I sincerely and humbly invite everyone who disagrees with one or more points made in the recent paper “WFA’s Guide to Programmatic Media: What Every Advertiser Should Know about Media Markets”, to use this post and the comments section below as a base to engage in an open debate about the particular points of disagreement.
I will do my best to capture any criticism found elsewhere in the media and comment it here, and I encourage you to use the comments section for further discussion or posting additional criticism or flagging commentary I’ve missed.
I promise that all questions, comments and criticism will be thoroughly commented on by myself personally. Where needed, I will do my best to consult the WFA programmatic task-force to include their views as well.
So far I’ve identified only three pieces of content that directly challenge the points made in the paper, all of which are from the members of the VivaKi leadership team.
1) A tweet from Marco Bertozzi
Why did the WFA report focus only on ATDs and not advise them against wasting 60% of their spend on every IO with black box Ad Nets #ATSL
COMMENT: The paper specifically makes the point denouncing ad network commission practices. Also in two instances it makes the case of stating that ATD is a better choice than ad network.
2) A tweet from Sean Kegelman
Re the WFA paper @mikkokotila where do you get data on 25% going to “value add”? We buy A LOT and that is ridiculous. @m_bertozzi
COMMENT: I believe that many savvy trading desks use audience data at the level of 25% of the total media investment. Depending on the market, this could be more.
In addition to audience data, a savvy trading operation MUST USE at least contextual targeting, brand safety, quality control and fraud reduction solutions. In the kind of stack that we’ve envisioned in the paper, data enrichment and various other data asset management and development related value-adds will add to this.
Also it’s important to note that while an indicative model may provide insight in to how a typical case might look like, it can not accurately predict each case individually. For this particular reason the “money-split” section in the paper is titled:
A model for how the money may be split between the various stakeholders, in the typical programmatic ‘stack’
With this in mind, it’s important to understand that huge differences exist between players and their level of sophistication. While an unsophisticated player is just starting to dabble with audience data and trusts DSPs with the various above mentioned controls, the most sophisticated players are already running comprehensive stacks with all angles covered.
Also note that the point is not to say that it’s too much if 25% goes to value-adds, personally I believe that it’s very much justified and the advertiser should know exactly how it’s being done. Instead it’s to say that unlike with ad networks, we can now make sure that money is really working for the advertiser.
3) An interview comment from Grace Liau in mUmBRELLA
For any advertiser looking to invest in a standalone DSP, it’s vital they understand the implications of doing so. If the market moves, is that one provider agile enough to move with it? And if you decide to switch, will you be able to take all your data and insights with you? Very often there is a significant cost both financially and in intellectual assets,” she told Mumbrella.
I have commented this in a separate post: http://bit.ly/1tEjzi2
And in the comments section of the article where the comment originally appeared: http://bit.ly/1qfWReM