely necessary if this industry is going to survive.

Right now, we’re in the Wild West of data—everyone’s making up their own metrics and declaring them gospel (not that she uses that word). It’s chaos, and chaos doesn’t breed success. “We need to speak the same language,” Johnson asserts with the calm confidence of someone who’s seen the same mistakes happen over and over again and is just about done with the excuses.

Her mission? Bring the cowboys of ad tech into the 21st century. Make them use metrics that actually matter. Standardize the playing field. “The advertisers are the ones who lose when we can’t agree on metrics,” she says. “It confuses the marketplace, and it makes everyone look bad.”

Elizabeth isn’t one for patience when it comes to excuses. “You can’t run a campaign and then wonder why your results look different from everyone else’s when you’re using a completely different set of metrics. It’s like trying to measure your height in apples when everyone else is using inches.”

But getting everyone to play by the same rules? That’s another story. “It’s like playing diplomat in a hostage negotiation,” Johnson quips, “or trying to get a bunch of kids to share their snacks.” She’s building trust, one awkward boardroom conversation at a time.

Awards and Shiny Doorstops

Speaking of accolades, let’s get one thing straight: Elizabeth Johnson isn’t one to rest on her laurels—or her trophies. When I asked her about the awards that matter, she didn’t mince words. Sure, she’s picked up a few shiny ones along the way—“Women of Excellence” being one of her favorites—but she’s not the type to let it go to her head.

“I don’t discount any of the awards,” she says, ever the diplomat. “Most of them are industry-given, and I understand the strict criteria behind them.” Translation? If she’s won it, it means something, but she’s not exactly throwing a parade for herself either.

And yet, for all the industry accolades, you won’t find Elizabeth patting herself on the back. Her approach to recognition is refreshingly honest. “I did an internal victory dance, but it’s not about me. It’s about my team. I rarely use the word ‘I.’” This isn’t false humility, folks. It’s genuine leadership.

The Myth of “Faking It Until You Make It”

Let’s be clear: Elizabeth Johnson does not do “fake it until you make it.” Well, not in the way most people think. “Look, it can instill confidence,” she admits, “but it has its limits.” Instead, she’s more of a “act as if” person. As in, act as if you already belong in the room. Act as if you’re the CEO of a revenue-driving company. But don’t get cocky about it.

“Using it as a crutch is where people go wrong,” Johnson explains. “Confidence is key, but if you’re just faking everything all the time, people will catch on. It’s about finding that balance between projecting confidence and actually doing the work.”

In other words, don’t fake it unless you’re ready to back it up with actual results. Otherwise, you’re just another marketer with a PowerPoint and a prayer.

The Real Glamour of CEO Life: Juggling Chainsaws While Smiling

Now, let’s talk about the real, behind-the-scenes life of a CEO, shall we? Spoiler alert: It’s not all high-powered boardroom deals and glamorous launches. There’s plenty of “putting out fires” that don’t make the highlight reel. “Sure, you get the strategic vision moments,” Elizabeth says, “but a lot of it is making sure the wheels don’t fall off the bus.”

In a typical day, she’s bouncing between high-stakes conversations about acquisitions and product launches to the not-so-glamorous reality of project timelines, personnel issues, and—yes—printer jams. It’s like juggling chainsaws while keeping a smile on your face and pretending it’s all part of the show. And somehow, she makes it look easy.

But for all the chaos, Elizabeth thrives on the balance between the big picture and the nitty-gritty. “You’ve got to be nimble,” she says. “Your day might be planned out, but guess what? Something’s going to change. Regulations shift, competitors pivot, and you’ve got to be ready to react.”

The AI Apocalypse or Golden Age?

So, what does Elizabeth see in her crystal ball? A golden age of marketing innovation or a Mad Max-style race to the bottom? She’s betting on the former—if the industry can get its act together. “AI is the next big wave,” she says. “It’s going to separate the winners from the losers, the ones who embrace it and the ones who are still clutching their Rolodexes.”

And while everyone else is busy slapping “AI-powered” labels on their websites to sound cutting-edge, Johnson is asking the real question: What’s the actual impact? “You can’t just say you’ve got AI. You’ve got to show how it’s working at scale,” she insists. “This isn’t about riding a trend. It’s about transforming how we think about marketing.”

What’s Next: CEO, Mentor, and… Future Beach Bum?

If you’re wondering whether Elizabeth ever thinks about chucking it all and becoming a beach bum somewhere, the answer is yes. “Every once in a while, the thought crosses my mind,” she laughs. But for now, she’s all in on the future of Path Performance. “I’m passionate about what we’re building here. That’s what keeps me going.”

As for her superpower of choice? She’d love to control time. “It’s the one thing nobody has enough of,” she muses. And if anyone could figure out how to bend time to their will, it’s probably Elizabeth Johnson.

For now, though, she’s sticking to what she does best—rewriting the rules of an industry stuck in its ways, one data point at a time. And trust me, it’s going to be a hell of a ride.

Posted on

From Open Internet Hero to Walled Garden Villain: Is The Trade Desk the New Google?

The Trade Desk is doing a masterclass in the fine art of playing dumb, denying they’re building a TV OS like a kid with crumbs all over his face denying he touched the cookie jar. But insiders—and I’m talking the ones who actually know a thing or two—say otherwise. TTD has been secretly crafting their own smart TV OS since 2019, calling it “Project Bridgewater,” and teaming up with none other than Sonos to make this dream a reality.

Now, you might wonder why Sonos, the company famous for its high-end speakers, is jumping into bed with TTD on this grand TV venture instead of going all-in on its own OS. The answer is simple: building a smart TV OS is like trying to assemble a jet engine out of Legos. It’s not just a technical minefield; it’s a political one, too. You need to schmooze your way into the hearts of streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+. As Erez Levin, Media Futurist, points out, “Netflix won’t even talk to device makers if they can’t convincingly make the case that they’re able to ship a certain number of units.”

Smaller TV makers, lacking the firepower to cut these deals, usually sidle up to Google, Amazon, or Roku to license their established platforms. It’s a bit like borrowing your big brother’s tuxedo for prom; it fits, but it’s not really yours. However, this dance comes with strings attached—strict licensing terms that can make a Sonos device look more like a distant cousin of an Amazon Fire TV stick than a distinctive Sonos gadget. And don’t forget, Sonos is still in a slap-fight with Google over patent infringement. Partnering with those guys would be like asking your archenemy to design your wedding cake.

The Trade Desk swoops in like the new kid on the block who somehow knows everyone’s secrets. They’re not weighed down by the baggage of hardware; they don’t care if your TV has a curved screen or can tell the difference between your voice and your dog’s bark. They’re happy to let Sonos have a field day with the user interface, slap their own sleek branding all over it, and design a remote that doesn’t look like it came out of the 1990s. And why not? TTD is making it rain with juicy revenue-sharing terms that put the standard offerings from Google, Amazon, and Roku to shame. As Matthew Keys points out, TTD may be denying they’re building an OS to take on Roku, but this denial has all the authenticity of a reality TV star’s apology tour—everyone knows what’s really going on.

But let’s talk about what TTD really wants—data. Not just any data, but all the data. We’re talking digital black gold. According to Lynne Johnson of AdMonsters, “A unified consumer profile is the holy grail of targeting,” and TTD is on a crusade to snatch that holy grail right out from under the industry’s nose. In a world where cookies are crumbling faster than a stale biscotti and mobile IDs are evaporating like ice in July, owning the OS is like controlling the sole watering hole in a desert. It’s their chance to siphon off every single drop of first-party data, from what shows you’re binge-watching on a Tuesday night to the items you’ve been eyeing in your virtual shopping cart. By threading all this data through their Unified ID 2.0, TTD is creating a digital panopticon where they see all, know all, and track all.

And it doesn’t stop there. TTD isn’t just setting up shop—they’re planning to build the whole damn mall. Imagine Google’s DoubleClick, but for CTV, with TTD acting as the toll booth operator, gatekeeper, and traffic cop all rolled into one. The strategy is pretty clear: offer better economics and a platform with integrated content management (think Wurl or Amagi), slap on an identity and authentication layer (like UID2/OpenPass), and stack it all up with a fully loaded ad tech infrastructure. They’re crafting a kingdom where they can set the rules, collect the taxes, and make sure everyone plays nicely—or not at all. It’s a blueprint straight from the Silicon Valley Machiavelli handbook.

But wait, there’s more. TTD isn’t just setting up an OS—they’re creating a closed ecosystem that feels suspiciously like the one Google built in the open web. Their strategy is to become the new sheriff in town, crafting a full-stack solution akin to DoubleClick, where they control everything from content to data to pricing. Julian Savitch-Lee, a CTV and programmatic advertising specialist, notes, “TTD can drive a comparative Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) to existing reported TV OS Vendors.” In other words, they’re looking to replicate the same kind of dominance that has made Google the overlord of online advertising.

As Lynne Johnson points out, The Trade Desk’s ambitions for a unified ecosystem could give it a massive advantage in the shifting landscape of digital advertising. “Retail media provides crucial data for advertisers in a world where third-party cookies are phasing out,” she says. Combine that with insights from Connected TV (CTV) viewing habits, and you’ve got a data goldmine. It’s like placing a surveillance camera in every consumer’s living room while keeping a receipt printer in their pocket. With this kind of comprehensive view of the consumer journey, The Trade Desk (TTD) is positioning itself to become the ultimate gatekeeper.

This isn’t just about controlling ad delivery; it’s about TTD morphing into the middleman who owns the entire supply chain. If they succeed, they’ll have their hands on all the levers: first-party data, control over ad inventory, and the power to dictate the rules of engagement. It’s like taking the open internet, wrapping it in a velvet rope, and charging a cover fee to get in. This strategy is eerily reminiscent of Google’s playbook with DoubleClick, where they turned their dominance in display advertising into a fortress. Only now, TTD is eyeing CTV to replicate this closed-loop ecosystem, much like an aggressive real estate developer eyeing an untouched neighborhood.

The Trade Desk’s motivations for jumping into the TV OS game are clear—control and data. As ad identifiers like cookies and device IDs become endangered species, owning a TV operating system gives TTD the upper hand to embed their own Unified ID 2.0 directly into the hardware. This strategy would not only protect them from future disruptions but also ensure they have uninterrupted access to identity signals for ad targeting. It’s a clever move to avoid the fate that befell other platforms when Apple and Google started tightening their privacy controls. By owning the platform, TTD can dictate the rules of data access, keeping itself in the driver’s seat.

But that’s not the only trick up TTD’s sleeve. By integrating their OS directly into OEM hardware, TTD could access automatic content recognition (ACR) data, which tracks what’s playing on a TV screen. ACR data has become a powerful tool for advertisers looking to tie ad exposure to consumer behavior more accurately. If TTD can control this data pipeline, they can not only offer more targeted advertising but also open up new revenue streams by licensing this data. It’s like having a VIP pass to all the best data parties while charging others to get in.

Owning the OS also allows The Trade Desk to shorten the supply chain between their demand-side platform (DSP) and the inventory sources. In today’s fragmented ad ecosystem, ads often hop through several intermediaries before landing on a viewer’s screen, adding costs, delays, and potential data manipulation. By reducing these hops, TTD can cut out the middlemen, decrease latency, and ensure more of the ad dollars stay in their pockets. This would be especially advantageous as programmatic ad buying continues to grow in live events, where milliseconds count.

And let’s not forget the potential to play both sides. By requiring a share of the inventory, much like other CTV platforms, TTD could earn revenue from both supply and demand. This would not only increase their market share but also reduce the dominance of existing giants like Roku, Amazon, and Google, who currently enjoy the lion’s share of CTV ad revenues. If The Trade Desk can convince publishers to jump on their platform with lower revenue shares initially, they could lock in an exclusive premium supply pool, tightening their grip on the market further.

In essence, The Trade Desk isn’t just building a TV OS; they’re orchestrating a grand coup to reshape the digital advertising landscape. It’s a high-stakes game where they’re holding all the cards, setting the rules, and positioning themselves as the indispensable link between advertisers, publishers, and consumers. Advertisers may be enticed by the promise of seamless, cross-platform targeting, but they’d better keep one eye open—because while they’re busy counting their short-term wins, TTD is busy building the next walled garden, one brick at a time.

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.