[upbeat music] Welcome to the Rebooting Show. I'm Brian Morrissey. This has been a terrible start to the year for the media industry.
Media layoffs have topped three thousand in the past year, and just since the start of the year, we've seen layoffs at a broad array of publishers.
We've seen pullbacks, we've seen publications like Pitchfork get folded into GQ, and I would say general disarray and chaos in the industry, perhaps to a degree I have not witnessed in my twenty-odd years, both covering this as a journalist and analyst and also living in it, since this is my career.
So I will totally cop to being biased to wanting the creation of a sustainable media ecosystem.
And I think this past week and just the start of the year, and really the past year has proven that we've got a long ways to go.
And I wanted to get at the root causes of what's happening right now, because this tummel is coming during what's been, by all measures that I can see, a fairly resilient economy.
Now, anytime I say that or write that, I get emails telling me that there are people struggling out there and losing jobs, inequality is a problem, and I totally understand that.
But that aside, there is a disconnect without a doubt right now between what is happening in the broader advertising market and what is happening in the media sector.
You see this if you look at the advertising holding company results. You see this if you look at the platform's revenue and profits. Okay?
And so that tells me that there are structural shifts happening to this market rather than the typical cyclical challenges that are, uh, just the nature of markets. They go up, they go down.
And that's why I wanted to have on Scott Messer to talk about these changes. Scott is a longtime digital media executive who understands the mechanics of the digital ad industry as well as anyone I know.
I always appreciated Scott personally when I was at Digiday because he not only showed up at the content sessions at our events, uh, instead of hanging out at the pool bar or hitting the slopes like some might have done, but he was an active participant who, for lack of a better term, loved geeking out on programmatic and the complicated but critical infrastructure that underpins modern advertising and media.
So very happy that Scott would take the time to have this discussion with me. If you like this show, uh, please support it by giving it a rating, a review, or even recommending it to a colleague.
I would appreciate that personally. I also wanna thank, uh, Outbrain for being a sponsor of the Rebooting Show.
Outbrain is working to help publishers improve their ability to monetize their audiences based on the attention their content earns.
Onyx by Outbrain combines unique prediction technology and engaging high-impact formats carved out within exclusive in-article placements across premium publisher environments.
Now, this is critical because we are arguably moving from an era of viewability to one built around attention.
Viewability has long been one of those important, but in my view, and this is my view, flawed metrics that quickly became game to the point where its value as a proxy for effectiveness deteriorated.
And that's why attention is now gaining momentum as the metric of choice that delivers a stronger view of the return on ad spend that campaigns deliver than viewability alone does.
Now, Outbrain has over fifteen years of experience in building technology to predict user engagement, and it's created Onyx in order to apply that same AI-driven approach to predict moments of attention.
This will help advertisers get better ROI and publishers monetize their content more effectively, and that would be nice because we need a sustainable media ecosystem to emerge from this turmoil.
Check out Onyx's Attention Playbook. I will leave the link in the show notes, and it'll also be in the newsletter, which I hope you all read. And to find out more about Onyx, visit outbrain.com/onyx, that is O-N-Y-X.
Thank you so much to, uh, my friends at Outbrain. They've been, uh, great partners over the last couple years, really throughout my career.
And, uh, we actually just recently collaborated on nice dinner in, in Las Vegas during CES, everyone's favorite event, a-along with our friends at, at Adelaide, and that was great. Hope to do more of those.
So here now is my conversation with Scott. [upbeat music] Welcome to the podcast. I'm glad we're finally doing this. Thank you. Glad to be here, Brian. Yeah.
We should call-- This should-- This will be like a pilot episode of Ad Tech Therapy. So, you know, I came across an article you wrote in AdExchanger. I'm, I'm a sucker for a good cheery headline.
And I don't know, maybe it was the editors at, at AdExchanger put it. You put, "The Precipice of Peril: Publishers and Ad Tech Face a Harsh Two Thousand Twenty-Four."
In here I had a resolution to be resol positive in the new year, and then you just dragged me down. Definitely had some help from the editors at AdExchanger. Thank you very much, Anthony.
But I would be lying if I said that I didn't think about you- I know... when this headline hit, and that this is the- Yeah. This is a Brian title right here. I'm sorry to knock you off your glowing sword.
No, I joke that there's two types of publishers I would talk to about twenty twenty-three, the kind that told me it was a shitty year, and the kind that lied to me. [laughs] That's great.
'Cause look, it was a difficult year for most publishers, right? And no matter what they might say in public, like it just was. And I think it's worrying because that's why I thought y- your piece was really good.
It's 'cause there's a lot of structural challenges that, uh, is facing the publishing industry.
It's one thing, the cyclical, the economy, you know, there's lots of stuff go-- it's boom and bust, particularly if you're reliant on advertising. Let's start with traffic, okay?
And traffic has been at the front end of this industry for a generation. Business models were built on traffic, monetizing traffic.
There are playbooks out there for getting traffic, for making money off traffic, et cetera. I don't know, I mean, the traffic is down quite a bit already, right? [laughs] Yeah. That's the biggest challenge.
You know, to those people, I would say like, I would always say in monetization, if you give me a page view, I will give you revenue.
The single hardest thing to do in all of digital media and really in media, if you think films are as well, is making an organic page view.
It's super hard.You are getting somebody to do something that they weren't tricked into doing, that they're doing out of their own volition.
And when traffic dips, it usually hits the bottom line really hard, especially for the SEO publishers.
The search traffic is off a cliff right now, and people are extra scared because of what generative AI has in store for it.
Social publishers have abandoned the newsfeed and turned them into just wastelands of traffic-driving places.
And so you're really left with newsletter, direct traffic, referral, which is like texting people links, and then you start running out of, like, how you get traffic real quickly.
And without traffic, you can't make- Yeah... CPMs. Yeah. And so I don't know if you saw, like, Red Ventures is looking to sell CNET, which is not a shock. But, um- Half of what they bought it for, right?
The graph [laughs] yeah, the half in a couple of years. The graph that accompanied the story that Sarah Fisher wrote was chilling. Mm-hmm.
You know, and it's from SimilarWeb, not from Comscore, but it just showed the global uniques just a couple of years ago were at, like, 130 million, now they're down at, like- Yeah... 30 million.
You kinda wonder, like- Um-... where did the traffic go, right? If it's not going to- You tell me... these publishers- Where did it go? Then where... I think a lot of it stays with Google.
Google still seems to be making money. Jason Kint used to share- [laughs] Well... a chart a long time ago.
It either isn't generated, it's staying inside the social platforms, TikTok, Instagram, Snap, or it's staying within Google. That's the thing is it's not, no one's cross-pollinating.
Like, you're not moving users from one place to another. Before social and before Taboola, getting traffic was also really hard. People forget that.
In 2010, the only way you could get traffic was, like, buying links from people, doing pop-unders. It was really hard and really shady.
And then content circulation, like Taboola and Out gave publishers a method to do it. The earliest ones were about content circulation.
And then the social channels sprung a well of traffic to everybody, and it not only created growth for publishers, but it gave rise to, like, the entire D2C industry because now there were these centralized pools, ponds where you could fish out of, and these closed loop ecosystems.
But now they're shutting off, and, like, you're seeing DTC- Yeah... die as well.
It's not because people don't like Allbirds as much, which is true, but they can't advertise as much, and the CAC values are upside down and, you know, venture money's hard to come by.
So traffic just doesn't hurt, does, it doesn't- Yeah... just hurt publishers. Right. No, 100%.
And I can remember, it's, it's funny you mention that about the content rec ad networks 'cause I can remember talking with someone in ad ops many years ago before it became, like, easy, like, if you're coming up short on a campaign, you can get traffic, right?
But you had to do, you had to do all, all sorts of crazy stuff that got dumped onto ad ops, [laughs] right?
I remember telling one story about how a sales team had double sold a campaign to this, to, to whatever vertical, and so they just sort of negative geo-targeted the client's geography, so they were seeing the ads that they were expecting to run, and then they were running a, a totally different part of the publication.
But there's the kind of things you had to do in ad ops back then. You don't have to do that, you didn't have to do that then anymore. So with the lower traffic, you also have, you know, other lever is...
And that's being hit, right? And I think the big shoe to drop for monetizing page views is the, the cookie deprecation, right? Explain where, well, where we are with that.
I mean, obviously it's happening over incrementally. Google i- as this has been, like, a long striptease for Google with eliminating this in Chrome. Mm-hmm.
But explain, like, where we are with that, and I've seen some reports of the impact it's had so far. I don't know how directionally accurate they are. Yeah.
You made a jump though from, like, CPMs are down to it's the cookie's fault, and it's not just the cookie's fault. There are things coming for that, and there's macroeconomic factors- Okay, let's separate it out then.
Okay. 'Cause th- that is fair there, 'cause I think the economy broadly held up in 2023, but, like- Yeah... when the economy, when people start reading about a downturn, it doesn't matter, advertising gets cut.
I don't care how many times they run that op-ed in Ad Age. And that happened, and then on top of that, there's just... There's been a shift a- about where budgets are going.
It is not going to content publishers as far as I can see. [laughs] Correct.
So I think 2023, the forecast was, like, it was either '22 or '23, it was, like, minus seven or minus 11% investment in digital web, but plus 12 into search and plus something double digit into social channels.
So the total volume of marketing as, like, a GDP spend or whatever is going up a little bit, and that's encouraging to the holding companies and to economists.
But when you start parsing out where it goes, it's not going into the digital web. That's because walled gardens are getting better, and they're good, they are good places for marketers to spend your money.
So more is going into Google and going into search. More is going into Meta and Instagram, and more is going into TikTok, and which are the next publisher.
So the cookie, like, has a- Explain, explain for those who are not hip deep in, in this world why clean rooms are important.
Well, clean rooms are really important because they are helping brands transact on a data level.
The, the, from the retail media network side, they are becoming publishers themselves because they're representing inventory. Yeah. They're selling ads. They have a data product.
But what happens when, you know, a grocery store retailer runs out of space on their website?Are they gonna start creating content and trying to attract more users to read recipes on their site?
There will become a limit for retail media networks where they reach the end of their pond. So that's one area where they're gonna have a challenge.
The second one is they're still under the radar of the big Google and the big Amazon, and once they start trying to steal the real search budgets or really impeding on their normal business, you will see those two large monopolies move in on them and take their businesses back from them, or give them little nicks in the back of the Achilles heel.
But they're under those radars right now, and they're still in their honeymoon phase because they're only a year or two old.
They are driving revenue, but nobody's really done the ROI math or the longevity math or done the calculations of, well, what happens when we hit our first big challenge?
Traffic scale, advertising, people connect the dots of are we really driving results? Retail media network will-- hasn't been challenged yet, and they will be. Maybe not this year, probably next year.
But is it safe to say that has incrementally taken some share that would normally go to content publishers? I'd say that it did. It does. You know, there's a lot of the budget that never would have gone to them.
It might be a shifting of search and, you know, some of the performance budgets. But there's money that would, whether it's test budgets or, you know, affiliate revenue or even branding and awareness plays.
You're giving them somewhere else to spend that comes with these really fancy and productive, in my mind, data systems that are backed by clean rooms and great technologies like LiveRamp and Habu, which they just acquired, and the DMPs that support them.
But they're taking, they're definitely taking money from- Right... publishers. Like, they're growing. By the way, Amazon is the number one retail media network, and then it gets very small very fast. Right. Yeah.
So what- So that leaves us with the cookie What would then the other shoe to drop, the cookie. Yes. C- I just wanted to get to the cookie, Scott. Yeah, I know, man. You know I feel about it. Everybody wants to get there.
You gotta have little vegetables on the way, Brian. The first and the foremost of the cookie is only forty percent of the web is currently addressable when we talk about the open web.
Between Safari browsers taking roughly forty to fifty percent share of the market, that's, that has no cookies in it. Incognito browsers can't use the data, that's restricted.
And then you also have, um, Chrome on iOS devices. You're like, "It's Chrome, that's gotta be great." Actually, you're running Chrome in an Apple WebKit, and so you have to abide by the Apple rules.
So Chrome on iOS doesn't have cookies either.
And so all that's left, I've looked at a bunch of different publishers, and we run the analysis, only about forty to fifty percent, usually forty to forty-five percent of your audience is addressable on a cookie basis today, and it's been that way for a couple years.
So- Mm-hmm... most of the damage has already been done when you talk about it from a majority perspective. We do see CPM differences of about sixty percent. So if it's a dollar on Chrome- Oof...
it's forty cents on Safari or in incognito mode or in these browser modes because a lot of the internet's driven by retargeting and by data.
Ps have been built to find data, to either use it in for a triangulation basis or a pure targeting basis.
But if you don't have data, metadata about you, advertisers don't know who you are, even though you might be a very highly valuable user or in market for something.
And for marketers who only have been targeting on cookies for the last three years, they ignored every Safari dev- or every iOS device out there.
I've heard a marketer tell me that she didn't mind using cookies to target tech enthusiasts because her budget was scaling just fine on Chrome.
And I was like, "Well, what about all the tech enthusiasts that own iPhones?" And then, you know, they show you the door and, 'cause they don't wanna ask their client about it, and they don't wanna push on it.
So what's coming up is not the big part, but it's the remaining part. And we know how big the drop can be. And there's math that publishers can do, I'd love to help you out on that, of forecasting how much risk you have.
Some publishers have more or less risk based on a variety of attributes. But when the cookie goes away, it's not going down to zero like Safari did or to sixty percent down.
It's gonna come back in some ways because Google, Chrome specifically, actually cares about trying to make an internet that works for everybody, unlike Apple or Safari specifically. Yeah.
So they're replacing it with privacy sand- Well, Google says Google makes a lot of money. Google, look- Yeah... their capitalism is good for all of us. I mean, Google has an interest in this. In a few ways. Yeah.
[gentle music] But, you know, Google is facing its biggest challenge with, you know, AI search really.
And I think nobody knows how that is gonna pan out.
But when you add up all these things together, it's hard for me to see, like, an optimistic case, but I would love for you to make one, for the commercially viable open internet that you and I have known for a long time.
I mean, is, is, is this just ending? Uh, I feel like we're between eras, but I, I can't say for s-sure. It sure does look that way to me. Between eras is a good way to put it.
I don't think the internet dies, despite the, the drama that we may have. I don't think monetization dies. I am afraid that it may be drastically different.
We're hurtling towards this, like, world of authentication right now, where a user with that data has no valueSimilar to ad block users four or five years ago.
If an ad block user doesn't see ads, what's the value on your website? If you have a Safari user that sees very cheap CPM ads, what's the value on your website?
You'd rather hold them hostage for an authentication, get them to sign up for a newsletter, buy something from you, rather than wanting to show them ads. So there's a world where we're gonna just turn away invaluable...
Not invaluable, less valuable users.
And you're already seeing that happen between SSPs and DSPs with something called traffic shaping, where the SSPs and DSPs are either limiting what they're sending or limiting what they're listening to or receiving from the, from each side.
And that is having a major consequence on how publishers are able to monetize. And it's destroying the industry from the inside. It's a, it's an escalating world that is leading us to implosion.
Was that the optimistic take? [chuckles] This is not an optimistic take, Scott. No, I don't know. [laughs] This sounds terrible. Okay, let's go back and be optimistic about this. Is there a but? [chuckles] Yeah.
But ad tech survives, and martech survives. As long as- But ad tech is here to help. Thank God. [chuckles] Thank God. You know, marketers want to reach eyeballs. They want, and they want to measure it, right?
They wanna target and measure. And if you can show the ROI, you will get budget, right?
Tap ad, bless their hearts, a long time ago, created multi-touch attribution, or they didn't create it, but they proliferated it from saying that if somebody sees an ad on their mobile device, they'll make a purchase on their desktop because at that time, nobody was buying anything on mobile.
And so as soon as that attribution was able to be shown that advertising on mobile was important to a desktop conversion, the budgets started flowing harder into mobile web environments.
Eventually, the devices caught up and Shopify really pushed this forward, so now we can do transactions on mobile, so it's a little more one-to-one.
But what we need to really think about preserving is measurement because if marketers can't measure it, they won't spend it, and cookies played a very large role- Uh... in measurement. Yeah.
No, I think a lot of times the cookie discussion goes to targeting, but the measurement is just as important, if not more important, right? Absolutely. 'Cause what's the- Um... related- Only for D2C...
a related issue, yeah. But a related issue is around attention metrics. I think, you know, I hear lots more about attention metrics and like this industry loves to go from, like, thing to thing.
You know, just like a few years ago, it was all viewability, viewability, and then guess what?
Viewability apparently beget more problems [chuckles] that so you create another solution to the problems that were created by the last solution.
First of all, is, are attention metrics truly taking off in the marketplace? I'd say, I wouldn't say taking off, but they're definitely taking hold, and they're starting to weave their way in.
I don't doubt that attention is correlated with performance, right? If you're not paying attention to the ad, or if it's loading out of view, or it's unviewable, it probably performs worse.
But the devil's in the details of where do you set a threshold? How do you measure this multi-dimensional metric like attention? Viewability was kind of easy.
Is the ad in view or out of view of a certain number of pixels for a certain amount of time? The industry developed a standard. It became standard.
Group M had a different interpretation of the standard, which was challenging. But most everybody coalesced around standards of viewability. Will there be a standard of attention?
Like this ad, you know, will 70% be the threshold of attention? That means the vendors have to start agreeing on methods.
So before attention with a capital A takes off, you need to have multiple vendors providing comparable solutions.
So I think you're gonna see this fragmentation of solutions and then a consolidation of solutions coalescing around a single standard, and then it'll look more, it'll follow the pattern of viewability.
But attention's really an unfair metric for publishers because we don't know how it gets measured.
There's no standard for it, and the only way I know to get an attention metric is to license it from a vendor who's selling it to you.
So there's another, you know, 100 grand out of your pocket to license one of these platforms so that you can know how you're being evaluated and maybe optimize a campaign. That's an ad tech tax.
Yeah, there's, I mean, like all these, yeah, all these metrics are black boxes at the end of the day. It's unclear how attention is truly measured, right?
And look, I mean, with viewability, I think we saw how it was gamed at the end. Now it's about- Yeah... MFAs because the MFAs,
it seems to me a lot of them sprung up because they scored really well in viewability metrics. That's for sure. That was like their leading, that was their leading punchline.
Like high viewability, high completion rates, brand safe, all the things they wanted, but they didn't drive business outcomes.
[chuckles] I do take challenge, and Chris Kane has heard me say this- Yeah, it's just reverse engineering...
that like they may have driven awareness, but then if you look at their attention, it was probably low, and they probably didn't drive awareness. They only measure their transactional value of those ads in that study.
I don't refute the study. I'm just saying they, there was a part of advertising that wasn't considered. Right. Yeah. So you mentioned the ad tech tax. In your piece, you talk about a loss of, of media productivity.
I think that's a, a bit of a twist. I mean, there's a lot of focus goes into obviously this is a very complicated supply chain and-A lot of it is driven by data, as you said, and nothing is free in life.
And so publishers a lot of times complain about all the intermediaries, but in some ways they're adding a lot of value.
A lot of the intermediaries are adding a lot of the value in the transaction, and, and that's why their take is, is high. Explain the, explain the k- what goes into like a loss of media productivity.
So the loss of media productivity, it actually came from the ANA's programmatic media supply chain transparency study, and that was a term that they- Yeah... came up with.
But if you look at the waterfall of costs as it goes through the chain, on the beginning side, there's the transactional cost of SSPs and DSP fees and data targeting fees.
But then once a, an impression gets delivered onto a publisher page, there's a bunch of other things that would devalue that impression for a marketer.
And so specifically from the ANA study, first there's viewability, and then there's IVT, there's non-measurable impressions, there's impressions that are just purely wasted on MFA sites.
And then you get to the final number, which is the true ad spend. By the way, IVT is, is, is invalid traffic, right? Invalid traffic. It could be sophisticated invalid traffic or- Yeah...
general invalid traffic, which is- I'm not sure why V is in that acronym, but- You're correct, because IT would've gotten too much. I use TRV. It's okay. I'm not... Very good.
So from a, from, for those listening at home and not looking at the chart, when you go from $1,000 of total ad spend in the ANA report, sellers get $710. So that's 29% makes it through to the publisher.
But then you go from $710 down to $360 of true ad spend, as they call it. So really they're, the ANA is saying that only 36% of your ads are effective or like, or no, that's not it.
Like you spent, you should have only spent 360 bucks. Like that's all you really bought of working media. Yeah.
So I think you're gonna see DSPs and mid- middlemen and ad tech vendors like really approach this part of the conversation of like, "We're here to solve IVT," or, "We're here to solve MFA. We're going to do avoidance."
Because the, the left side of the graph where it's transactional costs are kind of fixed. DSPs take their fixed percentage, SSPs take that.
So when you're talking about helping marketers, you're solving for the, the soft side of the equation and recovering- Yeah... you're trying to reduce the, the lump, if you will, loss of media productivity. Yeah.
So there's obviously a ton of different types of publishers, right?
But if you, if you could avoid it, like wha-- I, I often hear from publishers, obviously most publishers claim they're premium, but like premium publishers, they're running away from this.
Like if they could be less exposed to this part of the media world, they would be. Like when I go around the table, I'm like, "What are you optimistic about?" More publishers are saying events.
Like nobody is saying programmatic advertising. Like I, I just don't hear it. Maybe I'm talking, I'm not talking to arbit publishers and stuff like this. I just don't hear it.
And this is a business that, look, a lot of the industry was built around digital advertising. I just don't see that as the foundation going forward for a lot of publishers that are starting out now. I just...
Yeah, you look at what's go- if you compare, so let's say the messenger to more successful launches that took place, whether it was a Punchbowl or even a Puck and Semaphore, totally different models.
And like, to me, the Semaphore model was very much a tra- or Semaphore, the, the messenger model, very much a traffic model.
Very much about like h- we're gonna use a lot of different ways to get people to a website, and then we're gonna be really good at monetizing through programmatic and stuff like this.
The results speak for themselves, at least from what I've read. Won't most publishers just try to get a- as far away from this as possible? Yes, but not everyone is able to. If they can. Yeah. Not everyone's able to.
Okay. The, the niche verticals and like the niche areas of the internet will do better because you have passionate fans, and you need a smaller base to sustain yourself.
The, the general interest areas are already commoditized. They have a number of competitors.
It's really hard for them to differentiate themselves, not only from brands who are buying them, but also from consumers who are reading them.
And you don't have social traffic anymore to help you out, so that's like one less performance area for you.
And if you wanna do it in the new social platforms, TikTok, Snap, Instagram, you can't drive traffic from them, and they don't really have like ad networks where you can monetize from them.
So you're doing it for, at worst, posterity stake, and at best, for building credibility or brand building and trying to get that audience, and then you have to pull the cash lever on them somehow.
It's exit through the gift shop, and you're just building paths to the gift shop, and if somebody leaves your site or your universe without going through the gift shop, it's not worth keeping that path open.
So yeah, do events, do newsletters, do anything you can to be less reliant on traffic because it's super unstable right now.
Be less reliant on the open auction because it's super uncertain which way that crumbles, and do more direct sales and take control of your future. But those are like the hardest things to do. Mm. Yeah.
It's not an easy business. So if you add it all up, it just seems like there's gonna be fewer publishers that are able to...
I don't mean to be like a bummer, but I just don't understand how when you add all of these factors up, how you don't come to the conclusion that there are going to be fewer publishers that are commercially viable.Out there.
I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing, but I just don't th- I don't see- It's a bad thing... I don't see necessarily how all of this adds up to, to, to a path for growth. It's a bad thing. Right.
The loss of publishers, 'cause it's not just gonna be- It is a bad thing... it's not just gonna be entertainment celebrity sites that die, it's gonna be journalism as well. It's gonna be your favorite sports site.
Yeah, well we're already seeing this. All the things that we... We're, we're seeing this, uh, there's, I don't know, there was 20,000 some, like, layoffs last year.
I mean, the layoffs keep coming, and unfortunately I think they're gonna continue. And- Be optimistic about it, Brian... I don't know, it's gonna continue to be a hard business. We need to find solutions. Yes.
And we need to find ways to help things, which is why having these dialogues are really important.
There was a great article yesterday from Sara Slus in AdExchanger about traffic shaping and the impacts of it from the buy side, the sell side, from minority-owned publishers and how that's impacting the industry.
And everyone needs to take a good, long, hard look at that- Mm-hmm... and see what this arms race is doing to us. There's other areas like curation that's gonna become really important.
Contextual is a really big battleground for how publishers can survive.
There's, there's still, like, many wars and battles to be fought where publishers can reclaim some power in the, the struggle or the balance of leverage with the buy side.
[gentle music] But I mean, like you said, like, you know, data is in the driver's seat, right?
And to me, there are a few candidates for the original sin of digital publishing, but my top one is the separation of the audience data from the media impression because it automatic- that commoditized context at the end of the day.
And I remember it was put to me, it was that the industry was basically, you know, find a cookie, hit a cookie at the end, and that's what it was.
Now, I think there's hope for a return to context as a valuable signal, but [laughs] I don't know if it's a v- I don't know if in many cases it is the most valuable signal.
To me it's all of these things happening and I'm like, I don't see how content publishers can possibly compete with platforms as far as finding a specific person for a specific product.
I just don't see that as a good place to be competitive. I think they can be competitive, but buy side has a lot of these tools already. They don't necessarily need or want the publisher's version of it.
Context is not doomed. I was just speaking with my friend Lila about that today. It's not doomed. Context is very important, and the right ad in the right place is extremely important.
Context runs through all of these platforms, and it goes through services like IAS, DoubleVerify, GrapeShot, GumGum, Iris.tv. They're all providing taxonomies to buyers. They have scraped the web.
They have taken this information from publishers. It's legal, I get it, but they have ingested this information, and context runs through everything. It is one of the biggest triangulation points of success for a DSP.
So when we do talk about the cookie going away, it's not everything. Context will still be there, but publishers make a lot less money from context when they don't get to use it in their side of the equation.
It just gets tacked on to, like, a, you know, a SaaS fee inside a DSP, or maybe it's included for free. But when a publisher can do it- Mm...
they can drive private marketplace deals, they can do better insights, they can run better direct deals, they can improve performance.
So some of it's on the publisher for not doing a good enough job organizing their own contextual data, and some of it is on publishers as a whole for not creating a better standard system that buyers can buy into wholesale.
And then some of it's on buyers for not really caring where or how they got their context, as long as they could just push a button and it worked. Yeah.
I kinda think there's not enough focus placed on the buy side to some degree about a lot of the issues that we're talking about, it seems like the only, the big, the constituency that can truly drive change is the buy side at the end of the day.
Absolutely.
You know, and publishers can complain constantly at a digiday town hall or whatever, but at the end of the day, it's the buy side, and the brands are being inducted into the halls of fame, and they're not really addressing these issues.
Yeah. Like, the problem, like, header bidding was created to thwart the buy side of Google, and what they were doing, you know, preventing us from other demand.
And then bid duplication was created because of the downward pressure on pricing from DSPs, and their inability to be able to differentiate from two bids, and that started pushing prices up.
A publisher's job is to drive yield and get more value for their, a single impression, and we have very few tools to do it.
We're like little tiny villagers with sticks and stones, and the DSPs are like the T-1000 from Terminator 2. They introduce, like- Yeah...
dynamic, dynamic flooring strategies which we're, which means that you're sending out different floor prices for the same impression to different SSPs based on algorithmic modeling on where the algorithm thinks you can extract more value from a DSP.
Because DSPs and their bid shading algorithms are looking at where you can get the cheapest impressionAnd then buying that.
So when dynamic bid sheet, when dynamic flooring was introduced, that's when The Trade Desk came out and said, "We're gonna start passing bid data below the floors."
And they-- That was like their shot back across the bow, and you don't hear about it as much.
But as long as buyers keep pushing down on pricing and keep slimming down what they're buying, publishers will continue to find ways to sell them stuff. And now bid enrichment is really, like, the front of that.
It's a new acronym for you every month. Wait, explain bid enrichment [chuckles]. I don't even know bid enrichment. Yeah. Bid enrichment- I could let it go, but I was like, eh, I got a thought. Oh no, this is a great one.
So bid enrichment is something that's been happening for a long time, and usually it was at the SSP level or potentially the DSP level where before you passed- I can tell by the term, let me just make a prediction. Yeah.
Because the term is very, like, nice.
It's like, oh, this sounds great, it's like it's definitely gotta be something kinda sketchy because it's [chuckles] like, it sounds like the kind of, you know, sort of nice wrapper someone would put on something that's kinda sketchy.
But go on. I could be wrong. Yeah. Well, there are also words called like bid washing and bid laundering that are kinda, like, gonna come up, so- That sounds- You're, you're heading in the right direction...
that probably sounds the worst [chuckles]. Bid enrichment is not bad in itself, and it's something that happens in a lot of places for a lot of good reasons, and a lot of expected and anticipated reasons.
In, in, in short, it's anything where an intermediary or the publisher themselves are adding information to the bid request to help the buyer or to make it more attractive.
In this particular instance, bid enrichment is moving from the SSPs or from the intermediary vendors down to the publishers, where it's happening on the publishers' pages.
And before the, the ads are called, there's a probabilistic match that is made to the user that calls to the identity graph in the cloud and brings back all known identities related to that user.
Those could be deterministic IDs that are in the cloud and in the graph, but it was a probabilistic match that brought them down to the publisher page.
And then those IDs make their way into the bid request, and there's some more technical parts we can get into, but I'll save you that for now.
And they get into the bid request, and they go to the buyers, and the buyers don't know if it was something that came through a probabilistic match or if it was a naturally browser-derived ID, which is what they were expecting.
And nobody's really said whether it's good or bad for campaigns, but it's not what they're expecting, and that's a challenge.
So as this enrichment is happening, buyers are seeing, or sellers are seeing real lift in Safari auctions because buyers are now all of a sudden getting IDs where they didn't.
And they're like, "We like users with IDs," and they start buying them. So you see a lift, and that's good stuff. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
So final thing is I wanna learn more about, like, you talk about curation houses, like, having a moment. Explain what you mean by them. Sure.
So in my mind, a curation house is a service that is representing publisher inventory and adding value to it, and helping package and sell that inventory to the buy side.
Some of the natural characteristics are having a data offering, a rich media offering, and having a sales team in market to get insertion orders.
So it's not just programmatic reselling of ads, and it's not just vanilla flavor bid enrichment, but somebody has, like, a really nice way of packaging and presenting this inventory to the buyers, and they're in market marketing that offering.
So my favorite example, and I think the most classic, is Cargo. They have been great for publishers. Mm-hmm. They built a, a wonderful ad network of publishers. They have creative rich media services.
They've built incredible data offerings, and they have a tremendous sales team in market winning premium priced insertion orders that they then run on their publisher sites.
And that s- company has grown to do this in many other areas.
And now we're seeing more companies look like curation, where you're helping publishers sell, and you're not devaluing their inventory, you're not doing it on a tonnage basis.
It's fairly transparent, and that's what publishers need because individual scale doesn't get it done anymore. Yeah.
I'm, like, laughing 'cause we came, like, all this way, and, like, in your last answer you were talking about, so I'm like, all this stuff just to put a display ad, like, on, like, The Washington Post, like, website?
Amazing. And then you sort of come back to it, it's like, well, the future is like, looks like the ad networks of the past a little bit [chuckles]. They got better tools but, like, you know.
I think a lot of times we sort of get ahead of ourselves with like, "Oh, this is like the NASDAQ.
It's super sophisticated" and stuff, but when you come down to a publisher, it's like, you know, it's kind of basic black, blocking and tackling can get a long w- can go a long way.
And I think those businesses probably a bunch of years ago people would say, "Oh, that's kind of the past," but not really. Yeah.
So ask your-- Like, when I ask, like, "Is that a ad tech tax or is it a cost of doing business?" Most people will say it's a cost of doing business because you don't have to do it or you can get rid of it.
But the truth is, we've engineered ourself into this complicated world where you have to do it. You have to pay for fraud verification. You have to pay for targeting. You have to do all these things.
But it's because we've complicated everything, and you nece- don't necessarily know how it's helping your campaign or exactly how this extra money you're spending and the loss of media productivity on the transaction side is improving your campaign, and that's a hallmark of a tax.
If you don't know, if you're paying it and you don't know why, and you don't know what it's going to, that's a tax. And so- Yeah... we need to get rid of everything. Okay.
So, so yeah, so final thing is, like, if we're doing this at the end of the year, what is something that we will be looking back and say, "Hey, we should've been optimistic about this"?
Like, what is gonna be something that from a publisher point of view is going to happen this year that we can be optimistic about?The things we're optimistic about is that publishers are gonna get lucky.
We're gonna get lucky in some ways, and so there's gonna be some breakthroughs, and that hopefully there's dialogue into the marketplace. I think publishers need Privacy Sandbox to be successful.
Now, that comes with a large bag of conundrums that I don't know if those are good or bad or not, but we need more help solving things. You know, there's a, a new study out about the rebranding of news.
Like, we gotta stop hurting ourselves. I forget what the stat is, but it's like seventy percent of buyers say that they support journalism, and they want it to live. Yeah.
But also seventy percent of buyers have, like, over-restrictive keyword blocking. So what they're saying and what they're doing don't match yet. I'm optimistic that we can work through a bunch of that.
Like, that's our eternal optimism, is that maybe somebody will listen to us, and we can all put down- Yeah... our guns and n- our programmatic guns and knives and get to working together. Yeah.
I mean, the block lists are insane. Like, I mean, just the fact that when we're talking about the sophistication of a lot [chuckles] of this ecosystem, when buyers are just saying, "Keep me away from this word."
Like, it's just, it's insane that's happening in twenty twenty-four.
It just-- I mean, it's not like i- if they were doing something a little bit more sophisticated to block me, I would sort of be a little bit more understanding of it, but this just seems like lazy CYA behavior to me.
It doesn't even seem effective. Big CYA behavior. All right. All right, so some things won't change in twenty twenty-four, one of which is big CYA energy is gonna still be [chuckles] alive and well. I like that one.
Yeah, you can bet on that. All right. Okay, Scott, this was fun. Appreciate you doing this. It was a great conversation. Thank you for having me here, Brian. Always wanted to show up. Always love working with you.
Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for listening. Thank you to Jay Sparks for producing the Rebooting show. If you have a podcast that you're considering making, you should check out Podhelp us and what Jay can do for you.
Go to podhelp.us.
[outro jingle]