First, Katsur said that premium offers better brand association, like being linked with big time publishers such as the New York Times.

Second, he argued that there is more brand data available.

Third, he said that premium surrounds the brand with quality content, which sounded an awful lot like reason number one. "When you buy on the New York Times, you know what you're getting," he said.

Fourth was that programmatic premium offers more transparency because of where the ads will be seen.

The fifth reason revolved around saftey and trust issues...which was basically another way of restating reasons one, three, and four.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Kastur said that programmatic premium allows brands to move forward with "impactful formats," such as creative homepage takeovers. "You can't [do that] through your machine-driven channels today," he concluded.

While Katsur made good points about programmatic premium, it did seem like he was able to stretch three points into "six" points. The brand safety factor of premium is the ultimate draw, but the lack of a universal definition of "premium" is the ultimate drawback.

That drawback should have been the seventh point. People don't even really know exactly what it is. That's different.