This post was most recently updated on August 2nd, 2019
The Ad Tech landscape as a three-headed behemoth, the importance of the human element in advertising, and header bidding adoption. The third installment of the Ad Tech Thought Leadership featuring our COO, Julio Monzon certainly has a lot of gems.
Get into the full interview below!
Amazon tends to undercut to gain market share. I’m not necessarily saying this is the only reason they can take on Facebook and Google, but can they? Absolutely.
If they were to use this traditional strategy, they could bid higher which would drive the price up for Google, Facebook, and other ad networks to bid so it’s only good for the marketplace.
I’ve always been a big fan of more competition for our publisher partners – higher revenue; everyone (on the sell side) wins.
I wouldn’t say the human element is necessarily disappearing. Although we’re automating as much as we can, you can’t just get any old engineer to set up everything.
The initial ad tech architecture needs both adops experts and talented engineers. Side note, if you can find someone that is the same, then great!
Maintenance of the ad tech architecture involves human involvement as well. You need someone to take a look at the data and use this to make important decisions.
Though an argument can be made that you can automate all of this.
Don’t get me wrong, you should automate everything you can; but in my experience, every publisher is its own monster. You need to find what maximizes your revenues, and some cookie cutter tech cannot outperform the combination of tech+ human decisions that are customized to your specific needs.
Additionally, there are obvious business reasons that require the human element now more than ever. Relationships with programmatic partners, reporting, setting budgets, the ad tech department working with UX/UI department, and creating a dynamic team culture are all important in AdTech.
Performance is driving this innovation. Header bidding has proved to yield higher performance for the vast majority of publishers who correctly test it.
Whatever vertical you’re in as a publisher, important focuses include business growth, revenue, and other key performance indicators.
Deep dives into header bidding (server to server, EBDA testing vs. HB, timeout testing, ‘footer’ bidding) are all worth exploring because it all can potentially result in much higher revenues and page RPM’s.
As a publisher, you should test what works for you. Some swear by header bidding, others use a combination of HB and EBDA, and it works better than just one or the other.
As I mentioned in the previous answer, each publisher is its own beast. It’s important that publishers test and test until the data shows what works for them.
The three-headed behemoth (Google, Facebook, and Amazon) in Ad Tech will benefit everyone on the sell-side due to increased competition for publishers.
Cookie-cutter tech and automation can never outperform the human element and tech working together in tandem. Lastly, the performance of header bidding has driven remarkable adoption amongst publishers, but publishers must be wary of relying on one solution and keep testing to find what works for their specific online properties.
What are your thoughts on this interview? Do you agree with what Julio said? Tell us in the comments below. 👇
Here’s the course that 300+ pubs used to scale their ad revenue.