Category: Marketing Madness

8602

Posted on

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

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

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

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

Brand Direct Spending: The Rebellion Gains Momentum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, What’s Fueling This Advertising Exodus?

In a word: Technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Paradox of Choice: Liberating Yet Overwhelming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust Issues: The Not-So-Secret Ingredient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Navigating the Media Maze: You’re in Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Musings and Some Unsolicited Advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Why Programmatic CTV Still Feels Like a Fyre Festival for Advertisers

Imagine this: you’re three episodes deep in a binge, and a perfectly timed ad pops up, tempting you with something you didn’t even know you needed. That’s the dream of programmatic CTV—advertising that is as seamlessly woven into our favorite shows as it is creepily precise. But here’s the thing: programmatic CTV is a lot like the infamous Fyre Festival.

It’s been hyped to the high heavens, but whether it will ever deliver on its promise or leave us stranded in ad-tech chaos remains to be seen.

Why Advertisers Are Hooked on CTV’s Potential

CTV (Connected TV) has burst onto the scene with all the swagger of a big-budget blockbuster. The idea is tantalizing—combine the reach and lean-back ease of traditional TV with the data-rich targeting of digital ads, and you get CTV, a channel that’s both brand-safe and interactive. And with a major chunk of ad budgets predicted to shift to CTV over the next couple of years, it’s clear that advertisers are buying into the promise. They see CTV as a solution for capturing audience attention while integrating seamlessly into omni-channel campaigns, delivering messages wherever viewers may roam.

However, there’s a catch. While CTV may boast the “perfect” blend of real-time benefits and brand safety, the industry isn’t exactly running smoothly. Right now, programmatic CTV is more pipe dream than practical reality, and if the industry doesn’t tackle fundamental issues around transparency, inventory quality, and the dreaded “ad tech tax,” we could see the same frustrating patterns that plagued digital advertising rear their heads again.

The Programmatic CTV Hype: An Illusion of Simplicity?

In its early days, programmatic advertising fundamentally changed digital media by automating the buying and selling of ad space. Initially, ad networks dominated, providing centralized platforms where advertisers could purchase digital real estate across multiple websites. However, this process was clunky, and advertisers often found themselves paying for impressions with no guarantee of reaching their target audience. With the introduction of Real-Time Bidding (RTB) in the mid-2000s, this all changed. RTB allowed advertisers to bid on ad impressions on the fly, dynamically valuing each impression based on the user’s profile and context. This transition from bulk to individual impression buying was groundbreaking, allowing brands to achieve unprecedented precision and efficiency and turning programmatic into a vital part of any digital strategy.

As RTB and programmatic matured, DSPs and SSPs (demand- and supply-side platforms) became essential, bridging the gap between advertisers and publishers. DSPs enabled advertisers to place bids on ad impressions across a network of publishers, while SSPs helped publishers manage and optimize ad sales. Ad exchanges connected the two, allowing advertisers and publishers to buy and sell ad space in a real-time auction environment. This setup brought transparency, scalability, and control over campaign metrics, turning programmatic into a $100 billion industry.

Fast forward to today’s CTV landscape, and programmatic faces a different challenge. Unlike the near-endless inventory of digital display, CTV ad slots are limited and fiercely competitive. The allure of programmatic in CTV stems from its potential to bring the same scalability and targeting precision as digital, but the stakes are higher. Where display ads are served on countless sites, premium CTV real estate is much more scarce, and viewers are more engaged. While display ad spending in programmatic is at 91%, premium video only captures about 21%, largely due to CTV’s intricate ad structure and scarcity of inventory.

This dynamic has led to direct deals and programmatic guaranteed (PG) becoming the main modes of operation in CTV. PG deals and upfronts offer a degree of stability and predictability for publishers and advertisers alike, ensuring premium ad placement but limiting transparency and pricing flexibility. The emerging role of open real-time bidding (ORTB) in CTV, therefore, is to provide more competitive pricing and better fill rates by dynamically valuing impressions as inventory fluctuates. However, challenges remain: transparency is limited, and the biddable CTV ecosystem is still young and, in many ways, struggling with growing pains similar to digital’s early programmatic days.

Playing Second Fiddle: Why Programmatic Still Can’t Beat Direct Deals

The reason programmatic CTV hasn’t fully taken off boils down to an entrenched reliance on direct deals and Programmatic Guaranteed (PG) buys, which dominate due to their predictability and the safety net they offer for both buyers and sellers. PG deals, a form of programmatic direct buy, guarantee a set price and impressions, allowing advertisers to secure quality placements with minimal risk.

However, this safety comes at a cost: the rigid, pre-negotiated nature of these deals limits transparency, a sticking point for advertisers who often find themselves in the dark about exactly which content their ads run against until after the fact.

While open real-time bidding (ORTB) could address some of these issues by creating a more dynamic and transparent auction environment, its adoption remains niche within the CTV ecosystem. ORTB is widely seen as more transparent and scalable than traditional insertion orders (IOs), but most CTV ad inventory is still locked up in PG and upfront deals. Consequently, ORTB often ends up handling the “scatter” inventory—ads left over after the main slots are filled, which lacks the prestige of prime-time content. This limits the reach and appeal of ORTB, making it less attractive to brands looking for high-quality, predictable placement options.

Compounding the issue, programmatic CTV suffers from structural limitations that go back to the legacy of direct IO models, where publishers controlled ad placements without providing pre-transaction transparency. Today’s PG deals carry similar limitations: although they are highly efficient, they still sidestep the flexibility and transparency ORTB promises. In theory, ORTB should help publishers optimize yield by competing in an open market, but without widespread adoption or support from major CTV publishers, its impact remains limited. Additionally, as live and sports programming on CTV grows, programmatic options like ORTB could better monetize these dynamic events, but they are still overshadowed by the dominant PG deals and upfront commitments.

Overall, while ORTB offers potential for a more scalable, transparent programmatic CTV market, it’s not a complete solution. The current landscape favors fixed, high-return PG agreements over the flexibility and transparency ORTB could provide, highlighting that the dream of seamless programmatic CTV is still far from a reality.

The Reality Check: Inventory Quality and the “Ad Tech Tax”

CTV advertising promised premium, uninterrupted, “lean-back” experiences for users, but programmatic CTV hasn’t always delivered on this. The inventory issue is central to the problem: on paper, CTV inventory appears premium, but in reality, it can include ad placements in apps or contexts not traditionally associated with television—think “fireplace apps” or dating apps projected onto the family’s big screen. This “unintentional” inventory can result in misplacement, diluting the brand’s image and leaving advertisers skeptical of the value behind CTV’s high CPM rates. Recent steps, like the TV by OpenX initiative, aim to clean up these classification issues by excluding non-TV content (like gaming and user-generated material) from CTV inventory pools, which could help increase buyer confidence by ensuring that ad placements align with expected viewer experiences.

Transparency is another point of contention. Unlike digital display ads, where ad space seems infinite, CTV has a capped inventory, which demands high standards for user experience. However, the additional costs of brand safety and viewability checks—referred to as the “ad tech tax”—pile up quickly. For some advertisers, these costs can double what they’d expect from a “transparent” ad buy, prompting questions about programmatic CTV’s promised efficiency. Additionally, the complexities of server-side ad insertion (SSAI) and the use of identifiers like IP addresses or app IDs create tracking challenges, making it difficult to ensure ads reach the intended audience. The IAB’s efforts with guidelines like VAST 4.1 and projects to improve SSAI transparency are aimed at clarifying these aspects and ensuring inventory quality and measurement accuracy across CTV platforms.

In an attempt to improve transparency and quality, companies are also using technologies like Demand Path Optimization (DPO) to shorten the supply chain. DPO helps publishers minimize third-party involvement, ensuring ad slots are filled by vetted buyers, reducing safety risks, and enhancing ROI. Nonetheless, while initiatives like these may address some transparency issues, CTV’s reliance on intermediaries still complicates supply clarity. Consequently, the sector continues to face structural barriers that make seamless, efficient, and premium programmatic CTV inventory feel like a work in progress rather than a reality.

Let’s be real: the industry’s “truth” about programmatic advertising is a rare commodity. Too many so-called “journalists” are dancing to the tune of ad dollars, skewing facts to paint an idealized picture of the ecosystem. The adtech media landscape is rife with sponsored narratives that hide the gritty reality behind programmatic CTV’s issues—think opacity, ballooning fees, and low-quality inventory. When the biggest names in the industry are bankrolling the stories, it’s no surprise that glowing reviews outshine genuine critiques. If you want the raw, unvarnished truth about CTV and programmatic, you’ll need to dig deeper than industry-approved headlines.

Getting There: Programmatic Needs to Evolve

To make programmatic CTV more than just a buzzword, several critical reforms are essential. First up: inventory categorization. Right now, programmatic CTV allows premium content to sit alongside low-value apps, creating an ad experience that ranges wildly in quality and purpose. Initiatives like TV by OpenX+ are attempting to tackle this by removing non-TV content and making sure “CTV” actually means CTV. Without this, advertisers could end up paying premium prices for placements that are far from the high-quality streams they expect.

Measurement is another can of worms. Advertisers need consistent and independent verification to see exactly where their dollars go, but walled gardens—looking at you, Roku and Samsung—limit transparency by keeping data behind closed doors. This has been a pain point across the industry, with only a handful of platforms starting to adopt open measurement. Standards like IAB’s Open Measurement SDK, which tracks viewability across devices, are part of the solution but need wider adoption for true transparency. As it stands, current measurement systems often show only a partial view of campaign performance, making it tough for advertisers to understand or optimize the impact of their ads on CTV.

Lastly, the viewer experience is vital if CTV hopes to thrive. Viewers have come to expect an immersive, lean-back experience on streaming platforms, but programmatic ads—often repetitive, poorly timed, and irrelevant—undermine this. Quality control is key; ad placements should feel native to the streaming experience, not awkward intrusions from an unrelated platform. Studies show that ad relevance and timing are critical to maintaining engagement, and without these, the whole medium risks a massive viewer drop-off.

For CTV to reach its potential, the industry needs to align on quality and transparency, blending TV’s viewer-friendly setup with digital’s precision—if not, programmatic CTV may continue to struggle.

Scatter Market and the Rise of Biddable CTV

As CTV grows, so does the scatter market, which essentially sells unsold inventory outside the upfronts. It’s a convenient fallback, giving publishers a chance to monetize unused inventory and allowing advertisers to buy leftover slots at market rates. With live events and sports growing in popularity on CTV, expect to see more scatter inventory available through ORTB. But there’s a caveat: scatter inventory can be hit-or-miss, and advertisers must be prepared to do their homework.

Programmatic, particularly biddable CTV, is becoming the “new scatter,” giving buyers dynamic pricing options and the flexibility to respond to live audience shifts. But this approach still has transparency gaps and quality control issues, particularly when dealing with multiple sellers who may share inventory rights. It’s not uncommon for streaming services, TV manufacturers, and distributors to all sell the same ad slot in the same content, leading to high frequency and cluttered experiences for viewers. Buyers want better control and need DSPs and SSPs to work toward a more reliable supply chain.

Will Programmatic CTV Make It?

So, is programmatic CTV the next frontier, or are we kidding ourselves? Right now, it feels more like the Wild West than a well-oiled machine. Yes, programmatic CTV has huge potential, but it’s saddled with legacy issues that make it a far cry from the ideal we’ve been sold. The allure is real, but so are the growing pains. Programmatic CTV is a powerful tool, but until the industry cleans up its act, it’ll remain a flashy but flawed solution, plagued by transparency issues, pricing inefficiencies, and quality control headaches.

The dream of seamlessly targeted CTV ads isn’t dead, but let’s not pop the champagne just yet.

CTV has all the makings of an advertising juggernaut, but for now, it’s a work in progress—an experiment at the mercy of a fragmented and often opaque ad tech landscape. Whether it ever becomes a reality worth celebrating remains to be seen.

For now, advertisers, publishers, and tech providers will have to decide: is programmatic CTV worth the hype, or just another pipe dream we’ve been chasing in the endless pursuit of the “perfect” ad placement?

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linear TV: Still Alive—But Barely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

From the Sweaty-Palmed Trenches to Investor Zen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DoubleClick and Google: The Deal That Changed Everything

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Superpower of Healing (No, Seriously)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATCH THE FULL EPISODE HERE

Posted on

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

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

From Pinterest to HoneyBook: Colleen Stauffer’s Wild Ride Through the Marketing Jungle

Meet Colleen Stauffer, the Chief Marketing Officer at HoneyBook, where she’s shaking up the world of marketing like a cocktail mixer at a bar where all the drinks are on fire. With over 15 years of experience under her belt, she’s navigated an industry that has transformed so dramatically that even staying in the same field for decades feels like changing jobs every few years. If you don’t believe me, just ask her about the positions that didn’t exist when she started as an intern at a Chicago ad agency!

Colleen’s journey began at ABC in Washington, D.C., during her college days. “My manager taught me how to be a thoughtful and direct leader,” she recalls, “like trying to steer a ship through a storm, only this storm came with a side of spreadsheets and no rum.” After this initiation, she plunged into the vibrant world of advertising at Cramer-Krasselt, her hometown agency in Chicago. There, she launched the first dedicated social media team—a milestone she proudly touts as one of her early career achievements. “It was like being the first person to introduce kale to a BBQ. Everyone was skeptical, but look who’s winning now!” she quips.

From Chicago, Colleen ventured to Clorox, where she learned the ropes of brand management while selling everything from garbage bags to salad dressing. “Who knew packaging design could be so thrilling? It’s like dressing up for a date, but that date involves a lot of people throwing away their trash,” she jokes, flexing her marketing muscles while crafting campaigns for iconic brands like Brita, Burt’s Bees, and Hidden Valley.

Her next leap brought her to Pinterest as the Global Head of Business Marketing, right in the thick of a major reinvention. “Joining Pinterest felt like being handed the keys to a candy store—if that candy store was filled with DIY projects and endless inspiration,” she recalls. Scaling the Creator Marketing team from one person to a whopping 70 globally, Colleen spearheaded the largest product marketing campaign the platform had ever seen, tackling the complex task of aligning multiple product teams for a unified marketing front. “Negotiating with product teams was like herding cats, if those cats had a sizable Instagram following,” she reflects.

After Pinterest, Colleen jumped into the fintech arena with Creative Juice, where she and her team battled the skepticism of creatives wary of new companies. “We had to establish credibility, like trying to convince your grandma that the latest tech is worth her time,” she notes. Their strategy involved partnering with well-known creators to tell their story, ensuring the message resonated with the audience they aimed to empower.

Fast forward to 2024, and Colleen now finds herself at HoneyBook, the leading client-flow platform for independent professionals like photographers and graphic designers. “After 15 years of building brands and scaling marketing teams, I’m thrilled to apply my experience and passion to empower independent business growth,” she declares, enthusiasm practically radiating from her words. “It’s like giving the little guys the tools they need to throw a party—without burning the place down.”

As she surveys the marketing landscape today, Colleen emphasizes the necessity for CMOs to adopt a full-funnel marketing approach. “Today’s CMOs have to be part analyst, part artist—like a Picasso with a calculator,” she says. “We’re juggling data and creativity like circus performers, but without the clowns.”

But wait—there’s more! Colleen firmly believes in the power of human-to-human marketing. “At the end of the day, if marketing were a dinner party, we’d all want to be the host that keeps the conversations flowing,” she muses. “People are at the core of what we do, and if you’re not connecting with them, you’re just shouting into the void. And trust me, that void doesn’t need another ad about why you should switch toilet paper brands.”

Colleen Stauffer is not just a CMO; she’s a vibrant force in the marketing world, proving that success isn’t just about selling products—it’s about connecting with people and building communities while having a good laugh. With her irreverent humor and a treasure trove of experience, Colleen is ready to tackle whatever challenges the marketing world throws her way, ensuring that HoneyBook continues to thrive in a landscape filled with uncertainty.

In her words, “Marketing today is like a game of chess, only you’re also trying to sell the board to the audience while explaining the rules to the pieces.” With this cheeky perspective, Colleen Stauffer is leading the charge in redefining marketing for the modern age.

Posted on

The Art of Empowerment: Stacy Bohrer’s Blueprint for a Better Ad Ecosystem

Stacy Bohrer, the VP of Buyer Development at OpenX, is a force of nature in the adtech realm, and if you’re not paying attention, you might just miss the whirlwind that is her career. With more than two decades of experience stretching across the media landscape—radio, print, TV, and digital—Stacy is no stranger to navigating the chaotic waters of advertising. She’s got the wisdom of an industry veteran and the energy of someone just getting started, making her a remarkable leader in the digital advertising space.

The Path to OpenX: A Career Built on Disruption

Before joining OpenX in March 2022, Stacy was busy building a legacy at The Trade Desk and Crisp, where she ascended to the ranks of programmatic buying royalty. At The Trade Desk, she didn’t just help establish the Midwest sales team; she single-handedly turned it into a juggernaut, proving that she could not only talk the talk but also strut the walk while juggling the demands of advertisers like a seasoned circus performer. Imagine a ringmaster in a digital carnival, expertly balancing flaming torches and spinning plates, all while keeping the crowd entertained. Her blend of experience gives her a superhuman ability to decode what clients need, which is crucial in an industry where the only constant is change—and that change can hit harder than a caffeinated intern on a Monday morning.

When she leaped to OpenX, it wasn’t just a career move; it was akin to stepping onto the battlefield armed with a sharpened sword and a vision to redefine what an SSP (Supply Side Platform) can do. In a world where everyone seems to be flinging around buzzwords like “transparency” and “data privacy” as if they were free samples at a supermarket, Stacy is the one ensuring that OpenX actually lives up to those promises. She’s the real deal in a landscape littered with jargon, cutting through the clutter with the precision of a samurai. Her mission? To transform OpenX from just another cog in the adtech machine into a powerhouse that not only promises but delivers.

Stacy’s approach is unapologetically bold and refreshingly straightforward. She doesn’t do fluffy talk or vague assurances; she’s all about results and accountability. When she says OpenX is committed to transparency, she doesn’t just mean it in passing. She means they’re putting their money where their mouth is, creating structures and systems that genuinely reflect their values. It’s like the difference between a fast-food joint that claims to serve “fresh ingredients” and a farm-to-table restaurant that actually shows you the local produce. In a space where integrity is often sacrificed on the altar of profit, Stacy stands firm, crafting a narrative that resonates with both clients and consumers alike.

Stacy is no stranger to the chaotic dance of digital advertising. She thrives in the chaos, using her superhuman insights to anticipate shifts in the market before they happen. In an industry notorious for its volatility, she operates with a level of foresight that many can only dream of. This knack for understanding not just the numbers but the emotional drivers behind them allows her to craft campaigns that aren’t just effective but also impactful. It’s like she has a crystal ball that shows her not just what consumers want but what they will want tomorrow—an enviable skill in a world where trends can change with the flick of a smartphone screen.

Her journey at OpenX is a testament to her unwavering belief that advertising can—and should—be more than just a transaction. It should be a dialogue, a dance, a partnership built on trust and mutual success. She’s here to shatter the old paradigms that have held the industry back, making way for a new era where genuine connection reigns supreme. In her world, advertisers are not just checking boxes; they’re telling stories, creating experiences, and fostering communities. This vision of a more holistic approach to advertising sets OpenX apart and makes Stacy a force to be reckoned with in the ever-evolving adtech landscape.

Curation and Control: The New Ad Game

Stacy Bohrer is on a crusade to make advertising great again—sorry, not sorry, I couldn’t resist. Her mantra? Curation is king. This isn’t just a catchy phrase; it’s a battle cry for her approach to modern marketing. Stacy is passionate about the idea that effective advertising is all about delivering unforgettable experiences to audiences, and she isn’t shy about articulating this vision. For her, curation is the strategic art of assembling and activating advanced audiences while filtering out the fluff that can clutter campaigns. In a world overwhelmed by digital noise, she believes it’s crucial to cut through the chaos and deliver messages that resonate deeply with target consumers. If you’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, you’re doing it wrong.

Under Stacy’s guidance, OpenX has transformed into a powerhouse of supply-side curation, revolutionizing the way advertisers connect with their audiences. Gone are the days when marketers could rely on broad-brush strategies and hope for the best. Today’s buyers demand transparency and quality like never before, and Stacy recognizes that delivering on these expectations is non-negotiable. They don’t just want impressions; they want clarity. They want to know exactly what they’re getting for their hard-earned cash, and they deserve nothing less. This has led OpenX to adopt a more refined approach to advertising, where understanding audience intent and preferences takes precedence.

Stacy’s commitment to curation doesn’t merely improve efficiency; it enhances the overall effectiveness of advertising campaigns. By meticulously assembling audience segments, OpenX enables advertisers to target their messaging with laser precision. This shift represents a fundamental change in how ads are bought and sold, moving away from the scattergun approach to a more targeted, strategic framework. The result? Campaigns that not only reach the right people but also engage them in meaningful ways. For marketers who are tired of seeing their messages lost in the noise, OpenX provides a beacon of hope—an opportunity to connect authentically with audiences.

Moreover, Stacy understands that the landscape of digital advertising is constantly evolving, influenced by shifting consumer behaviors and regulatory changes. This reality further underscores the importance of curation in her strategy. As data privacy becomes increasingly paramount, the need for responsible and ethical advertising practices grows stronger. Stacy champions a multi-faceted approach that not only respects consumer privacy but also fosters trust. Advertisers can no longer afford to operate in silos; collaboration and transparency are essential to maintaining strong relationships with consumers.

Stacy’s vision for OpenX is also a call to action for advertisers to rethink their strategies. In her eyes, the industry must embrace curation not just as a tactic but as a guiding principle. By doing so, marketers can create campaigns that truly resonate and drive results. This perspective empowers advertisers to take ownership of their messaging and positions OpenX as a partner in achieving their goals. The emphasis on quality over quantity ensures that resources are invested wisely, leading to higher returns on investment and more impactful connections with audiences.

In this brave new world of advertising, Stacy Bohrer is leading the charge, encouraging marketers to elevate their game through thoughtful curation. Her approach is a refreshing antidote to the overwhelming complexities of the digital landscape, reminding everyone that advertising is ultimately about creating connections. As she continues to pave the way for innovative strategies at OpenX, Stacy is not just transforming the company; she’s setting new standards for the entire industry. With curation at the heart of her philosophy, she’s proving that the future of advertising can be both effective and meaningful.

Embracing Challenges Like a Boss

Stacy Bohrer is acutely aware of the myriad challenges modern marketers face, particularly in an environment marked by rapid change and uncertainty. Data privacy regulations are tightening, and the impending shift to a cookieless world presents significant hurdles for advertisers trying to effectively reach their audiences. With consumers becoming more privacy-conscious and demanding transparency about how their data is used, marketers are scrambling for innovative solutions to navigate these new waters. Stacy emphasizes that “solving these addressability issues requires a multi-layered approach,” which is critical in an era where traditional tracking methods are being dismantled. OpenX has been laying the groundwork for addressing these challenges for nearly a decade, ensuring that it is ahead of the curve in developing tools that empower marketers to succeed without compromising consumer privacy.

This long-term vision is not just about surviving in a cookieless future; it’s about thriving by providing marketers with the necessary insights and resources to craft successful strategies. By investing in technologies that promote data interoperability and adopting robust privacy practices, OpenX is setting itself apart as a leader in the field. Stacy’s emphasis on a multi-layered strategy underscores the need for innovation in data collection and audience engagement methods. This might involve leveraging first-party data, utilizing contextual targeting, and integrating advanced identity solutions that allow marketers to connect with their audiences effectively while adhering to new privacy standards. It’s a complex puzzle, but Stacy is confident that OpenX has the pieces to make it work.

In a world filled with digital chaos, where every click and impression can feel like a gamble, Stacy firmly believes in the power of trusted partnerships. Advertisers need allies who are willing to roll up their sleeves and work alongside them, rather than merely offering services from a distance. She recognizes that the best outcomes arise from collaboration, where both parties are invested in mutual success. This philosophy goes beyond transactional relationships; it’s about creating genuine value and understanding what clients will need both today and tomorrow. By being attuned to the evolving landscape of digital advertising, Stacy ensures that OpenX can not only meet the immediate needs of its clients but also anticipate their future requirements.

Sustainability and Responsible Media: A Personal Mission

Stacy’s vision extends beyond immediate advertising concerns; she’s deeply invested in creating a sustainable digital advertising ecosystem. OpenX’s impressive feat of achieving Net-Zero certification sets a benchmark in the industry. By migrating their technology infrastructure to the cloud and prioritizing remote work, OpenX has successfully reduced its carbon footprint while still driving substantial ad revenue. This commitment to sustainability showcases that profitability and environmental responsibility can coexist.

Moreover, Stacy is passionate about responsible media practices, underscoring the significance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the adtech space. She has become a vocal advocate for increasing the representation of women, particularly BIPOC women, in leadership roles. As she points out, seeing more women in leadership positions inherently encourages others to envision a pathway for themselves in tech. This representation is crucial in fostering a diverse workforce that drives innovation and success within organizations.

Leadership Philosophy: Empowerment Over Micromanagement

Stacy Bohrer’s leadership style is a refreshing breath of air in an industry often bogged down by the weight of hierarchy and bureaucracy. She firmly believes in the principles of empathy and empowerment, championing a servant leadership model that focuses on prioritizing the needs of her team. In her view, effective leaders don’t just delegate tasks; they actively remove obstacles that could hinder their team’s success. By fostering an environment where employees feel safe and supported, Stacy encourages her team members to express their authentic selves. This openness is not merely a nicety; it’s a strategic choice that enhances creativity and drives performance. When team members know they can take risks and explore innovative ideas without fear of reprimand, the entire organization benefits from a culture of ingenuity.

Stacy’s commitment to servant leadership goes beyond internal team dynamics; it manifests in her dedication to mentorship and community support. She actively participates in various mentorship programs designed to uplift the next generation of women in tech. In an industry where female representation still lags, Stacy recognizes the urgency of fostering diversity and inclusion. Her involvement in these initiatives is not just about checking a box; it’s about creating pathways for women to thrive in tech roles traditionally dominated by men. By sharing her experiences and insights, she aims to inspire and guide young professionals, helping them navigate the complexities of their careers.

What sets Stacy apart is her tangible commitment to supporting these initiatives financially. All proceeds from her mentoring sessions are directed toward organizations dedicated to increasing female representation in technology. This philanthropic approach underscores her belief that mentorship should be both impactful and sustainable. By investing in the next generation, she’s not only giving back to the community but also cultivating a stronger, more diverse workforce for the future. Her actions speak volumes about her values, reflecting a deep-seated belief that empowering others is the key to long-term success.

Ultimately, Stacy Bohrer’s approach to leadership serves as a model for others in the industry. By prioritizing empathy, removing barriers, and investing in mentorship, she not only elevates her team but also contributes to a broader movement toward inclusivity in tech. Her commitment to fostering an environment where everyone can succeed creates a ripple effect that extends beyond OpenX, inspiring other organizations to adopt similar practices. In a landscape that often feels fragmented and competitive, Stacy is a beacon of hope, proving that when leaders invest in their people and communities, the entire industry can thrive.

The Road Ahead: A Bright Future

With her keen insight and expertise, Stacy Bohrer is poised to continue her influential role at OpenX, where she will undoubtedly keep pushing the boundaries of what is possible in digital advertising. As the industry grapples with the complexities of data privacy, sustainability, and the need for authentic partnerships, Stacy’s leadership and vision will be pivotal in shaping a more transparent and responsible advertising landscape.

In a digital advertising world often likened to the Wild West, Stacy Bohrer emerges as a steady hand, guiding her team and clients through the dust and chaos with determination and strategic foresight. Her journey is a testament to the power of leadership rooted in empathy, empowerment, and a fierce commitment to sustainability—a beacon of hope for the future of adtech.

Stacy’s insights and experiences offer invaluable lessons on resilience, creativity, and the importance of lifting others as we climb. As she continues to make her mark, one thing is clear: the future of digital advertising is brighter, more inclusive, and more responsible with leaders like her at the helm.

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

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.

Posted on

Attention Metrics: Industry Savior or Snake Oil?

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

Slow clap.

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s dive into the four attention commandments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Wait, Are Attention Metrics the New Snake Oil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention Fans Speak Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention Metrics: The Darling or the Dud?

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

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