#appnexus

[intelligencecompanynews]

DOJ vs. Google: The arguments for and against the defendant’s (alleged) ad market monopoly - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?feed_id=193839&_unique_id=66deb46d74f43 Google and the Justice Department are poised to lock horns in an era-defining antitrust case that’s been 15 years in the making. The outcome will profoundly impact the 300,000-plus workers in the U.S. advertising sector, plus countless more globally. And yes, that includes you; below are some key legal and technical arguments that will be debated in a courtroom, overseen by Judge Leonie Brinkema, in the coming weeks. These arguments will decide your future during the next four to six weeks. The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google, filed in January 2023, focuses on its tech operations. It alleges monopolistic practices that harm competition in the $600 billion online digital advertising sector. The DOJ alleges that Google maintains monopolistic control over the entire online display advertising sector, using an ad tech stack equipped with tools used by advertisers, publishers and third-party ad tech companies, such as ad exchanges, etc.Per its arguments, this control stifles competition, as Google’s dominance forces advertisers and publishers to use products, such as its ad server, that impact ad prices, and ultimately result in consumer harm.The DOJ claims Google’s role as a broker, auctioneer, and participant in ad auctions — via its specific tools in Google Ad Manager (GAM), that are commonly known as “DFP,” “AdX,” and “DBM” by industry aficionados. This scenario leads to conflicts of interest, enabling it to favor its services at the expense of rivals.In trial documentation, the DOJ notes how smaller players in the publisher ad server market, such as Kevel, OpenX and Xandr (née AppNexus) have had to effectively exit the market because DFP had better access to Google demand. “Even technology giants like Meta have been unable to gain scale to compete with Google’s publisher ad server [DFP],” according to the filing, citing DFP as a “barrier to entry.”  In its assessment, the DOJ claims this results in less innovation, reduced choices for advertisers and publishers, and inflated costs for consumers. Google’s defense team would (of course) differ in its assessment and could argue that the U.S. government’s market definition is gerrymandered with a myopic focus on display advertising.  Instead, Google’s defense team is likely to raise attention to the broader advertising ecosystem, especially emerging sectors such as CTV or retail media/commerce media, where similar household names such as Amazon, Meta, and Netflix (to name but a few) have emerged as rivals for media spending in recent years. In the coming weeks, observers will likely hear how the DOJ’s arguments are stuck in a world that is pre-smartphone, pre-social media, and pre-streaming or that the concept of “open web display advertising” was invented by the government for the purposes of the case, and simply no longer a thing.    2. Anticompetitive acquisitionsThe government accuses Google of acquiring competitors to maintain this dominance, with the DOJ’s documentation citing how it systematically acquired companies such as DoubleClick (2008) and AdMeld (2011), which were crucial in shaping its dominance in the digital advertising space. In Digiday’s 2023 series, an Oral History of Ad Tech, former DoubleClick (and subsequently Google) executive Ari Papro claimed the launch of DoubleClick’s ad exchange played a key part in the $3.1 billion purchase, albeit rival Big Tech names of the day were making similar moves.  These acquisitions allowed Google to integrate vertically across the ad stack, controlling key parts of the ecosystem from demand-side platforms (DSPs) to publisher-facing ad servers. Per the DOJ’s filings, “The acquisition provided Google with a pool of captive publishers that

now had fewer alternatives and faced substantial switching costs associated with changing to another publisher ad server.” The DOJ claims these moves were intended to neutralize threats from innovative competitors and protect Google’s ability to collect vast amounts of data, which further entrenched its market power. Acording to the DOJ, these acquisitions distorted competition and limited consumer choice in the digital advertising landscape, but that’s not the only way of looking at things. Google’s defense team is likely to point to how acquiring such assets enabled it to construct a more efficient ecosystem that benefits multiple parties on each side of a media transaction. Additionally, the defense team is likely to point out that Google’s consolidated offering offers consumers better data security, per its own assessment. 3. Exclusionary tacticsElsewhere in the filings, Google is also accused of employing exclusionary tactics to hinder competitors’ growth, but the defendant is likely to point to how its tools are interoperable with rival ad tech. The DOJ asserts that Google used its dominant position to limit the interoperability of its ad tools with rival systems, making it difficult for advertisers and publishers to use third-party ad tech solutions. By controlling access to valuable ad data and limiting rivals’ ability to serve ads on its platforms, Google allegedly forced many in the industry to depend on its services.According to items admitted into evidence in the case, “Google has configured the ad server to work in a more integrated manner with its own ad exchange AdX… this has the unintended effect of preventing, technologically, the creation of a trnly [sic] open RTB marketplace with 3rd party [sic] exchanges.”Such practice reduced transparency in the ad-buying process and restricted alternatives for advertisers, leading to higher ad prices, according to Google’s accusers, who would add such conduct has blocked innovation from smaller competitors who couldn’t gain a foothold.Albeit, Google contends that the cost of ads is reducing — as evidenced by the serial revenue declines produced by its Google Network business, a business unit widely recognized to represent the entity formerly known as DoubleClick — as further evidence of a robust ad tech market. The DOJ contends that Google unfairly preferences its own ad exchange in auctions, disadvantaging rival exchanges and advertisers, and it’s in this passage of debate, where the court will hear some of the most esoteric ad tech terms in existence: “header bidding.”By manipulating ad auctions, Google allegedly steers business toward its ad exchange at the expense of competing exchanges through its (alleged) earlier “first look” and “last look” advantage. This self-preferencing practice distorts auction outcomes, leading to higher prices for advertisers and reduced revenue for publishers. It resulted in rivals introducing a workaround: the aforementioned “header bidding.” According to the DOJ, Google subsequently moved to hamstring the rise of header bidding with the 2019 adjustment to how it aucitoned-off ad inventory. In this regard, Google’s unilateral decision-making harmed the overall digital advertising ecosystem by creating an uneven playing field that stifled competition and innovation. In this passage of proceedings, those paying attention are also likely to be treated to some of the more obscure names of Google projects, with names such as “Project Bernanke” and “Jedi Blue” to be debated in court.  Albeit, Google’s defense team is likely to argue that “ad tech hacks” such as header bidding bloated the consumer experience with the number of ad calls it involved, thus further decreasing the security of consumer data.   Additionally, Google is likely to maintain that dynamic pricing in the online advertising market helps monetize otherwise remnant inventory — that would otherwise be unsold — and that comparisons to two-sided markets where there is “an intrinsic value” (or standard price) of a commodity are not apt.

 5. Data dominanceFinally, the DOJ alleges that Google’s control over vast amounts of user data gives it an unfair advantage in digital advertising, as argued in the separate case of the DOJ vs. Google, where the defendant’s arguments were lost.By collecting data across its multiple services — search, YouTube, Android, and more — Google can offer superior targeting for advertisers, which rivals cannot match. This data dominance reinforces its monopoly, as competitors are unable to compete on a level playing field without access to similar data sets. The DOJ argues that this data asymmetry distorts competition, preventing rivals from delivering effective advertising solutions. Google’s dominant position in data collection also raises privacy concerns, as the DOJ claims it can exploit user information without meaningful accountability, further entrenching its position.Similar arguments were made in the earlier DOJ successful case making allegations against Google’s search ad business — it’s worth pointing out that the defendant plans to appeal this ruling — but what’s clear is that the fate of the ad industries likely to be decided in a courtroom in the Eastern District of Virginia in the coming weeks.“The future of the $600 billion online ad industry will be shaped in the coming weeks. Here are the arguments that will decide your future…”Source Link: https://digiday.com/media-buying/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?utm_campaign=digidaydis&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=general-rss http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/pexels-photo-18816860.jpeg DOJ vs. Google: The arguments for and against the defendant’s (alleged) ad market monopoly - Notice Today Internet - #GLOBAL BLOGGER - #GLOBAL

[companyknowledgenews]

DOJ vs. Google: The arguments for and against the defendant’s (alleged) ad market monopoly - Notice Today Internet https://www.merchant-business.com/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?feed_id=193838&_unique_id=66deb46c2cf68 #GLOBAL - BLOGGER BLOGGER Google and the Justice Department are poised to lock horns in an era-defining antitrust case that’s been 15 years in the making. The outcome will profoundly impact the 300,000-plus workers in the U.S. advertising sector, plus countless more globally. And yes, that includes you; below are some key legal and technical arguments that will be debated in a courtroom, overseen by Judge Leonie Brinkema, in the coming weeks. These arguments will decide your future during the next four to six weeks. The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google, filed in January 2023, focuses on its tech operations. It alleges monopolistic practices that harm competition in the $600 billion online digital advertising sector. The DOJ alleges that Google maintains monopolistic control over the entire online display advertising sector, using an ad tech stack equipped with tools used by advertisers, publishers and third-party ad tech companies, such as ad exchanges, etc.Per its arguments, this control stifles competition, as Google’s dominance forces advertisers and publishers to use products, such as its ad server, that impact ad prices, and ultimately result in consumer harm.The DOJ claims Google’s role as a broker, auctioneer, and participant in ad auctions — via its specific tools in Google Ad Manager (GAM), that are commonly known as “DFP,” “AdX,” and “DBM” by industry aficionados. This scenario leads to conflicts of interest, enabling it to favor its services at the expense of rivals.In trial documentation, the DOJ notes how smaller players in the publisher ad server market, such as Kevel, OpenX and Xandr (née AppNexus) have had to effectively exit the market because DFP had better access to Google demand. “Even technology giants like Meta have been unable to gain scale to compete with Google’s publisher ad server [DFP],” according to the filing, citing DFP as a “barrier to entry.”  In its assessment, the DOJ claims this results in less innovation, reduced choices for advertisers and publishers, and inflated costs for consumers. Google’s defense team would (of course) differ in its assessment and could argue that the U.S. government’s market definition is gerrymandered with a myopic focus on display advertising.  Instead, Google’s defense team is likely to raise attention to the broader advertising ecosystem, especially emerging sectors such as CTV or retail media/commerce media, where similar household names such as Amazon, Meta, and Netflix (to name but a few) have emerged as rivals for media spending in recent years. In the coming weeks, observers will likely hear how the DOJ’s arguments are stuck in a world that is pre-smartphone, pre-social media, and pre-streaming or that the concept of “open web display advertising” was invented by the government for the purposes of the case, and simply no longer a thing.    2. Anticompetitive acquisitionsThe government accuses Google of acquiring competitors to maintain this dominance, with the DOJ’s documentation citing how it systematically acquired companies such as DoubleClick (2008) and AdMeld (2011), which were crucial in shaping its dominance in the digital advertising space. In Digiday’s 2023 series, an Oral History of Ad Tech, former DoubleClick (and subsequently Google) executive Ari Papro claimed the launch of DoubleClick’s ad exchange played a key part in the $3.1 billion purchase, albeit rival Big Tech names of the day were making similar moves.  These acquisitions allowed Google to integrate vertically across the ad stack, controlling key parts of the ecosystem from demand-side platforms (DSPs) to publisher-facing ad servers. Per the DOJ’s filings, “The acquisition provided Google with a pool of captive

publishers that now had fewer alternatives and faced substantial switching costs associated with changing to another publisher ad server.” The DOJ claims these moves were intended to neutralize threats from innovative competitors and protect Google’s ability to collect vast amounts of data, which further entrenched its market power. Acording to the DOJ, these acquisitions distorted competition and limited consumer choice in the digital advertising landscape, but that’s not the only way of looking at things. Google’s defense team is likely to point to how acquiring such assets enabled it to construct a more efficient ecosystem that benefits multiple parties on each side of a media transaction. Additionally, the defense team is likely to point out that Google’s consolidated offering offers consumers better data security, per its own assessment. 3. Exclusionary tacticsElsewhere in the filings, Google is also accused of employing exclusionary tactics to hinder competitors’ growth, but the defendant is likely to point to how its tools are interoperable with rival ad tech. The DOJ asserts that Google used its dominant position to limit the interoperability of its ad tools with rival systems, making it difficult for advertisers and publishers to use third-party ad tech solutions. By controlling access to valuable ad data and limiting rivals’ ability to serve ads on its platforms, Google allegedly forced many in the industry to depend on its services.According to items admitted into evidence in the case, “Google has configured the ad server to work in a more integrated manner with its own ad exchange AdX… this has the unintended effect of preventing, technologically, the creation of a trnly [sic] open RTB marketplace with 3rd party [sic] exchanges.”Such practice reduced transparency in the ad-buying process and restricted alternatives for advertisers, leading to higher ad prices, according to Google’s accusers, who would add such conduct has blocked innovation from smaller competitors who couldn’t gain a foothold.Albeit, Google contends that the cost of ads is reducing — as evidenced by the serial revenue declines produced by its Google Network business, a business unit widely recognized to represent the entity formerly known as DoubleClick — as further evidence of a robust ad tech market. The DOJ contends that Google unfairly preferences its own ad exchange in auctions, disadvantaging rival exchanges and advertisers, and it’s in this passage of debate, where the court will hear some of the most esoteric ad tech terms in existence: “header bidding.”By manipulating ad auctions, Google allegedly steers business toward its ad exchange at the expense of competing exchanges through its (alleged) earlier “first look” and “last look” advantage. This self-preferencing practice distorts auction outcomes, leading to higher prices for advertisers and reduced revenue for publishers. It resulted in rivals introducing a workaround: the aforementioned “header bidding.” According to the DOJ, Google subsequently moved to hamstring the rise of header bidding with the 2019 adjustment to how it aucitoned-off ad inventory. In this regard, Google’s unilateral decision-making harmed the overall digital advertising ecosystem by creating an uneven playing field that stifled competition and innovation. In this passage of proceedings, those paying attention are also likely to be treated to some of the more obscure names of Google projects, with names such as “Project Bernanke” and “Jedi Blue” to be debated in court.  Albeit, Google’s defense team is likely to argue that “ad tech hacks” such as header bidding bloated the consumer experience with the number of ad calls it involved, thus further decreasing the security of consumer data.   Additionally, Google is likely to maintain that dynamic pricing in the online advertising market helps monetize otherwise remnant inventory — that would otherwise be unsold — and that comparisons to two-sided markets where there is “an intrinsic value” (or standard price) of a commodity are not apt.

 5. Data dominanceFinally, the DOJ alleges that Google’s control over vast amounts of user data gives it an unfair advantage in digital advertising, as argued in the separate case of the DOJ vs. Google, where the defendant’s arguments were lost.By collecting data across its multiple services — search, YouTube, Android, and more — Google can offer superior targeting for advertisers, which rivals cannot match. This data dominance reinforces its monopoly, as competitors are unable to compete on a level playing field without access to similar data sets. The DOJ argues that this data asymmetry distorts competition, preventing rivals from delivering effective advertising solutions. Google’s dominant position in data collection also raises privacy concerns, as the DOJ claims it can exploit user information without meaningful accountability, further entrenching its position.Similar arguments were made in the earlier DOJ successful case making allegations against Google’s search ad business — it’s worth pointing out that the defendant plans to appeal this ruling — but what’s clear is that the fate of the ad industries likely to be decided in a courtroom in the Eastern District of Virginia in the coming weeks.“The future of the $600 billion online ad industry will be shaped in the coming weeks. Here are the arguments that will decide your future…”Source Link: https://digiday.com/media-buying/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?utm_campaign=digidaydis&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=general-rss http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/pexels-photo-18816860.jpeg Google and the Justice Department are poised to lock horns in an era-defining antitrust case that’s been 15 years in the making. The outcome will profoundly impact the 300,000-plus workers in the U.S. advertising sector, plus countless more globally.  And yes, that includes you; below are some key legal and technical arguments that will be … Read More

[technologycompanynews]

DOJ vs. Google: The arguments for and against the defendant’s (alleged) ad market monopoly - Notice Today Internet - BLOGGER https://www.merchant-business.com/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?feed_id=193835&_unique_id=66deb467889f4 Google and the Justice Department are poised to lock horns in an era-defining antitrust case that’s been 15 years in the making. The outcome will profoundly impact the 300,000-plus workers in the U.S. advertising sector, plus countless more globally. And yes, that includes you; below are some key legal and technical arguments that will be debated in a courtroom, overseen by Judge Leonie Brinkema, in the coming weeks. These arguments will decide your future during the next four to six weeks. The DOJ’s antitrust case against Google, filed in January 2023, focuses on its tech operations. It alleges monopolistic practices that harm competition in the $600 billion online digital advertising sector. The DOJ alleges that Google maintains monopolistic control over the entire online display advertising sector, using an ad tech stack equipped with tools used by advertisers, publishers and third-party ad tech companies, such as ad exchanges, etc.Per its arguments, this control stifles competition, as Google’s dominance forces advertisers and publishers to use products, such as its ad server, that impact ad prices, and ultimately result in consumer harm.The DOJ claims Google’s role as a broker, auctioneer, and participant in ad auctions — via its specific tools in Google Ad Manager (GAM), that are commonly known as “DFP,” “AdX,” and “DBM” by industry aficionados. This scenario leads to conflicts of interest, enabling it to favor its services at the expense of rivals.In trial documentation, the DOJ notes how smaller players in the publisher ad server market, such as Kevel, OpenX and Xandr (née AppNexus) have had to effectively exit the market because DFP had better access to Google demand. “Even technology giants like Meta have been unable to gain scale to compete with Google’s publisher ad server [DFP],” according to the filing, citing DFP as a “barrier to entry.”  In its assessment, the DOJ claims this results in less innovation, reduced choices for advertisers and publishers, and inflated costs for consumers. Google’s defense team would (of course) differ in its assessment and could argue that the U.S. government’s market definition is gerrymandered with a myopic focus on display advertising.  Instead, Google’s defense team is likely to raise attention to the broader advertising ecosystem, especially emerging sectors such as CTV or retail media/commerce media, where similar household names such as Amazon, Meta, and Netflix (to name but a few) have emerged as rivals for media spending in recent years. In the coming weeks, observers will likely hear how the DOJ’s arguments are stuck in a world that is pre-smartphone, pre-social media, and pre-streaming or that the concept of “open web display advertising” was invented by the government for the purposes of the case, and simply no longer a thing.    2. Anticompetitive acquisitionsThe government accuses Google of acquiring competitors to maintain this dominance, with the DOJ’s documentation citing how it systematically acquired companies such as DoubleClick (2008) and AdMeld (2011), which were crucial in shaping its dominance in the digital advertising space. In Digiday’s 2023 series, an Oral History of Ad Tech, former DoubleClick (and subsequently Google) executive Ari Papro claimed the launch of DoubleClick’s ad exchange played a key part in the $3.1 billion purchase, albeit rival Big Tech names of the day were making similar moves.  These acquisitions allowed Google to integrate vertically across the ad stack, controlling key parts of the ecosystem from demand-side platforms (DSPs) to publisher-facing ad servers. Per the DOJ’s filings, “The acquisition provided Google with a pool of captive publishers that

now had fewer alternatives and faced substantial switching costs associated with changing to another publisher ad server.” The DOJ claims these moves were intended to neutralize threats from innovative competitors and protect Google’s ability to collect vast amounts of data, which further entrenched its market power. Acording to the DOJ, these acquisitions distorted competition and limited consumer choice in the digital advertising landscape, but that’s not the only way of looking at things. Google’s defense team is likely to point to how acquiring such assets enabled it to construct a more efficient ecosystem that benefits multiple parties on each side of a media transaction. Additionally, the defense team is likely to point out that Google’s consolidated offering offers consumers better data security, per its own assessment. 3. Exclusionary tacticsElsewhere in the filings, Google is also accused of employing exclusionary tactics to hinder competitors’ growth, but the defendant is likely to point to how its tools are interoperable with rival ad tech. The DOJ asserts that Google used its dominant position to limit the interoperability of its ad tools with rival systems, making it difficult for advertisers and publishers to use third-party ad tech solutions. By controlling access to valuable ad data and limiting rivals’ ability to serve ads on its platforms, Google allegedly forced many in the industry to depend on its services.According to items admitted into evidence in the case, “Google has configured the ad server to work in a more integrated manner with its own ad exchange AdX… this has the unintended effect of preventing, technologically, the creation of a trnly [sic] open RTB marketplace with 3rd party [sic] exchanges.”Such practice reduced transparency in the ad-buying process and restricted alternatives for advertisers, leading to higher ad prices, according to Google’s accusers, who would add such conduct has blocked innovation from smaller competitors who couldn’t gain a foothold.Albeit, Google contends that the cost of ads is reducing — as evidenced by the serial revenue declines produced by its Google Network business, a business unit widely recognized to represent the entity formerly known as DoubleClick — as further evidence of a robust ad tech market. The DOJ contends that Google unfairly preferences its own ad exchange in auctions, disadvantaging rival exchanges and advertisers, and it’s in this passage of debate, where the court will hear some of the most esoteric ad tech terms in existence: “header bidding.”By manipulating ad auctions, Google allegedly steers business toward its ad exchange at the expense of competing exchanges through its (alleged) earlier “first look” and “last look” advantage. This self-preferencing practice distorts auction outcomes, leading to higher prices for advertisers and reduced revenue for publishers. It resulted in rivals introducing a workaround: the aforementioned “header bidding.” According to the DOJ, Google subsequently moved to hamstring the rise of header bidding with the 2019 adjustment to how it aucitoned-off ad inventory. In this regard, Google’s unilateral decision-making harmed the overall digital advertising ecosystem by creating an uneven playing field that stifled competition and innovation. In this passage of proceedings, those paying attention are also likely to be treated to some of the more obscure names of Google projects, with names such as “Project Bernanke” and “Jedi Blue” to be debated in court.  Albeit, Google’s defense team is likely to argue that “ad tech hacks” such as header bidding bloated the consumer experience with the number of ad calls it involved, thus further decreasing the security of consumer data.   Additionally, Google is likely to maintain that dynamic pricing in the online advertising market helps monetize otherwise remnant inventory — that would otherwise be unsold — and that comparisons to two-sided markets where there is “an intrinsic value” (or standard price) of a commodity are not apt.

 5. Data dominanceFinally, the DOJ alleges that Google’s control over vast amounts of user data gives it an unfair advantage in digital advertising, as argued in the separate case of the DOJ vs. Google, where the defendant’s arguments were lost.By collecting data across its multiple services — search, YouTube, Android, and more — Google can offer superior targeting for advertisers, which rivals cannot match. This data dominance reinforces its monopoly, as competitors are unable to compete on a level playing field without access to similar data sets. The DOJ argues that this data asymmetry distorts competition, preventing rivals from delivering effective advertising solutions. Google’s dominant position in data collection also raises privacy concerns, as the DOJ claims it can exploit user information without meaningful accountability, further entrenching its position.Similar arguments were made in the earlier DOJ successful case making allegations against Google’s search ad business — it’s worth pointing out that the defendant plans to appeal this ruling — but what’s clear is that the fate of the ad industries likely to be decided in a courtroom in the Eastern District of Virginia in the coming weeks.“The future of the $600 billion online ad industry will be shaped in the coming weeks. Here are the arguments that will decide your future…”Source Link: https://digiday.com/media-buying/doj-vs-google-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-defendants-alleged-ad-market-monopoly/?utm_campaign=digidaydis&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=general-rss http://109.70.148.72/~merchant29/6network/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/pexels-photo-18816860.jpeg BLOGGER - #GLOBAL Google and the Justice Department are poised to lock horns in an era-defining antitrust case that’s been 15 years in the making. The outcome will profoundly impact the 300,000-plus workers in the U.S. advertising sector, plus countless more globally.  And yes, that includes you; below are some key legal and technical arguments that will be … Read More

[zorbis]

Programmatic Advertising: Meaning, Benefits, and Top Platforms in 2024

Programmatic advertising refers to the automated buying and selling of digital advertising impressions in real time through exchanges. Rather than manually negotiating deals, programmatic relies on sophisticated software and algorithms to purchase ad inventory on a per-impression basis.

Programmatic emerged in the early 2000s as a more efficient way to buy and sell online ad inventory at scale. Instead of traditional insertion orders, buyers could leverage automation and data to optimize campaigns in real time. According to Statista, global programmatic ad spending reached over $546 billion in 2023, making up 72% of all digital display ad spending.

The key players in programmatic advertising include:

Demand-side platforms (DSPs) - Allow buyers to manage ad campaigns and bid on ad inventory

Sell-side platforms (SSPs) - Helps publishers sell ad inventory programmatically

Ad exchanges - Digital marketplaces that facilitate auction-based trading of ad impressions

Together, these platforms automate media buying and selling, powered by real-time bidding, data, and advanced algorithms to optimize performance for both publishers and advertisers.

Benefits of Programmatic Advertising

Programmatic advertising provides several key benefits compared to traditional digital advertising methods.

First, automation and real-time bidding enable a more efficient ad-buying process. Rather than negotiating set fees, programmatic allows you to bid on each impression as it becomes available. This dynamic pricing model results in better value.

Programmatic also improves targeting capabilities. By leveraging audience data and advanced analytics, you can zero in on your highest-value customers and avoid wasting money on irrelevant placements.

Regarding performance, programmatic consistently delivers a higher ROI than other digital formats. According to ROI Revolution, the average programmatic campaign ROI ranged between 122-600% in recent years. With the ability to optimize spending daily, programmatic makes it easier to improve results over time.

Programmatic buying also provides more flexibility to adjust your strategies based on learning. You can pause underperforming inventory or aument promising areas. This agility allows for ongoing optimization.

Finally, programmatic gives marketers access to granular insights and analytics. Detailed reporting on impressions, clicks, conversions, and more enables you to understand what's working at a micro level.

With programmatic automation, advanced targeting, superior ROI, flexibility, and analytics, it's clear why more budget dollars are shifting in this direction.

Top Programmatic Platforms and Tools for 2024

To maximize programmatic advertising effectiveness in 2024, marketers should leverage leading platforms across the ecosystem, including:

DSPs (Demand-Side Platforms)

DSPs allow buyers to manage media buys programmatically across publishers, exchanges, and SSPs. Top DSPs for 2024 include:

The Trade Desk

MediaMath

Adform

DSPs like The Trade Desk www.thetradedesk.com offer robust targeting, optimization, and reporting capabilities to extract maximal value from programmatic.

SSPs (Supply-Side Platforms)

SSPs aggregate ad inventory supply and make it available to buyers via the programmatic ecosystem. Leading SSPs are:

PubMatic

Rubicon Project

Top SSPs like PubMatic pubmatic.com provide key technology to monetize publisher inventory programmatically.

Ad Exchanges

Ad exchanges facilitate the buying and selling of media between DSPs and SSPs. Major players are:

Google AdX

AppNexus

Exchanges like Google AdX offer programmatic transaction capabilities at a massive scale.

Data Management Platforms

DMPs aggregate first-party data for targeted ad buys. Core platforms include:

Adobe Audience Manager

Oracle BlueKai

Analytics Platforms

Analytics tools provide campaign performance measurement and optimization. Leaders are:

Google Analytics

Adobe Analytics

Ad Verification Tools

Ad verification maximizes quality and prevents fraud. Top options:

DoubleVerify

Integral Ad Science

Conclusion

In conclusion, programmatic advertising revolutionizes the digital marketing arena, automating transactions via DSPs, SSPs, and ad exchanges. Its benefits include dynamic pricing, enhanced targeting, superior ROI, flexibility, and granular analytics. Top platforms like The Trade Desk, PubMatic, and Google AdX dominate in 2024, offering robust features for optimal programmatic success. Utilizing DMPs, analytics tools, and ad verification further amplifies campaign efficiency. As programmatic reshapes the future, businesses must harness these platforms for maximum impact and stay at the forefront of digital advertising trends.

[headerbidding]

Optimizing Ad Monetization: A Deep Dive into the Best Ad Servers for Publishers

In the digital age, publishers are continually seeking ways to optimize ad monetization strategies to maximize revenue while ensuring a seamless user experience. A critical component of this optimization process is selecting the right ad server. Ad servers act as the backbone of digital advertising operations, facilitating the delivery, management, and tracking of ads on publishers' websites or mobile apps. With numerous ad servers available in the market, it's essential for publishers to conduct a comprehensive analysis to identify the best solution for their specific needs. In this article, we'll delve into the world of ad servers, exploring key features, benefits, and considerations to help publishers make informed decisions and optimize their ad monetization efforts.

Understanding Ad Servers: Ad servers are sophisticated technology platforms designed to streamline the process of serving advertisements to targeted audiences. These platforms enable publishers to manage their ad inventory effectively, including ad placement, targeting, scheduling, and performance tracking. By leveraging the capabilities of ad servers, publishers can optimize revenue generation by delivering relevant ads to the right audience at the right time.

Key Features to Consider: When evaluating ad servers, publishers should prioritize the following key features to ensure they choose the best solution for their ad monetization needs:

Ad Format Support: Look for ad servers that support a wide range of ad formats, including display ads, video ads, native ads, and more. The ability to accommodate various ad formats ensures flexibility and maximizes revenue opportunities across different platforms and devices.

Targeting Capabilities: Advanced targeting options such as demographic targeting, contextual targeting, and behavioral targeting enable publishers to deliver highly relevant ads to specific audience segments, increasing engagement and click-through rates.

Ad Management Tools: A robust ad server should offer intuitive ad management tools for easy creation, scheduling, and optimization of ad campaigns. Automation features streamline workflows and improve efficiency, allowing publishers to focus on maximizing revenue.

Performance Tracking and Reporting: Comprehensive analytics and reporting tools provide valuable insights into ad performance, including key metrics such as impressions, click-through rates, and revenue earned. Real-time reporting capabilities enable publishers to monitor campaign performance and make data-driven decisions to optimize revenue.

Integration with Ad Networks: Ad servers that seamlessly integrate with ad networks and demand-side platforms (DSPs) provide access to a broader pool of advertisers, increasing competition for ad inventory and driving up ad prices.

Best Ad Servers for Publishers: While numerous ad servers are available, several stand out as leaders in the industry, offering advanced features and capabilities to help publishers optimize ad monetization efforts:

Google Ad Manager (formerly DoubleClick for Publishers): Google's ad serving platform offers a comprehensive suite of features, including ad serving, ad exchange, and ad management tools. With advanced targeting options and real-time reporting, Google Ad Manager is a popular choice among publishers of all sizes.

OpenX: OpenX is an independent ad exchange and ad server platform that provides publishers with advanced targeting capabilities, real-time bidding, and programmatic advertising solutions. With a focus on transparency and control, OpenX helps publishers maximize revenue through optimized ad monetization strategies.

AppNexus (Now part of Xandr): AppNexus is a digital advertising platform that offers publishers access to premium demand sources, advanced targeting options, and real-time analytics. With a global exchange and robust optimization tools, AppNexus empowers publishers to maximize revenue through programmatic advertising.

Rubicon Project: Rubicon Project is a leading advertising technology company that provides publishers with ad serving, header bidding, and yield optimization solutions. With a focus on transparency and collaboration, Rubicon Project helps publishers maximize revenue by connecting them with premium demand sources.

AdSense: Google's AdSense is a popular monetization solution for publishers, enabling them to display targeted ads on their websites and mobile apps. AdSense integrates seamlessly with Google Ad Manager, providing access to a vast network of advertisers and maximizing revenue potential.

Conclusion: Optimizing ad monetization is essential for publishers looking to maximize revenue and achieve long-term success in the digital advertising ecosystem. By selecting the best ad server for their needs and leveraging advanced features and capabilities, publishers can effectively monetize their digital properties while providing a seamless user experience. Whether it's Google Ad Manager, OpenX, AppNexus, Rubicon Project, or AdSense, publishers have a wealth of options to choose from to optimize their ad monetization efforts and drive revenue growth.

[reportprime22]

DSP (Demand-Side Platform) Market Size is growing at CAGR of 21.91%

A Demand-Side Platform (DSP) is an advertising technology that allows advertisers to programmatically buy ad inventory from a range of publishers and ad exchanges in real-time. The DSP market research report segments the market by type, which includes real-time bidding (RTB) and programmatic premium buying (PPB), application, which includes retail, automotive, financial, telecom, and others, and region, including North America, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Africa, Australia, and Europe. Some of the key players in the DSP market include Criteo, Double Click (Google), Facebook Ads Manager, Adobe, Trade Desk, Amazon (AAP), Appnexus, Roku, Mediamath, SocioMatic, Zeta Global, Verizon Media, AdForm, Amobee, and Centro Inc. Regulatory and legal factors specific to market conditions can impact the DSP market, and it is important for industry players to be aware of these factors and comply with regulations related to data privacy, consumer protection, and other relevant issues. Read more at https://www.reportprime.com/dsp-demand-side-platform-r11623

[kritikapatil]

Ad Tech Software Market is set to Fly High Growth in Years to Come

Advance Market Analytics released a new market study on Global Ad Tech Software Market Research report which presents a complete assessment of the Market and contains a future trend, current growth factors, attentive opinions, facts, and industry validated market data. The research study provides estimates for Global Ad Tech Software Forecast till 2027*.

The global ad tech software market is expected to witness significant growth during the forecast period of 2019-2020, according to the AMA study. This is owing to rising global advertisement investments and increasing demand for online advertisement due to rising digital marketing activities. Moreover, the digital transformation of different industry verticals in order to transform their marketing and operational processes in order to remain competitive in the market is another major factor aiding into the growth of the market.

Key Players included in the Research Coverage of Ad Tech Software Market are

Adoppler LLC (Belarus)

Criteo (France)

NextRoll, Inc. (United States)

Google LLC (United States)

MediaMath, Inc. (United States)

Adobe (United States)

AppNexus (United States)

The Trade Desk (United States)

InMobi (India)

Amobee, Inc. (United States)

Adform (Denmark) What's Trending in Market: Increasing Adoption of Online Advertisement

Challenges: The Threat of Advertisement Fraud

Opportunities: Digital Transformation of Industry Verticals

Growing Adoption of Artificial Intelligence In Advertisment Technologies

Market Growth Drivers: Rising Global Advertisement Investments

Increasing Demand for Online Advertisement Due to Rising Digital Marketing Activities

The Global Ad Tech Software Market segments and Market Data Break Down by Application (Affiliate Marketing, Search Advertising, Social Media Marketing, Email Marketing, Content Marketing, Website/Landing Page, Paid Display, Search Engine Optimization, Others), Enterprise Size (Small & Medium Enterprises, Large Enterprises), Industry Verticals (BFSI, Retail, IT & Telecom, Media & Entertainment, Automotive & Transportation, Government, Others), Deployment (On-Premise, Cloud-based) To comprehend Global Ad Tech Software market dynamics in the world mainly, the worldwide Ad Tech Software market is analyzed across major global regions. AMA also provides customized specific regional and country-level reports for the following areas. • North America: United States, Canada, and Mexico. • South & Central America: Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Brazil. • Middle East & Africa: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Turkey, Egypt and South Africa. • Europe: United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and Russia. • Asia-Pacific: India, China, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia. Presented ByAMA Research & Media LLP

[imperiumallaboveall]

AppNexus - Wikipedia

Update all Unitron AI for spinoff Ventures Venture private strategy

[ellinapark]

Ad Tech Software Market to Eyewitness Massive Growth by 2027

Latest Report Available at Advance Market Analytics, “Ad Tech Software Market” provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics and a forward looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining industry growth.The global Ad Tech Software market focuses on encompassing major statistical evidence for the Ad Tech Software industry as it offers our readers a value addition on guiding them in encountering the obstacles surrounding the market. A comprehensive addition of several factors such as global distribution, manufacturers, market size, and market factors that affect the global contributions are reported in the study. In addition the Ad Tech Software study also shifts its attention with an in-depth competitive landscape, defined growth opportunities, market share coupled with product type and applications, key companies responsible for the production, and utilized strategies are also marked.Some key players in the global Ad Tech Software market are:

Adoppler LLC (Belarus)

Criteo (France)

NextRoll, Inc. (United States)

Google LLC (United States)

MediaMath, Inc. (United States)

Adobe (United States)

AppNexus (United States)

The Trade Desk (United States)

InMobi (India)

Amobee, Inc. (United States)

Adform (Denmark) The global ad tech software market is expected to witness significant growth during the forecast period of 2019-2020, according to the AMA study. This is owing to rising global advertisement investments and increasing demand for online advertisement due to rising digital marketing activities. Moreover, the digital transformation of different industry verticals in order to transform their marketing and operational processes in order to remain competitive in the market is another major factor aiding into the growth of the market.What's Trending in Market: Increasing Adoption of Online Advertisement

Challenges: The Threat of Advertisement Fraud

Market Growth Drivers: Rising Global Advertisement Investments

Increasing Demand for Online Advertisement Due to Rising Digital Marketing Activities

The Global Ad Tech Software Market segments and Market Data Break Downby Application (Affiliate Marketing, Search Advertising, Social Media Marketing, Email Marketing, Content Marketing, Website/Landing Page, Paid Display, Search Engine Optimization, Others), Enterprise Size (Small & Medium Enterprises, Large Enterprises), Industry Verticals (BFSI, Retail, IT & Telecom, Media & Entertainment, Automotive & Transportation, Government, Others), Deployment (On-Premise, Cloud-based)

Presented By

AMA Research & Media LLP

[hostor-infotech]

Highbeam secures $10M loan to provide credit, spend monitoring and more to e-commerce retailers • TechCrunch

Highbeam, a startup that provides banking features, credit and cash flow insights to e-commerce customers, today announced that it raised $10 million in debt from TriplePoint as it looks to expand the reach of its digital product portfolio. Co-founders Samir Shergill (previously at Microsoft, McKinsey and AppNexus) and Gautam Gupta (formerly of Shopify, Venmo and Alloy) spent years working with…

[princerobert]

Global Sell Side Platform Market 2022 to 2028 Analysis by Top Key players like SmartyAds, OpenX, DoubleClick for Publishers, Rubicon Project, PubMatic, etc

Major Key players profiled in the report include: SmartyAds, OpenX, DoubleClick for Publishers, Rubicon Project, PubMatic, BrightRoll, AppNexus Publisher Suite, LiveRail and More...

Download Free Sample PDF including COVID19 Impact Analysis, full TOC, Tables and Figures@ https://www.marketinforeports.com/Market-Reports/Request-Sample/467017

[reportprime22]

DSP (Demand-Side Platform) Market Size is growing at CAGR of 21.91%,

A Demand-Side Platform (DSP) is an advertising technology that allows advertisers to programmatically buy ad inventory from a range of publishers and ad exchanges in real-time. The DSP market research report segments the market by type, which includes real-time bidding (RTB) and programmatic premium buying (PPB), application, which includes retail, automotive, financial, telecom, and others, and region, including North America, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Africa, Australia, and Europe. Some of the key players in the DSP market include Criteo, Double Click (Google), Facebook Ads Manager, Adobe, Trade Desk, Amazon (AAP), Appnexus, Roku, Mediamath, SocioMatic, Zeta Global, Verizon Media, AdForm, Amobee, and Centro Inc. Regulatory and legal factors specific to market conditions can impact the DSP market, and it is important for industry players to be aware of these factors and comply with regulations related to data privacy, consumer protection, and other relevant issues. Read more at https://www.reportprime.com/dsp-demand-side-platform-r11623

[greystheme]

Mattshea stick rpg 2

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 how to#

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 full#

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 plus#

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 free#

He can also collect trans-dimensional artifacts which are mysterious and solve the mysteries. (b)To meet strength requirements in order to fight some NPCs. Some important instructions to the player are: (a)To remember where his basement apartment is, to sleep until he finds a new place. The player after gaining enough strength can also date with a girl and in order to gain strength he should do the gym or learn boxing. He can also eat,drink,sleep,gamble,train,fight,study,quest and invest.

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 full#

In the game, we enter into an interesting city where the player can work either full time or can apply for a part-time job to earn. You can enjoy the game even if you did not play its first version. It suits you if you love exploring the world, improving yourself, collecting inter-dimensional items or becoming rich.

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 free#

Stick RPG 2 is an interesting game developed by XGen Studios and released on April 19, 2011, this game belongs to free to play category and if you are interested to visit official site.

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 how to#

In Arcade, Category, Controls of the game, How to play, Objective, Online gaming, Read info, RPG, Strategy, Strategy

#Mattshea stick rpg 2 plus#

XGen Studios works with Advertising technology companies such as PointRoll, Aggregate Knowledge, DoubleClick.Net, CPMStar, Brilig, Google Ad Partner Services, Google Adsense, X Plus One, Evidon, Mediaplex, The Trade Desk, Korrelate, Turn, Specific Media, DoubleVerify, Atlas, Media Innovation Group, Yahoo Small Business, Conversant, AppNexus, Integral Ad Science, Openads/OpenX, MyBuys, Google Adsense Asynchronous, Google Direct, Ads.txt, Adform Direct, Polymorph Direct, AOL Direct, Amazon Direct, AppNexus Direct, DistrictM Direct, ORC International Direct, Improve Digital Direct, Inde圎xchange Direct, LKQD Direct, LoopMe Direct, MemeVideo Direct, OpenX Direct, PubMatic Direct, RubiconProject Direct, Smartclip Direct, SpotXChange Direct, SpringServe Direct, StreamRail Direct, Tremor Video Direct, Vidstart Direct, AOL Reseller, AppNexus Reseller, Beachfront Reseller, ContextWeb Reseller, Comet Cox Media Reseller, DistrictM Reseller, FreeWheel Reseller, Google Reseller, Improve Digital Reseller, Inde圎xchange Reseller, LKQD Reseller, LoopMe Reseller, Mobile Ad Trading Reseller, OpenX Reseller, PubMatic Reseller, RhythmOne Reseller, RubiconProject Reseller, SmartAdServer Reseller, Somoaudience Reseller, SpotXChange Reseller, SpringServe Reseller, Synacor Reseller, Telaria Reseller, Tremor Video Reseller, YieldBot Reseller, 33 Across Direct, fluct Direct, AdMan Direct, ContextWeb Direct, Converstand Media Direct, GumGum Direct, Infolinks Direct, Kargo Direct, Lijit Direct, Direct, RhythmOne Direct, Rich Audience Direct, ShareThrough Direct, Smaato Direct, Sonobi Direct, Sovrn Direct, Triple Lift Direct, Yahoo Direct, Yieldmo Direct, 33 Across Reseller, Adform Reseller, Admixer Reseller, AdYouLike Reseller, Amazon Reseller, Bidtellect Reseller, Connectad Reseller, Converstand Media Reseller, ORC International Reseller, GumGum Reseller, Lijit Reseller, Reseller, OneTag Reseller, Outbrain Reseller, Smaato Reseller, Sonobi Reseller, Yahoo Reseller, ShareThrough Reseller, Link Share, PHP Ads.You will stick on to “Stick RPG 2” if you are a gamer They are headquartered at Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and have 1 advertising & marketing contacts listed on Kochava. Pricing models they offer are CPM on channels such as Display, Mobile, Email, Social Advertising on XGen Studios will allow you to reach consumers in industries or verticals such as. XGen Studios advertising reaches 123k visitors across desktop and mobile web, in countries such as United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Australia.