• by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, December 12, 2024

In one earlier column, I wrote, “The past decade has seen the rise of ‘strategic’ partner deals with opaque revenue shares, push-button 'black box' trading with murky inventory pools, and a tendency for many in the business not to ask too many questions, since willful ignorance tends to be the favored state of many.”

That sentence got quite a bit of response, both in comments and on the several social media platforms where I shared it. For media purists that want to always make clients and their needs the center of the universe, a noble and worthy goal for all of us, the idea of “strategic partner deals" as a key driver in media selection is anathema. The issue surfaced significantly a decade ago and has only grown in industry impact with the growth of programmatic media.

Four words define the current world of digital advertising revenue-sharing: ubiquitous, promiscuous, obfuscating and debasing.

Ubiquitous. The vast majority of programmatic media, data, technology, and verification transacted today is subject to defined revenue sharing between sellers, buyers, suppliers, and platforms -- generally on undisclosed terms. It’s a fact.

Promiscuous. It’s not like each company only has one strategic partner that they rev-share with. If anything, most rev-share with as many as they possibly can -- certainly, any that are willing not only to provide a significant percentage, but guarantee it as well.

Obfuscating. Virtually all the “strategic partner deals” are done under non-disclosure agreements. For some reason, folks doing the deals don’t want the funders of the campaigns to know how the money is moving. But then again, as we know, in mystery there is margin.

Debasing. For many of the campaign elements and participants, the revenue-share drives more profit than base client fees. Yep, “the tail wags the dog.” All too often the media chosen, data used for targeting and verification vendor are selected to optimize platform profits and deliver just enough client value -- but notclient results.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Shouldn’t deals be done for the benefit of the client, done selectively, disclosed transparently and aligned first and foremost for client results, not platform profits?

What do you think?

This post was previously published in an earlier edition of Media Insider.