I’m amazed that a senior executive at a major ad company like The Rubicon Project would write something like this (in their Q3 update):
“Many of these platforms ultimately value all inventory equally, from the New York Times or Sports Illustrated, to a niche WordPress sports blog,” [JT] Batson [,Rubicon’s EVP of Revenue and Global Development] said. “And for certain ads, that is OK. But publishers correctly argue that a reader seeing an ad against the trusted brand of a well-known site is more valuable than a reader seeing the ad on a site they don’t fully trust.”
Referencing the “agency-backed buying platforms” which presumably encompasses all demand-side aggregators. Any company on the demand side of the display ad business (agency-backed or not) that does value all inventory equally is surely going to fail. Having a set of well-known branded sites in a campaign is certainly going to create more confidence for brand-sensitive advertisers, but that is of course one of many determinants of the value of inventory. Audience, position on page, user frequency, number of other ads on the page — these are all certainly factors in valuing ad inventory.
As I mentioned on CPMa’s blog recently, some very well-known publisher brands appear to be giving themselves liberally to anyone with an ad to show. Those in our business who have real technology and a real understanding of media know that the way we make this business work is to get past the irrational, emotional responses that “nobody cares about my brand” and bring data to the table to support our suppositions.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
7 Responses for "Wrong-headed Thinking about Publisher Inventory"
Hi Rob– thanks for your comment on our market report.
I agree with you– and certainly not all demand side platforms are the same. And over time, I would imagine many if not most would have the ability to distinguish all the different characteristics you reference. But with how most dollars are being transacted today, loss of brand value is something publishers should be concerned about.
I am a huge fan of bringing technology and automation to this space — and of publishers embracing third party technology and channel partners to help them connect to profitable dollars. We are still in the early days here– I imagine lots more innovation to come.
Good stuff!
JT
The real truth is that if Rubicon had any real technology they could support RTB. But because they don't, they have to run from it and fearmonger. Get real. RTB is nascent but eventually will power a meaningful (certainly not all) portion of indirect display advertising.
Jason, you are absolutely correct! Although I question the long term viability of the Demand Side networks, you are right in Rubicon's flaws
While your comment is misinformed, I think the larger point is that there are tons of people talking about the benefits of more automated ways of buying for advertisers, there is no one actually helping the publisher. We see that as our job.
This is what premium publishers tell us— they are worried that in a rush to chase after new sources of (still small) dollars, publishers put themselves in a position that hurts their business long term. RTB and other 3rd party platforms generally make sense for publishers, but they want the controls to manage all aspects of their business properly.
We’re always happy to talk with anyone in more detail about our technology, in fact it’s something we spent a fair amount of time doing at ad:tech NY. To learn more about our optimization technology, for example, visit http://www.rubiconproject.com/blog/rubicon/2009…
Jason, you are absolutely correct! Although I question the long term viability of the Demand Side networks, you are right in Rubicon's flaws
While your comment is misinformed, I think the larger point is that there are tons of people talking about the benefits of more automated ways of buying for advertisers, there is no one actually helping the publisher. We see that as our job.
This is what premium publishers tell us— they are worried that in a rush to chase after new sources of (still small) dollars, publishers put themselves in a position that hurts their business long term. RTB and other 3rd party platforms generally make sense for publishers, but they want the controls to manage all aspects of their business properly.
We’re always happy to talk with anyone in more detail about our technology, in fact it’s something we spent a fair amount of time doing at ad:tech NY. To learn more about our optimization technology, for example, visit http://www.rubiconproject.com/…
[...] CPM Advisors CEO Rob Leathern takes a critical look at a recent Rubicon Project report on his Zeronomy blog. In addressing how publishers manage their inventory today, Leathern writes, “Some very well-known publisher brands appear to be giving themselves liberally to anyone with an ad to show.” Read it. [...]
Leave a reply