A resolution to debate
One of the hottest myths surrounding inventory quality and trust issues is that big publishers provide a safe-haven to advertisers. This argument is not popular just with big publishers, but many advertisers as well. Jason Kint who runs Digital Content Next, a digital publisher trade-body, argues:
for-profits acting as intermediary layers to whitelist inventory while capturing welfare hasn’t worked to date mostly because properly contracted it’s a low-margin, uninteresting business. Publisher brands/sites acting as trust proxies to buy-side solves most issues.
To which I say:
No, it does not. What do you think, we try to have a debate about this in a public advertiser forum such as ANA or WFA or ISBA. I think they would love it. We make sure its recorded, and put this debate to bed. Your side of argument can have 3 participant vs I will be alone.
Other than the fact that I have to almost certainly travel for this, I’m filled with delight that Jason responds:
Agree.
So it’s on. The whole thread is worth going through.
What we need next is the host, which could be one of the names that were already mentioned or some other national advertiser association. We also need a moderator, which would probably be selected and provided by the host. Because it’s a debate, we need to agree on the rules. There are plenty of options, so this is just a matter of picking one that suits the format of the event the best. Because we both want the same thing (i.e., a safer, more resilient online advertising ecosystem), my suggestion would be to establish all the arguments beforehand and have several exchanges email/call. Both sides would then go to the actual event exactly knowing the arguments of both sides. This will no doubt help increase the quality of the actual event as well. This is just my suggestion, and I’m open to a format where just the headline arguments are shared beforehand. Finally, the entire event would be video recorded in broadcast quality and made publicly available as a highlight reel, topical clips, and the whole.
About my approach for the debate
I’m obviously on the “against” side of this debate. To provide a very brief background, I agree that in comparison to run-of-exchanges, buying big well-known sites is probably a preferred strategy. In other words, I’m not arguing that there is no benefit at all from buying big well-known sites in the sense of trust and quality in comparison to the absolute worst strategy (unfiltered run-of-exchanges). Still, I’m arguing that those benefits are importantly misunderstood, and consequently misrepresented in the narrative concerning the topic. I’m also arguing that the strategy in itself is against the interest of the advertiser’s shareholders, as well being harmful to taxpayers. I would work towards showing the absurdity of the benefits argument in the first place, then moving on to highlighting the direct adverse effects of the strategy.
Next steps
After the holidays, I will be discussing the matter with one advertiser body as a potential host candidate. The body in question is strongly “for” in this matter and is already heavily and publicly invested in it. This way everyone can be 100% sure that the playing field is level.
Once the host is confirmed, I suggest that we form a small committee to work on the rest (e.g. debate rules and format).