Why Brands Should Demand API Before KPI

This summer seems to have been open season on “walled gardens.”

There are good reasons why the big-kahuna platforms restrict third-parties from operating on their networks – after all, the biggest walled gardens have few incentives to share their data, and mounting privacy concerns give them good cover. But, for brands trying to better evaluate their media spending, the inability to share data across and layer third-party measurement tools over the big platforms is increasingly an issue.

No wonder we are seeing so many advertisers and brands clamoring for more open platforms. While these DSPs and exchanges may not boast the same depth of customer data that a Google or Facebook do, their algorithms are a differentiator and their apparent connectedness is a potential virtue. By allowing third-party audience data, measurement and verification tools to connect, they are making a tangible play to poach restless buyers.

But buyers should look beneath the surface. While many ad platforms may appear to be more “open” than the walled gardens, the true extent of that openness can sometimes be diminished when you explore the details.

What lacks in openness is often manifested in limited integration. Specifically, support for third-party measurement and verification software is often enabled through a proprietary and private vendor-to-vendor set-up. That means alternative platforms can appear to be open, while actually being only selectively open. You only get to connect your data with your vendor’s preferred partners.

What happens when an advertiser wants to switch one service to a perceived rival, to best optimize their media spend towards reaching the best audience? Not much. When the lack of truly open integration with the range of in-market platforms ends up functioning as a kind of lock-in. Connectivity remains all on a vendor’s terms.

Not many of these proprietary platforms offer an API. A set of rules providers can offer for opening up their platform to third-party peers, for truly connecting functions like campaign measurement to their services.

Some do but I am worried as, lately, I have seen some of the main platform protagonists begin to pull up the drawbridge, restricting that API and reducing the features and value customers could get from plugging in extra tools. If this trend continues, we could just end up with a new host of walled gardens, under another name.

What brands need is to see the utopia of full integration, alongside the ability to reduce their tech stack load in order to drive down tech fees and maximize their ROI. To achieve this, the industry needs to adopt standards aimed at securing a truly-open ecosystem in which platforms can freely connect with one another while protecting consumers’ data and their proprietary edge.

In tech terms, we need to push the industry to adopt an API standard to make it very easy to plug platforms together, servicing the whole of the campaign journey, from set-up to reporting to measurement to attribution, allowing brands to focus on performance and transparency.

Other industries have been here for a long time. In the financial sector, for instance, we already have standards like SWIFT that have smoothed out the previous mess of methods of foreign-currency payments, which had seen banks often unable to talk to each other to receive money.

More widespread platform integration would not just improve access to measurement information that depicts campaign performance, it would also help to solve the transparency problem.

Today, the number-one reason buyers are not getting the information they need is complexity. Opacity of spending decisions and outcomes is not just a product of corporate conspiracy or vendor self-interest, it is also a consequence of the lack of connectivity forcing people to pull data together using spreadsheet surgery, not in real-time and not in a standardized fashion.

So, an “open platform” may not be so different from a “walled garden” in some cases if you look closely enough, and we need to remedy that.

We need the ad ecosystem to look more like a free-market economy, like the European Union, a marketplace with complete unfettered access across boundaries. Advertisers and brands must demand complete and open access to their vendors’ platforms through rich and comprehensive APIs to achieve more transparent, sustainable and profitable return on their media and marketing investments.

Originally appeared in MediaPost, August 30, 2017. The article can be found HERE

There’s More To Transparency Than Meets The Eye

Concerns over murky industry practices were simmering long before the ANA’s damning report on the lack of transparency across the advertising ecosystem, but it’s hard to overstate how much that bombshell mobilized the conversation when it was released last summer. This year, “transparency” is everywhere as an industry buzzword. Every company is implicated and, in an effort to jump on the transparency bandwagon, many will also tell you that they have a simple solution.

But simple, monolithic solutions are rarely the best ones, and the answer to opacity is not as simple as flicking the switch on a viewing ability vendor alone.

“Transparency” is not a singular checkbox to tick. To a savvy marketer, it consists of several layers of visibility and control, which necessitates adoption of a more diverse definition and approach. There are four areas all marketers should really be talking about when they think about “transparency:”


Few would argue against the idea that, for an ad to be valuable, it first must have the opportunity to be seen. So “transparency” as a synonym for “visibility” often leads marketers here as their first stop.

As the Media Rating Council (MRC) and Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) have issued a definition for viewable inventory, there is at least a common metric for measurement. As such, this industry viewability metric has become an important starting point for any buyer’s transparency odyssey.  However, whether or not the metric is stringent enough, or able to be imposed consistently across different screens and formats, is a different story.

With many vendors’ measurements differing, therefore making it difficult to center on a single source of truth, “viewability” is but one piece of the transparency puzzle. The important thing is for buyers to not let this fact deter them from using any metric at all. Starting with industry viewability, at least, provides a baseline against which to measure.


The second piece of the transparency puzzle is ensuring that advertising both appears on legitimate sites and is engaged by an actual human. Imagine if, in the days of face-to-face ad buying, a rogue salesman could have impersonated a premium publisher by simply wearing a fake mustache. As far-fetched as that sounds, it’s exactly what’s happening in some corners of the internet today.

A central contributor to this is called domain spoofing, where falsified websites designed to look like top-tier publishers fool ad buyers into believing they are buying space on a legitimate site when they are in fact buying from a very different, dishonest imitator.  A close cousin also causing consternation for marketers are sites or articles created to lure in visitors with false headlines and content, further escalating concerns over placement quality and brand safety. Rounding out this nefarious fraud squad are designers of software meant to imitate actions of actual web browsers, simulating the viewing and clicking of ads, generating false “bot” — or non-human — traffic and clicks.

Fraud of this kind is very different from the viewability questions raised previously as technically one of these fraudulent ads could meet the industry standard of being viewable while still clearly not delivering a valuable ad interaction. What is clear is that much of this ad scourge can be eliminated by the vigilant shining of the bright lights of transparency and measurement onto performance which, when done at a granular level, provide the information and insights to help avoid these felonious players.

Development of white- and blacklists to target ad placements to known urls, and block those know to be illegitimate, is one commonly used tactic, as is close monitoring or alerts settings around unusually high traffic or clicks, which may signal false players. Additionally, buyers should consider adoption of fraud detection and prevention services, which focus solely on exposing fraudulent actors and can act as a marketer’s sentry in the field as well as demanding more granular level reporting and monitoring from their vendor partners to catch criminal actors in the act.


Do you know how your money was spent last month? One of the major drivers behind transparency concerns is that marketers have precious little visibility as to how partners actually spend the dollars being handed to them.

Both managed service providers and tech platforms have questions to answer. By the time a publisher has put inventory into an exchange, that may be further aggregated into a supply-side platform (SSP) and then a demand-side platform (DSP), with each taking a share of their earnings.  It’s typical for up to 60% of actual media spend to get swallowed up by these intermediaries in what’s called a “tech tax.” Agencies and other service providers also have a variety of fees on top of that and, depending on how transparent those are, it can be difficult for a marketer to understand the true cost of the media bought on their behalf.

A further driving concern for advertisers regarding their vendor and agency fees is uncertainty around any potential conflict of interest around spend decisions which may be driven by discounts, rebates, internal fees and profits, or other incentives which may favor profitability versus performance.

To gain spending transparency from their partners, brands must demand visibility and performance, adopting contract terms that require ongoing reporting to ensure decision making meets the best interest of their business.


Most of the available tools tend to focus on the “what” of transparency, but what about the “why”?

If an agency moved all your video spending from one vendor to another, you would want to know when that happened, as well as the reason why. Are decisions being taken in your best interest or for the agency, and what was the rationale? If you control your company’s marketing budget, you need to have knowledge and confidence around who is making these decisions and what’s driving them to do so.

That’s why marketers must seek out solutions or relations in which partners provide transparency to all campaign changes and actions, together with the motivation. That may be a data feed or software dashboard — but it could also mean writing better evidence into soft-copy reports or regular meetings.

This is not dissimilar from financial services, where fund managers are not allowed to invest large sums for clients on authority and blind trust; they must instead provide regular reporting on their investment activities, what comprises the fund and which ones are performing and which are not as evidence. Now, it’s time advertisers were able to expect the same from their ad partners.

Transparency is one of the key challenges facing the ad industry today. But it’s almost certainly not a single-point problem, and can’t be solved by a single silver bullet.

Taken together, this new lexicon for addressing the challenges of transparency offers marketers and practitioners across the ad tech supply chain a way to create confidence and visibility together to drive the best business decisions and best performance for a marketer’s ad spend.

Originally appeared in MarketingDIVE, August 8, 2017. The article can be found HERE.