The issue is these studies cost between $650,000 and $1 million, so only four brands are currently in conversations with MMA.
“It’s shame on [the ad industry] for not figuring this out sooner,” Stuart added.
Historically, publishers have not been as good at proving performance objectives as the platforms and commerce media networks, with deep-data capabilities and precision targeting. As brand and performance objectives converge, more publishers can prove their value to ad partners.
Cookie demise disrupts the open web
Monetizing in the open web is looking far less appealing for publishers.
Still, deprecation is a slow roll, and Chrome’s current schedule could potentially disrupt valuable Q4 holiday campaigns, possibly triggering another delay.
“Chrome is in between a rock and a hard place,” said Paul Bannister, chief strategy officer at Raptive. “It’s a complicated situation. There’s been a tremendous investment, and that shows.”
And while buy-side appetite to test has grown since December, the industry is lagging. Publishers should be looking at five or so ID solutions, said Bannister.
Few believe the ad-tech ecosystem will notice massive disruptions until 2025, continuing to use solutions like IP addresses to target audiences. As ever, ad tech finds a way.
Gen AI battle lines are drawn
Search as a referral source for publishers is only getting less reliable as people use gen AI interfaces for information, putting publishers who rely on intent-based ad models in precarious situations. Some estimate Google’s Search Generative Experience will impact over $40 billion in annual ad revenue for marketers.
Enter the next evolution of publishers’ thorny, litigious relationship with tech platforms, currently led by the NYT’s complex copyright lawsuit with OpenAI.
Cutting early deals with gen AI firms, like AP and Axel Springer, risks undervaluing content (the $1 million offer is a blow), and it’s only available to the already strong publisher incumbents.
