This recent political season has been full of twists and turns, and that doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon. We’re all looking for ways to contextualize this presidential election cycle to keep our heads wrapped around what’s happening. 

A recent analysis by GumGum sheds light on how the media portrays Vice President Kamala Harris and Former President Donald Trump in political discourse. Utilizing their advanced contextual advertising tool, GumGum examined over 5 million pages of political content from late July to uncover trends in media coverage and sentiment. 

The findings reveal a significant disparity between mentions and sentiment: the media mentioned Donald Trump more than 1.7 million times, while Kamala Harris was mentioned around 1.36 million times. Notably, Kamala Harris’s media presence surged by 388% on the day of her candidacy announcement.

We chatted with Hailey Denenberg, VP of Strategic Initiatives, Data at GumGum, to explore these findings and how contextual advertising can help political advertising campaigns.

Leveraging Contextual Analysis for Political Campaigns

Andrew Byrd: Why did GumGum decide to conduct this study? What were your goals, especially in relation to your contextual tool?

Hailey Denenberg: Our contextual technology, developed over the past 15-16 years, uses computer vision and natural language processing to understand content as a human would. With the upcoming political campaign, we wanted to leverage this technology to track trends over time.

Given our extensive programmatic integrations with large platforms like DSPs and SSPs, we have a vast amount of classified content at our disposal. Following Kamala’s presidential announcement, we found it particularly interesting to analyze how the open web and editorial content discussed Kamala versus Trump over the last two weeks in July. We focused on mentions and sentiment, aiming to understand how each candidate is perceived and discussed in content.

Understanding how different editorial voices and platforms perceive and talk about each candidate, especially in terms of sentiment, provides valuable insights into the broader public discourse. Our goal was to use this analysis to uncover trends and patterns in how content about these candidates is produced and consumed, ultimately offering a deeper understanding of the political environment through the lens of digital content.

AB: The upcoming election is full of unexpected developments, especially after Kamala’s recent announcement and the campaign’s strategic execution. Given this dynamic, can you explain how contextual analysis helps understand political coverage?

HD:  Contextual analysis has many applications, especially in presidential campaigns. Advertisers should stay updated on how content is trending, positively or negatively. Think of it as playing offense and defense. For instance, if mentions of Kamala’s opponent, Trump, spike negatively, her campaign can play offense by surrounding that content with positive messaging about Kamala.

On the other hand, they might want to avoid any negative mentions of Kamala to keep the messaging streamlined, which is more of a defensive strategy. Understanding these content trends as different announcements unfold allows campaigns to use advanced contextual targeting. They can target all positive or negative content that mentions specific candidates, leveraging this analysis to shape their messaging effectively.

AB: How can publishers benefit from these technologies?

HD:  Yes, publishers can significantly benefit from contextual technologies. For example, news publishers can strategically package their inventory by grouping positive political news and offering it to brands comfortable with political content but wanting to avoid association with sensitive issues like abortion or immigration. This allows them to monetize content that aligns with the advertiser’s brand safety requirements.

Advanced contextual technologies not only understand the sentiment of the content but can also identify and filter out specific sensitive topics that an advertiser may want to avoid. This capability is crucial for maintaining brand safety while still allowing advertisers to participate in positive, relevant conversations.

Addressing Brand Safety Concerns

AB: At our last conference, there was a significant discussion about brand safety. Advertisers naturally want to avoid being associated with certain content, but publishers face revenue challenges due to these restrictions. How does GumGum approach brand safety, especially in contextual advertising?

HD:  Brand safety has become even more critical recently, especially with the news around the dissolution of VM and GARM. While we align with the GARM framework, we’ve also developed our custom threat categories beyond the usual “Dirty Dozen” like violence.

This is important because while positive contextual targeting aligns with preferred categories, there’s a strong demand for blocking or negatively targeting specific categories. Where GumGum stands out is in video analysis. For instance, in political advertising, which is huge for TV and CTV, most providers struggle to analyze what’s happening within the video content. 

However, our advanced video contextual technology allows us to explore the complete audio transcription and perform scene-by-scene or frame-by-frame analysis. This helps us determine what parts of the video are brand-safe or suitable according to our established threat levels, ensuring more precise targeting and reducing over-blocking.

Reaching the Right Audience and Environment

AB: How does contextual advertising help political ads reach the right audience in the right environment?

HD: At GumGum, we focus on placing ads where they are most relevant, using a deep understanding of content. For example, if someone is reading an article about the election and sees an ad with positive messaging about a candidate like Trump, it aligns with what they’re already thinking about. 

This increases the ad’s effectiveness, especially when combined with geo-targeting in swing states. It’s all about reaching consumers at the moment they’re considering a topic, which can influence their actions.

AB: Does your approach to contextual advertising change depending on whether it’s on mobile, desktop, or other platforms? Or is there generally much overlap?

HD: Generally, there’s significant overlap, as reaching the consumer in the right mindset is often based on the content itself, which tends to be consistent across devices like mobile and desktop. However, attention models can vary depending on the environment. We have different panels for mobile and desktop, and we’re beginning to explore video. While I don’t have definitive data yet, it will be interesting to see if there are differences in optimal attention times across these environments.

AB: What final advice would you give to advertisers and publishers considering political advertising and contextual targeting?

HD: I advise them to gather as much data and insights as possible from various sources. This will help you uncover unconventional ways to position your brand or supply. Instead of sticking to obvious choices, explore new audience segments. For instance, while Nike might seem like a fit for sports content, insights might reveal it’s also popular in Home and Garden content due to a current trend. By broadening your perspective, you can enhance your targeting strategy and reach new audiences more effectively.

The post How Contextual Analysis Shapes Political Campaigns: Insights from GumGum’s Hailey Denenberg appeared first on AdMonsters.

For as long as retailers have existed, they have sought ways to monetize the audience they bring to suppliers. From end caps to circulars, retailers have been a pervasive, but understated, media partner to brands of all sizes. 

But nothing in history has the scope and potential of retail media–the process of selling inventory on their websites, and other owned channels, to brands. 

It’s quickly becoming a huge market for advertisers, reaching $46B of ad spend in 2023. That is significantly higher than CTV, which was estimated at $25B. It is also expected to reach $100B by 2026. 

While some might consider retail media a performance marketing channel, Upwave data busts that myth, showing it is also a brand-building powerhouse.

Upwave’s recent analysis of over 500 retail media campaigns, spanning 300+ brands, found that 96% of campaigns had a positive lift on at least one brand KPI, 87% of campaigns had at least one brand KPI that was above Upwave Norms, and 18.8% of campaigns exceeded Upwave Norms for all brand KPIs.

The Rise of Retail Media

As with other eCommerce advancements, Amazon deserves credit for building the modern retail media network environment. Once Amazon became the online store for virtually everything, they realized millions of people were coming by daily to buy a variety of things. Amazon could sell space on its various product and category webpages to companies looking to influence those visitors. That first-mover advantage has paid off. Over 75% of the current US Retail Media investment is spent on Amazon advertising. Walmart is second, via its advertising solutions division, Walmart Connect.

There’s a simple reason why so many retailers are joining the ranks of retail media: the channel can produce margins of up to 90%, according to the Boston Consulting Group. We’ve even heard that it’s not hyperbole to suggest retailers would gladly do away with selling goods if they could just make the same amount of money in the media. 

Now, brands as diverse as Uber, Sephora, Sam’s Club, and Best Buy all have their retail media networks.

Unsurprisingly, performance marketers have flocked to retail media as a way to monetize that audience immediately. And, sure, it makes perfect sense that people browsing a retailer’s website are considered to be in the market to buy now.

However, retail media is a huge opportunity for brand building, one not nearly enough companies are taking advantage of. That means industry watchers are potentially even underestimating the future revenue opportunities from retail media.

Here’s why.

• The massive first-party data retailers are sitting on. It’s no coincidence that retail media is at the top of the minds of all advertisers at a time when cookies are going away. Retailers are better equipped than almost anyone else to offer targeting capabilities to advertisers and their agencies. They have a plethora of data on hand about households, such as if they have kids. For example, a car manufacturer can more accurately advertise its suite of cars to the right buyers (e.g. a minivan to those with multiple children).

• Not everyone on those websites is in the market to buy. It’s hard to track down specific stats for how many people visit a website without adding something to their shopping cart but the overwhelming majority of visitors do not purchase at the time of visiting. Sometimes people are browsing and not looking for something specific. Even those looking to make a purchase could be stopped in their tracks by a brand-building ad regardless. 

• Non-endemic ads performed as well, if not better than endemic ones. Another myth busted for this channel, Upwave’s study found that advertisements featuring products not for sale on retail media sites outperformed those that you could buy in several key areas, including ad recall, consideration, and purchase intent. One reason is the ad stands out as unique amid dozens of product listings. For example, an ad for insurance may be more noticeable among kitchen staples on a grocery store website. 

• Its reach extends beyond the retail domain. Amazon has Prime, a video platform increasingly winning high-profile deals like NFL broadcasts and producing large-budget shows like Lord of the Rings. Walmart has agreed to acquire Vizio, a manufacturer of smart TVs. Rakuten purchased eBook company Kobo. That’s in addition to their ability to place ads on third-party sites they don’t own. Retailers and eTailers alike are looking to expand their reach as far as possible, given the data advantage they have on many other websites. Retail media offers much more than on-site placements because they can better validate those audiences.

• A strong trust factor. Individuals browsing their favorite retail websites, apps, or streaming from retailer-owned platforms, are likely to trust those who run ads on the site. A 2024 eMarketer study found consumers trusted ads on retail sites almost double that of social media or third-party marketplaces. Furthermore, slightly over 50% of respondents were more likely to buy items and try out a new brand they hadn’t purchased before if a retailer advertised them. This is especially important for newer brands looking to build up their name recognition and trust. Our study found retail media tied with online video as driving the most consideration against all other mediums. Frequent shoppers of a particular website could learn about a brand one day through a well-placed ad intended to drive consideration, and then return days or weeks later to make a purchase.

Now is the time for brand marketers to reevaluate their channel mix and take another look at this medium. By understanding that brand-building is a possibility in retail media it opens up the category for more growth than what is being predicted. All of our data demonstrates it’s a huge opportunity for brands looking to impact consumer behavior along the mid-lower brand funnel. Now is the time for brand builders to embrace the opportunity before the rest catch on.

The post Retail Media: As Important for Brand Builders as Performance Marketers appeared first on AdMonsters.

Identity resolution has become a Rubik’s Cube that everyone’s trying to solve.  

At AdMonsters Publisher Forum Boston, we got a front-row seat to the latest strategies and challenges in this space, thanks to a lively session with Christine Lee, Director of Data Partnerships at Fandom, and Tamir Shub, VP of Business Development at Intent IQ.

Addressability Meets Privacy: The New Balancing Act

Let’s face it: the identity game is rigged. Publishers are caught between the rock of addressability and the hard place of privacy. Lee laid it out clearly — Fandom, the world’s largest fan platform, is navigating a minefield of fragmented regulations and inconsistent user behaviors across devices and browsers. Think of it as trying to juggle on a tightrope while the wind’s picking up speed.

“We’re dealing with different browser types — Apple’s ATT, Firefox, Chrome, Safari — and each has its own set of rules,” Lee explained. She added, “It’s like trying to juggle different user behaviors across desktop, mobile, and mobile web while keeping an eye on the privacy landscape, which is extremely fragmented, not just globally but even within the U.S.”

Whether it’s Apple’s ATT or the ever-shifting sands of state-level privacy laws, Fandom is testing identity solutions to find that sweet spot where addressability meets privacy without losing sight of either.

Fandom’s Secret Sauce: Testing, Testing, and More Testing

But, with over 100 ID solutions on the market, not all options are worth your time. As Lee pointed out, “We’ve leaned into testing a variety of ID solutions in the space, including Google initiatives, Amazon initiatives, and our partnership with Intent IQ. But it’s difficult to compare apples to apples because every vendor has a different methodology.” The real challenge is figuring out which ones move the needle.

Fandom has actively experimented with many ID solutions, but they’re not just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. The key is to be selective — testing the ones that make the most sense for their audience and business goals.

By working with Intent IQ, Fandom saw revenue uplifts from 55% to a whopping 140% across different properties, proving that the right approach can help publishers thrive in this new identity landscape. But it’s not just about the numbers. Lee emphasized the importance of comparing these results side-by-side with traditional methods — a task easier said than done. Still, Fandom’s commitment to rigorous, strategic testing sets them apart from the pack.

Identity Graphs: The Backbone or the Achilles’ Heel?

If identity resolution is a puzzle, then identity graphs are the pieces that need to fit together perfectly. But, as Shub pointed out, not all graphs are created equal. The crux of the issue? Accuracy. Without frequent updates and a reliable truth set, you might as well be hiking with a faulty compass.

“Identity solution infrastructure is founded on its identity graph. But the accuracy is only as good as the graph and the data it uses,” Shub stated. “Without frequent updates, the data becomes irrelevant and misleading. That’s why refresh rates are critical.”

And let’s be honest: no one knows what a post-cookie world will look like. We’re all betting on a hypothesis. The regulatory landscape is murky, platform decisions are unpredictable, and consumer sentiment is a moving target. In this climate of uncertainty, it’s easy to get swept up in solutions that might not hold up under scrutiny.

There’s an urgent need for a standardized way to validate these graphs because trusting data without validation is like betting on a rigged horse race. It’s a gamble, and not one publisher can afford to lose. As Shub pointed out, “Currently, there’s no tool available that can validate data accuracy on a household level ID or person level ID.”

ID Bridging: A Savior or a Mirage?

With the deprecation of third-party cookies looming like a storm cloud, ID bridging has stepped into the spotlight. But as with any tech innovation, it comes with its share of controversy. Critics argue that ID bridging while promising, is fraught with transparency issues, potential fraud, and ever-present privacy concerns. Some in the industry see it as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound — helpful in the short term, but not the long-term solution we need.

ID Bridging is almost directly correlated to the impending demise of third-party cookies. While publishers and tech companies scramble to maintain addressability, there’s growing concern that with no universal standard, ID Bridging could create more problems than it solves. Shady practices, lack of transparency, and fragmented user data are just a few of the issues that put the buy side on edge.

Yet, this is where Intent IQ aims to stand out from the pack. Their technology is built with transparency and accuracy at its core. Beyond following the new IAB standards, the ad tech vendor sets a high bar for others to meet. By ensuring their identity graphs are refreshed every 48 hours and maintaining over 90% deterministic accuracy, they’re working to shut down skepticism and build trust on both the buy and sell sides.

The Buy-Side Perspective: Scaling the Heights with Alt IDs

While publishers are busy fine-tuning their strategies, the buy side faces another set of challenges. Shub gave us a peek into how agencies grapple with the scalability of alternative IDs. The promise is there, but the execution? Not quite hitting the mark — yet.

“Agencies report that alternative IDs didn’t generate the results they were hoping for,” Shub noted. “They’re saying the solution was promising but lacking scale. It’s not just about scale; it’s about having the expertise in identity — specifically.”

Intent IQ is working closely with agencies to overcome these hurdles, with successful campaigns already showing significant performance gains. “For example, we’ve delivered a successful campaign with Involved Media, leading to a 77% increase in leads for an education client,” Shub shared.

It’s a tough climb, but the right tools and partnerships are helping the buy side make headway.

Takeaways for Publishers: Test, Partner, and Evolve

The identity resolution space isn’t just evolving; it’s mutating at a breakneck pace. For publishers, the mantra is clear: test relentlessly, choose your partners wisely, and stay agile.

Lee’s advice? Don’t just look at the numbers—look at the whole stack, and make sure you’re not comparing apples to oranges. “Continue to test various solutions, and make sure when you measure, you’re looking at your entire stack, not just certain demand channels,” she emphasized.

And as Shub pointed out, identity solutions should work for everyone involved, creating a win-win situation for both publishers and advertisers. “Identity is sustainable as long as it works for both sides,” he concluded.

The post How Fandom Is Mastering the Art of Addressability and Privacy With an Assist From Intent IQ appeared first on AdMonsters.

In what could only be described as a Hail Mary pass, Google has agreed to cough up $250 million over five years to fund journalism and AI research in California. This deal was announced with much fanfare, and some might say a dash of self-congratulation. But before we start throwing confetti, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on here.

The Big (and Not So Big) Picture

On the surface, this deal looks like a lifeline for local journalism. California’s newsrooms have been on life support for years, hemorrhaging jobs and revenue as the digital era reshaped the media landscape. The fund, administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, promises to inject much-needed cash into these struggling institutions. 

It helps Google paint itself as the savior of the free press while avoiding a dreaded “link tax” that could have forced the tech giant to pay publishers for linking to their content. This brings to mind California’s Journalism Preservation Act, which proposed to make Big Tech pay for news.

But here’s the kicker: $250 million over five years sounds like a lot until you consider that Google’s ad empire rakes in over $200 billion annually. To put it bluntly, this deal is a drop in the ocean for Google — a PR move dressed up as corporate responsibility.

Why It Matters: The Real Cost of Free News

For years, publishers have watched in horror as their ad revenues dried up while Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) turned into digital juggernauts. The relationship between tech platforms and news publishers has always been lopsided. Publishers create the content that drives traffic, but the platforms get the lion’s share of the ad dollars. This new deal doesn’t change that dynamic; it merely delays the inevitable. 

The idea of a “link tax” has been gaining traction globally, with Australia and Canada leading the charge. In those countries, Google and Meta were initially resistant, but eventually, they caved — well, sort of. In Australia, Google opted to pay selected publishers, while Meta briefly blocked news altogether before returning to the table. In Canada, Google agreed to pay $74 million annually to keep news content in its search results, while Meta decided to go the nuclear route and block news links entirely. The global push for Big Tech to pay for news mirrors what’s happening in California.

Google’s deal with the state allows the tech behemoth to avoid the more stringent regulations that would have come with the now-shelved CJPA. The CJPA would have forced Google and other tech giants to hand percentages of their ad revenue over to news publishers. Instead, we get a voluntary fund that’s easier for Google to swallow and far less beneficial for the publishers who need it most. The CJPA could have significantly shifted the balance of power, much like similar legislation in other regions.

The AI Angle: A Trojan Horse?

Then there’s the $62.5 million earmarked for AI research. Let’s not kid ourselves — this deal might seem like a bonus, but it’s worth asking whether it is really about saving journalism. Could it be more about Google bolstering its AI capabilities under the guise of public good?  While the idea of using AI to solve “real world problems” sounds noble, including AI funding in this deal is more about securing Google’s future dominance than helping the news industry.

As Google continues refining its AI-driven search features — like its Search Generative Experience — publishers are experiencing a decrease in traffic from organic search results, directly impacting their revenue. The rise of AI in search is reshaping the landscape, with AI-powered engines like Perplexity.ai offering revenue-sharing models that starkly contrast Google’s approach. 

Google’s move to include AI in this deal is less about journalism and more about maintaining its dominance in the search market. As Scott Messer recently pointed out in his analysis of Google’s latest SEO shake-ups, Google is playing a different game altogether. The company is not optimizing for sending traffic to publishers; instead, it’s focusing on maximizing its ad revenues, often at the expense of the very content creators it claims to support.

Critics, including journalists and labor unions, have called out the deal for what it really is: a backroom agreement that benefits Google far more than it does the struggling newsrooms of California. The Media Guild of the West, representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona, and Texas, was notably excluded from the negotiations, leading them to denounce the agreement as a “shakedown.” This isn’t the first time Google has been suspected of using its financial might to navigate legislative pressures.

Connecting the Dots: What Publishers Need to Know

For publishers, this deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any funding is better than none, especially in an industry that’s been in a death spiral for years. On the other hand, this deal sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Google to dictate the terms of its support for journalism, California has effectively ceded control to a tech giant with little incentive to change the status quo.

Publishers should be wary of becoming too dependent on these kinds of deals. The digital landscape is shifting rapidly, and while Google’s money might keep some newsrooms afloat for now, it won’t fix the underlying issues that have led to the decline of local journalism. With AI companies like Perplexity.ai and OpenAI entering the scene with revenue-sharing models, publishers might need to start exploring these alternative sources of revenue to stay afloat — or, maybe not. The real solutions could lean more towards finding sustainable business models that don’t rely on the whims of Silicon Valley.

The Bottom Line: Google Wins Again

So, what’s the takeaway? Google has once again managed to sidestep regulation while presenting itself as a benefactor of the public good. The $250 million might help some newsrooms in the short term, but it does little to address long-term challenges. This deal is more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

As the dust settles, it’s clear that Google got the better end of this bargain. By agreeing to a voluntary fund, the tech giant has avoided the much larger financial obligations that would have come with the CJPA. Meanwhile, California’s newsrooms are left to grapple with an uncertain future, their fate still largely in the hands of the very platforms profiting from their decline. 

In the end, this deal is a stark reminder of the power imbalance between tech platforms and the news industry. Until that changes, we’re likely to see more deals like this — ones that look good on paper but ultimately fail to address the real issues at play.

The post Google’s $250 Million ‘Gift’ to California News – Is It Really a Gift or Just a Clever Tax Dodge? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google has had a tough few months.

First, they announced an abrupt about-face in their years-long initiative to remove third-party cookies from Chrome. Barely two weeks later, they were officially declared a Search monopoly by a federal court in one of the most consequential antitrust losses in decades (with another concurrent antitrust case about Google’s AdTech business still pending.) 

As the CTO of Upwave (a Brand Outcomes measurement startup) I’ve spent the last decade doing what everyone in AdTech has to do – navigate cautiously and quietly around Google, for fear of drawing their ire (or simply being toppled by their massive wake.) I have spent years participating in World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) discussions about Google’s Privacy Sandbox, and I’ve watched the cookie saga unfold with morbid fascination. 

One thing became clear very early in the W3C process – a small number of companies (particularly, but not exclusively Google) believed very deeply that they had both the power and the right to exercise pervasive control over the entire digital media and advertising industries. Now, it appears that Google may have finally found the limits of its influence: at the courthouse steps. 

But with or without third-party cookies, the web must go on. So where do we all go next?

The Privacy Paradox

The Privacy Sandbox initiative was Google’s attempt to reconcile irreconcilable objectives: overcoming Apple’s privacy counter-positioning, maintaining ad revenue primarily generated by capturing and applying comprehensive behavioral data about its billion+, and preserving a sufficiently healthy web ecosystem (since what’s the point of maintaining a search monopoly if searchers have nothing to find?) 

However, Google’s approach was fundamentally flawed in its overly simplistic view of privacy, focusing solely on eliminating cross-site tracking. This narrow definition sidestepped uncomfortable conversations about Google’s data collection and use, but also set an unrealistic bar for the Privacy Sandbox APIs by demanding they facilitate effective advertising while rendering cross-site data sharing technologically unfeasible.

Google put a smart, capable team in the Privacy Sandbox, but their mission was impossible from the start.

The Monopoly Question

The recent court ruling confirming Google’s monopoly in search underscores the company’s immense influence in shaping the digital landscape. Google’s control of the most widely used web browser means that its decisions about cookies and privacy reverberate throughout the advertising ecosystem. And Google’s “walled garden” approach to its many interlocking properties has allowed it to build an unassailable flywheel by tightly bundling its proprietary data, unique scaled inventory, and ad tech stack. 

The Privacy Sandbox initiative, despite its stated goals, has always seemed more about protecting Google’s flywheel than about safeguarding user privacy. And whether the ongoing antitrust trial focused on Google’s ad tech business finds that Google’s dominance of the plumbing of ad buying and serving rises to the level of a monopoly, there can be no doubt that the entire ad tech industry still operates in Google’s long shadow.

Forging a New Privacy Path

Google’s announcement that they won’t entirely remove 3rd party cookies doesn’t mean cookies are safe. Industry analysts anticipate Google will likely implement a consent mechanism similar to Apple’s “App Tracking Transparency,” effectively decimating cookie availability without outright eliminating them.

This scenario presents significant challenges:

1. The industry loses momentum in its efforts to move beyond outdated tracking methods.
2. The Privacy Sandbox initiative risks fading into irrelevance without the urgency of imminent cookie deprecation.
3. Uncertainty surrounding the open web’s future continues to accelerate ad spending shifts toward walled gardens, paradoxically giving a few tech giants even more panoptical views of user behavior.
4. Google may decide it has bigger problems than the long-term viability of the open web and simply retreat into its castle, leaving everyone outside its walls to pick up the pieces.

The digital advertising industry stands at a critical juncture. It’s evident that where privacy is concerned, both industry self-regulation and unilateral decisions by tech giants have fallen short. 

So what’s next? In a world where big tech can no longer set the rules, what’s needed instead is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort to develop pragmatic privacy standards, practices, and enforceable guidelines.

It’s time for an international coalition to unite regulators, industry representatives, academic experts, and consumer advocates. Their collective task should be to craft a flexible, adaptable privacy framework that embraces a comprehensive view of privacy, acknowledging its contextual nature and the intricate realities of data usage in today’s digital ecosystem.

In the interim, we must prepare for a transitional period where cookie effectiveness wanes, but no clear alternative emerges. Advertisers must explore and evaluate various strategies, including refining contextual targeting, exploring emerging privacy-preserving technologies, and learning to think like marketing economists.

Google’s privacy misstep, combined with its antitrust challenges, presents an opportunity for industry-wide recalibration. By fostering collaboration, diversifying our approaches, and constructively engaging with regulators, we can work towards building a truly user-centric, economically sustainable, privacy-respecting digital ecosystem.

Ultimately, we have no choice. Google and the Privacy Sandbox are not coming to save us.

The post What Happens When Google Can No Longer Set the Rules for the Web? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Publishers are all looking to level up their revenue and audience engagement, and in-game advertising is the power-up many have been looking for. 

The gaming industry has entertained all demographic types for quite some time and is now filled with opportunities for advertisers, marketers, and publishers. Comscore’s State of Gaming 2024 report reveals that 62% of adults are now actively engaged in video gaming, with a significant portion playing across multiple platforms. 

In-game advertising is gaining traction, with 45% of gamers showing openness to rewarded ads. This shift and the notable success of video game-themed movies at the box office reflect gaming’s deepening cultural impact. Brands that recognize the potential within this space can unlock new avenues for reaching a diverse and highly engaged audience.

Furthermore, the report emphasizes the unique advertising formats available within gaming, such as in-game product placements and livestream sponsorships. Amplified by the strong social connections nurtured through gaming, these options empower brands to forge meaningful connections with consumers.

What are the Demographics? 

The online gaming community continues to expand, encompassing millions of homes and devices across the United States. 40% of U.S. households are active on a gaming console within a month. 

Among adults aged 18 and older, 62% play video games, illustrating the widespread appeal of gaming today. Moreover, a significant portion of gamers — 77% to be exact — are engaging with more than one platform, whether PC, console, or mobile. 

This is a significant audience ripe for the picking. 

Millennials dominate online gaming, representing 49% of gamers, while Gen Z accounts for 13%, Gen X for 28%, and Baby Boomers for 11%. This diverse gaming population spans a wide variety of annual household income ranges, with 16% of gamers earning less than $24,999, 25% earning between $25,000 and $49,999, 20% earning between $50,000 and $74,999, 18% earning between $75,000 and $99,999, and 20% earning $100,000 or more. 

In layman’s terms, this is a significant amount of spending power to direct advertising campaigns.

New Gaming Formats, New Advertising Opportunities

Thanks to its unique formats and diverse ad types, gaming offers numerous opportunities for advertisers and marketers. These include in-game or product placement ads, rewarded advertisements, and livestreams, each providing distinct ways to engage with gamers.

Among gamers who have encountered product placement ads, 34% agree that these placements make the gaming experience feel more authentic. Additionally, 45% of gamers who have seen regular or pop-up ads agree that they don’t mind the ads if they receive rewards for watching them.

Nearly two-thirds of gamers say that advertisements positively or neutrally impact their gaming experience. Specifically, 64% of primarily PC gamers and 75% of both console and mobile gamers agree that ads don’t detract from their gaming experience.

And the reviews from consumers are:

Consumers are paying attention to these ads at a high rate, making attention metrics for a campaign more important than ever as publishers and advertisers work to improve audience engagement.   

For example, Tommy Hilfiger used in-game ads to showcase its latest designs to drive awareness among a new, untapped audience and generate buzz for their Classics Reborn Spring campaign. The results included a 14% lift in ad recall after exposure, a 20% in brand favorability, a 24% in brand recommendation, and a 23% lift in purchase intent.

Unlocking the Potential of In-Game Advertising: Targeting Multiplatform Gamers

If you are thinking, what next steps can I take to make sure you have the right strategy to level up your in-game advertising efforts, here is Comscore’s final advice:

Embrace Multiplatform Targeting: With 77% of gamers engaging across multiple devices and 40% playing on all available platforms, brands must leverage multiplatform strategies to maximize their reach and effectiveness.

Harness In-Game Advertising: The growing importance of in-game advertising offers advertisers a unique opportunity to achieve incremental reach that traditional methods may not deliver.

Optimize Reach and Engagement: By integrating in-game ads, brands can tap into the vast and diverse gaming audience, ensuring their messages are seen by users across various platforms and enhancing overall campaign performance.

The post Level Up Your Revenue With the Exploding Potential of In-Game Advertising for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

New platforms, data-driven targeting strategies, and cutting-edge measurement solutions are the lifeblood of the ad tech industry. However, as credit remains tight, payment terms from major advertisers have gotten longer — especially thanks to the growing SPO trend and more intermediaries going directly.

Unfortunately, longer payment cycles are becoming more common, threatening to stifle momentum and create additional cash constraints for companies powering the next era of ad tech.

Keurig Dr Pepper’s Controversial Move: A 360-Day Payment Term Shockwave

The most notable example came from Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP).

In 2023, the beverage giant requested extended payment terms (up to 360 days) from its agencies. The 360-day terms required agencies to wait up to a year to receive full payment, but they also offered low-cost financing so they could access funds sooner. Suppliers could self-fund the requirement or participate in KDP’s Supply Chain Financing Program with Prime Revenue (a capital solution).

As is usually the case, the closer to the advertiser a company is in the supply chain, the longer the payment terms. However, this was an unheard-of proposition in the advertising ecosystem. So much so that these terms were highlighted and passed around within the industry, gathering backlash from thought leaders and the media about the potential negative consequences and concern about the precedent it would set.

Theoretically, the extended payment terms could have created a significant ripple effect throughout the ad tech ecosystem – and it was an eye-opening moment for many.

Downstream Effects: Vendors and Agencies Struggle with Extended Payment Terms

When a brand like KDP demands longer payment terms, the burden falls on the vendor and inevitably trickles downstream to their supply partners. The vendor must pay upfront for ad space, media buys, and the technology fees associated with running the campaign.

Then, they extend terms to their vendors, albeit not usually commensurate with their terms, and raise rates or margins to offset the newly added costs they’ll incur. This upfront cost creates a severe cash flow strain for vendors and agencies, especially smaller or independent shops with limited access to capital compared to their larger competitors.

"The lack of liquidity makes them more dependent on cash flow and less likely to take risks they otherwise would have, severely limiting their growth potential and ultimately stifling momentum at a critical time."

With cash tied up and waiting for client payment, supply partners have less to invest in areas critical for long-term success. This is referred to as opportunity cost, or the cost of choosing one option over an alternative that may have a better yield. When resources are limited, this becomes a much more pressing quandary, and opportunities for growth, innovation, and other initiatives take a back seat.

Companies may be forced to make hard decisions, like making payroll or taking on new business. The lack of liquidity makes them more dependent on cash flow and less likely to take risks they otherwise would have, severely limiting their growth potential and ultimately stifling momentum at a critical time. 

Reality Check: Liquidity Challenges in Ad Tech

In some form or another, payments have long been a central concern within media and advertising. In many ways, payment trends serve as an industry barometer, often highlighting the broader health of the market. Demand partner payments, or lack thereof, have shaped ad tech throughout history, spurring hot-button topics like downstream transparency and sequential liability.

"Risk rises as liquidity falls. Terms get longer, offsets get bigger, and companies go under."

While these topics are pertinent, they are tangential to the cornerstone issue of liquidity. Of course, no amount of capital will save us from bad actors, gross negligence, or abhorrent mismanagement. However, that is more of a question of the human condition rather than a treatable industry diagnosis.

While the above risks will be philosophized for eternity, their inverse correlation to liquidity remains relevant. Risk rises as liquidity falls. Terms get longer, offsets get bigger, and companies go under.

Navigating the Liquidity Squeeze: Financing Options for Survival and Growth

Making matters worse is the self-perpetuating nature of a tightening credit environment. As risk rises, lenders and investors become more averse, seeking safer options to deploy their capital. This, in turn, ultimately exacerbates and compounds the issue. At worst, some companies are no longer eligible for their funding.

At best, their funding gets more expensive, and their terms become even more restrictive.

While there is no catch-all answer, alternative financing solutions can help. Downstream partners can leverage solutions to access flexible capital on demand, bringing certainty to their cash flow and enabling them to grow on their terms. However, be aware that not all revenue-based financing options are alike. Industry knowledge and flexibility are frequently overlooked when reviewing capital partners, so pay close attention to penalties, covenants, and recourse. 

If nothing else, it is essential to determine how complicated their funding process is and, ultimately, if they will grow with you.

The post The Cash Crunch Conundrum: How Extended Payment Terms Stall Ad Tech Innovation appeared first on AdMonsters.

While in Boston, we didn’t just indulge in delicious lobster with garlic butter (which was as amazing as it sounds); we also dived deep into the pressing issues facing our industry.  The timing was perfect, as news dropped about X suing GARM, Unilever, CVS, and others — fueling plenty of conversations during Tuesday breaks.

Our publisher forums are always valuable, but this one hit differently. The focus was clear: everyone was determined to crack the code to retain more revenue. This time around, attendees were in rare agreement, openly discussing their biggest challenges as publishers. The great main-stage presentations and breakout sessions all revolved around one core question:

What is the future of revenue? Three key themes emerged: data, transparency, and diversifying ad revenue across diverse publishers. Let’s explore each of these critical areas in more detail.

Unlocking the Treasure Trove: How Data is the Golden Key to Future Revenue for Publishers

I’d be rich if I got paid for how often data came up in conversations. But it’s no surprise—it’s at the forefront of every publisher’s mind. The conference started with a bang when Claire Atkin, CEO of Check My Ads, took the stage. She kept it real, to say the least, ruffling some vendor feathers, but hey, we’re here to expose the truth. 

Atkin emphasized that the ad tech industry must embrace a new era of accountability and transparency. To empower advertisers and ensure purveyors of disinformation don’t hijack their brand messaging, she advocates for hourly log-level data and “know your customer” requirements.

Jeff Goldstein, Head of Programmatic at Future, shared how they rely heavily on their first-party data platform, Aperture, to collect and unify data signals from their 200+ owned and operated properties. This data is key for audience segmentation and building media products. Goldstein and his team collect data signals that give advertisers better insights and help create more precise targeting products. These signals include brand, model, and category information from the content, which helps Future understand how audiences behave, consume, and shop.

During the Deal Curation session, Scott Messer explained how these curations create a less leaky data-sharing environment. This is crucial, considering how data often leaks somewhere in that black box called the ecosystem.

Rick Welch, who works on advertising partnerships at Western Union, shared how they use their audience data to sell media and create cohesive, multi-touch packages for advertisers. And yes, when we say Western Union, we mean Western Union, the publisher, as they have thousands of owned and operated screens strategically lighting up retail spaces and locations worldwide. Their digital out-of-home network is making waves, proving they’re not just money movers but also a force in the digital advertising game.

Transparency and Collaboration: The Dynamic Duo Powering the Future of Publisher Revenue

Data and transparency were neck and neck in Boston, given how often attendees discussed both. This brings us back to that black box in ad tech — everyone is doing something, but no one knows what anyone else is actually up to. Publishers may know the pipes that generate their revenue, but what happens inside the ad tech ecosystem often remains a black box—how bids are made, who’s bidding, and where the money goes. Brands don’t have full visibility into agency strategies and tactics, while agencies may lack insight into the brand’s internal goals and data.

This has to change, and fast. The only way forward is through collaboration and establishing more transparency. In other words, talk to each other. It’s really that simple even a caveman can do it, jk.

I recall at least four sessions that directly addressed transparency. Jana Meron discussed it in her keynote, and John Shelby, Director of National Programmatic Sales at Zoom Media, Gym-TV, also brought it up in his Ops to Sales workshop. Attendees further explored this topic in the media quality session featuring Addy Atienza, VP of Programmatic Revenue and Streaming Operations at Trusted Media Brands, and Roxanne Allen, Head of Ad Ops at Dotdashmeredith. Finally, Atkin and Goldstein shared valuable insights on transparency during their keynotes. Goldstein also talked about how important it is to partner with advertisers to share sales data, which is vital for validating the effectiveness of high-intent segments. This collaboration explicitly boosts campaign ROI and refines audience targeting.

Meron shared some compelling stats on brand safety and made a strong case for the ongoing relevance of quality news. She stressed that brand safety and news SHOULD NOT be mutually exclusive, and advertisers should feel confident placing ads next to election content. Consumers with high political interests are highly engaged and could be lucrative.

She also emphasized that everyone needs to communicate to enhance brand safety across the board; publishers can no longer be left out of the conversation. Atienza and Allen echoed this sentiment, highlighting the lack of transparency, the challenges in getting verification vendors to address misclassifications, and discrepancies in reporting. They also pointed out how publishers are excluded from brand safety conversations, with agencies often defaulting to broad, non-contextual blocking measures.

The main theme of Shelby’s Ops to Sales workshop was clear: “Communicate, communicate, communicate, educate, educate, educate.” The key takeaway was the need for greater transparency, both internally between ad ops and sales teams and also with clients.

As I mentioned earlier, Atkin also reinforced the need for advertisers to be more transparent and controlled and suggested new strategies.

Spreading the Love: Why Championing Diverse Publishers is the Secret to Industry Growth

Messer’s Deal Curation session stood out for its focus on multicultural publishers. He invited Armando Aguilar, VP of Programmatic Operations at Mirror Digital, and Alex Haluska, Senior Director of Revenue Operations at MyCode, to discuss these publishers’ challenges. Despite representing 40% of the population, multicultural publishers receive only 6% of media budgets—a glaring disparity. 

Promises of increased ad spending on minority-owned and small niche publishers have not materialized. Instead, agencies bottlenecking the budgets, with most diverted to large platforms like Facebook and Google, bypassing diverse publishers altogether. 

Both speakers urged agencies to innovate and be accountable for their spending practices. They also encouraged publishers to engage directly with brands to circumvent agency bottlenecks. Once again, speakers emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in distributing ad dollars. 

The Premium Publisher Shift session began with a powerful visual:  a slide highlighting the disparity between the US Black population (15%) and the ad spend on Black-owned media (2%) to emphasize the issue. Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director of Ad Tech at Fortune, led the discussion alongside Michael Bendell, an ad tech consultant from Ebony, and DeVon Johnson, founder of BlueLife Media and co-founder of BOMESI.

Each panelist offered a unique perspective on how to address this issue. One proposed solution to simplify ad buying was for platforms to aggregate minority-owned media buys. They also discussed the need to dismantle systemic barriers in the advertising industry that prevent minority-owned publishers from thriving independently. 

Advertisers should differentiate their spending on Black audiences from their spending on minority-owned publications, recognizing that these groups have distinct experiences and needs. As an industry, we must find ways to support unique publishers— whether they’re diverse, niche, small — if we want to see real growth. 

Embracing Data, Transparency, and Diversity: The Path Forward for Publisher Revenue

At PubForum Boston, it became clear that the future of publisher revenue hinges on three critical pillars: data, transparency, and support for diverse publishers. The discussions were not just about recognizing these elements—they were about taking actionable steps to make them central to our core strategies.

Data isn’t just a tool; it’s the foundation of future publisher revenue. Transparency and collaboration are no longer optional — they’re essential for defining success. And when it comes to diverse publishers, we need to actively uplift and invest in them, as they are vital to the ecosystem’s growth.

Looking ahead, these themes will clearly shape our strategies, push us to think differently and drive us to work more closely together. The future of revenue is bright, but only if we embrace these lessons, act with urgency, and follow through on our commitments made at forums like this one.

If you missed Lynne and myself chatting about these themes, check it out on AdMonsters LinkedIn

The post PubForum Boston: Three Emerging Themes Redefining Revenue’s Future appeared first on AdMonsters.

The MFA site traffic craze was a hot topic in ad tech last year. Many questioned: are all MFA sites bad? What exactly distinguishes what an MFA site is? At the time of the craze, MFA sites made up 15% of global programmatic ad spend, but agencies were working to combat them, much like AdLib and Jounce, and are working on them now. 

In a strategic move to enhance the quality and effectiveness of programmatic advertising, AdLib Media Group has announced a partnership with Jounce Media by integrating its MFA detection technology. 

In an effort to guarantee that advertisers focus their media investments on premium publishers to drive real consumer engagement, AdLib is providing agencies with tools to optimize their digital ad spend by connecting Jounce Media’s advanced MFA detection technology to automatically block low-quality traffic. 

“MFA websites are a growing threat to advertiser success. By integrating Jounce Media’s technology, we can safeguard client campaigns against wasted media investment,” said Mike Hauptman,founder and CEO of AdLib.. 

Jounce Media President Chris Kane echoed this sentiment. If the industry proactively blocks low-quality traffic, it ensures that media investments go toward genuine publishers that influence consumer purchase decisions.

Mike Hauptman: The Future of Programmatic Advertising

Andrew Byrd: Why did AdLib partner with Jounce Media specifically to block MFA traffic? What stood out about their solution?

Mike Hauptman: We partnered with Jounce Media because their approach to detecting and blocking MFA traffic is both innovative and reliable. 

What really stood out to us was their ability to dynamically identify and classify MFA sites, ensuring that we’re always one step ahead of the curve. 

They don’t just rely on static lists—they continuously update and refine their detection methods, which is crucial given how quickly MFA sites can evolve. This level of precision and their commitment to transparency made them the perfect fit for AdLib, where our goal is to deliver the highest quality media experiences for our clients.

AB: How does this partnership align with AdLib’s broader mission and strategy within the programmatic advertising space?         

MH: This partnership is a natural extension of our mission to make premium programmatic advertising accessible to all agencies, regardless of size. Our strategy has always been about reducing complexity and increasing transparency in the ad buying process. 

By integrating Jounce Media’s technology, we’re ensuring that our clients can trust the inventory quality they’re purchasing. It’s about removing the guesswork and inefficiencies that have long plagued programmatic, particularly for mid-market agencies that don’t have the resources to tackle these issues on their own.

AB: What impact do you expect this partnership to have on your client’s campaign performance and overall media investment?

MH: The impact is going to be significant. By automatically blocking MFA traffic, our clients will see a reduction in wasted ad spend and an improvement in campaign performance. MFA sites are notorious for inflating metrics without delivering real value, so by eliminating them, we’re ensuring that our clients’ budgets are directed toward high-quality, impactful placements. This not only boosts performance metrics like engagement and conversion rates but also enhances brand safety and reputation. 

AB: How do you plan to further enhance AdLib’s DSP platform with similar integrations in the future?         

MH: We’re always looking for ways to bring best-in-class tools and technologies to our platform. The Jounce partnership is just the beginning. Moving forward, we plan to integrate additional solutions that address other pain points in the programmatic space. Our focus is on building a platform that’s not only powerful but also easy to use, so our clients can focus on strategy and creativity rather than the technicalities of media buying.

AB: What steps will AdLib take to educate and onboard clients about this new feature and ensure they fully leverage its benefits?

MH: The beauty of this integration is that it’s completely turnkey and automatically enabled for all AdLib clients at no additional cost. There’s no setup required—clients will immediately benefit from enhanced ad quality without lifting a finger. We’ll also provide insights through the platform to highlight the positive impact on their campaigns.

AB: Are there any initial testing results to share after Jounce integrated its MFA detection tech into your DSP?

MH: While we’re still in the early stages of gathering comprehensive data, the initial results from our beta testing have been very promising. We’ve already seen a noticeable decrease in MFA traffic, leading to a more efficient ad spend allocation and improved campaign outcomes. We’re excited to share more detailed results as we collect data.

Chris Kane: Accelerating the Shift Toward Premium Supply

AB: We’ve discussed the MFA problem. What is the current state of Made for Advertising sites from your perspective? Has the ad tech industry gotten better at eliminating MFAs?

Chris Kane: Because MFA publishers are highly dependent on paid traffic, the availability of MFA supply is extremely responsive to buyer behavior. As buyers spend more on MFA inventory, those publishers can afford to buy more paid traffic. And as buyers pull back their spending on MFA sites, those publishers can no longer profitably buy traffic. 

The result was a giant run-up in the availability of MFA supply from 2020 through mid-2023, peaking at 30% of all web auctions. But as marketers have implemented MFA blocking solutions, MFA has contracted to less than 10% of web auctions. Still, MFA is a very large share of available supply, and buyers need to actively manage whether they participate in MFA auctions.

AB: Please remind us how Jounce Media developed the technology to accurately identify and block MFA sites. Can you walk us through the process?

CK: We post our criteria for classifying inventory as MFA here. We perform a battery of tests every day on every RTB-traded website to quantify whether each domain meets our criteria for MFA classification. Based on that daily-updating process, we regularly add and remove sites from our MFA list, and AdLib will now similarly continuously modify their default exclusion list to block new sources of MFA supply and re-enable bidding on sites that have retooled their operations to create a premium advertising experience.

AB: How does Jounce Media differentiate between MFA sites and legitimate publishers that might have similar characteristics?

CK: In addition to the process described above, we publish our complete MFA list to all of our clients via dashboards and data feeds on a daily-updating cadence. There are over 3,000 advertising professionals from over 100 companies that have direct access to our data, making our MFA list far more transparent and far more pressure tested than any other solution in the market.

AB: In your opinion, how will this partnership with AdLib impact the broader industry’s approach to MFA supply?

CK: In addition to benefiting their clients, AdLib’s decision to block MFA supply by default will accelerate an industry-wide shift toward premium supply. SSPs feed DSPs what they eat. 

When buyers shift their spending patterns away from MFA supply toward premium publishers, SSPs reshape the mix of ad opportunities that they make available to DSPs. Premium publishers are more available in the bidstream today than they were last summer, and AdLib’s decision to block MFA will accelerate this trend.

AB: What are the next steps for Jounce Media to improve and expand its technology to identify low-quality traffic?

CK: We are continuously researching new sources of supply chain inefficiency and new opportunities to deploy RTB investments more effectively. Among other topics, we are currently studying the landscape of in-stream video, benchmarks on ad density, and the accuracy of user targeting signals.

AB: Can you share any initial testing results after integrating your MFA detection tech into AdLib’s DSP?

CK: In July 2023, MFA bid request volume was at 30% but has since decreased to 10%. Through their partnership, AdLib and Jounce are committed to implementing best practices to reduce this percentage further.

The post AdLib Media Group and Jounce Media Join Forces to Combat MFA Traffic appeared first on AdMonsters.

Twenty-five years ago, search transformed the digital world. 

At its inception, Google was a fledgling company that revolutionized the Internet with its search engine. It built and expanded its empire thanks, in part, to the ruling in the antitrust case against Microsoft. The tables have turned today, and Google is on the other side of the bench.  

In early August, Google’s loss in the search antitrust case decision marks a landmark moment for the search industry. As it stands, Google forces user searches to be funneled to its search results page, squashing innovation and extracting tens of billions from search advertisers and publishers in the process. 

The industry now awaits proposed remedies to bring competition to the search market. The door is finally open for browsers and other search properties to innovate and improve the consumer search experience in search advertising by shaping consumer intent.

The Rise of a Tech Giant

In 1998, Larry Page and his Stanford friends invented a brilliant search engine that allowed anyone with a web browser to access relevant results to any query instantly and for free. Google now dominates search and most of Big Tech. 

At the time, the company’s algorithms were so much better than competing search engines that the word “Google” became a verb that was, and still is, synonymous with “search.” 

As Google grew, went public, and eventually added free software like Gmail, Maps, and Chrome, it extended its digital advertising empire. At the time, the only losers seemed to be the news and editorial publications who traded analog ad dollars for digital pennies when they raced to give away content for traffic. 

However, to grow search ad revenue, Google began locking out competitors, raising ad rates, and extracting value from the user experience. As it extended its monopoly into new markets over the last ten years, Google’s search revenue has grown fivefold. 

Unlocking Innovation on the Open Web

Google’s stronghold on the search advertising market is largely due to its exclusive search distribution contracts, which force partnerships like Apple to outsource search experiences to Google, making it the default search engine.

Conversely, “Search on the Open Web” is when a person searches for relevant results outside the search engine, such as on the homepage of a privacy browser like Firefox or through a shopping app like Klarna. In 2023, the size of the Open Web search advertising market was $90-100 billion. Over 90% of that revenue went to Google, according to evidence revealed in the U.S. v. Google antitrust trial.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for Washington D.C. determined that Google’s exclusivity prevents the largest Open Web search properties from controlling ad selection or experimenting with their results. The tech conglomerate is also guilty of removing search results and ads provided by Google. 

Now that Google has been found liable, the door to competition, innovation, and experimentation has opened. Most importantly, the consumer will benefit because the industry is entering a new era of curated search results. 

How Can the Consumer Benefit?

Search on the Open Web opens the door to innovative, generative AI solutions. When Open Web search properties compete to experiment with search, consumers benefit from a more modern, personalized, relevant, and dynamic experience. With a curated search experience, users can find the best result or offer from the browser or property they are searching on and skip the SERP altogether.

Google’s exclusivity contracts currently prohibit this innovation. As a result, Open Web search properties generate less than 10% of total Open Web search revenue. Today, few Open Web search properties can refuse to forgo Google ad revenue altogether — but that is poised to change. 

What’s at Stake for Advertisers and Publishers?

The Court is poised to require Google to compete in search to create incentives for open Web search properties to innovate the search experience. Breaking Google’s exclusivity would bring transparency and efficiency to advertisers, as publishers could show their search results or ads or curate those from direct sources.

Whether it’s privacy search or Generative AI, everyone from DuckDuckGo to Apple Safari to your favorite shopping app could show Google and their own search results and make revenue from their search media.

For advertisers, tens of billions of dollars in wasted ad spend is at stake – as well as the return of transparency and control over their budgets. With Google’s exclusivity deals prohibited, these advertisers can “go direct,” reducing costs and gaining transparency.

The Future of Search Will Be Curated and Driven by Consumer Intent

Search on the Open Web will more effectively serve the needs of consumers in today’s increasingly fragmented and modernized search journey.

The Court’s decision suggests that it will fashion the remedy most likely to create competition in the search results and ad markets, similar to the Microsoft remedy in the early 2000s.

A potential structural remedy, such as the divestiture of Chrome and Android, would incentivize Google to participate in search markets where competitors produce innovative user search experiences and deliver transparency and efficiency to advertisers.

However, the remedy phase plays out, and one thing remains certain: the future of search will be built around valuable moments of consumer intent that can open up the market for $500 billion in consumer spending.

The post Back to the Future of Search: Google’s Loss In The Search Antitrust Trial Unlocks Innovation appeared first on AdMonsters.