What Happened to the Ad-Network Apocalypse?

Almost a year later, no apocalyptic shakeout has hit yet. So what happened?

Venture and private-equity investments in ad networks have been robust for the past several years. More than 60 ad networks -- vertical ad networks, video, brand, performance, wireless, gaming, behavioral, contextual, etc. -- have raised $1.5 billion in the past five years, and the top 25 firms have received almost $1.2 billion of that total, according to VentureSource. Significantly, more than 75% of the money has been raised in just the past three years. These funding numbers do not include the more than $250 million that was invested in other companies that have already exited (Adify, Blue Lithium, Quigo, Tacoda, Third Screen Media, etc.).

A handful of ad networks have indeed either shut down or been acquired for nominal amounts (Adzilla, Ad Infuse, AdEngage, Jellycloud, mSnap, NebuAd). A few others, like Peer39 (disclaimer: I sit on Peer39's board) and Ringleader Digital, have switched from building ad networks to selling technology instead. And a few are even thriving. Most, however, are merely surviving in this down economy.

Many of the less differentiated, standard graphical networks have not shut down, because they are easy to run with very little expense these days. Most of the lesser-known ones (and even some of the bigger players) are essentially glorified brokers that acquire their inventory on the exchanges. They hire a trafficker, a salesperson or two, sign a 5-cent-CPM contract with an ad server and find someone who knows how to bid the exchanges to stay in business. They don't need to invest significant resources in acquiring high-quality inventory or professionally managing relationships with publishers. These networks can generate a profit, enough to survive and to eke out a decent living.

Fundamentally, I would argue that the ad-network model still makes a lot of sense today and can be quite resilient. In particular, those ad networks that develop proprietary technologies and offer truly differentiated solutions are the ones most likely to be successful.

The basic reasons why so many ad networks are surviving:

• Online usage continues to increase and, according to a recent Forrester survey, has reached an average of 12 hours per week. That provides advertisers and agencies with strong incentives to move more of their ad spending online.

• The number of online sites and publishers continues to increase rapidly, which makes it increasingly difficult for advertisers and agencies to decide which sites to work with. Ad networks can help sort through this bewildering number of sites and target those that are most relevant and appropriate for their clients.

• Online viewership/time spent continues to fragment, so advertisers and agencies can't just work with the largest portals -- even those sites are losing their primacy with the surge in popularity of other sites such as Facebook and Twitter -- and top vertical sites to achieve its campaign goals. With agencies today struggling with tighter margins and needing to do more with less, many find it easier to work with a few ad networks than a number of individual sites.

• Most online publishers still find it difficult and lack the expertise to find, qualify, hire and manage ad-sales executives, which is a reason why many smaller and midsize online publishers turn to ad networks to help handle this activity.

• Through sophisticated analytics and advanced targeting/optimizations, some ad networks can deliver attractive audience demographics at scale. This aligns with the intended goal of most advertisers' media plans. As long as the content is proven to be "brand safe," the exact category of the content often is secondary to demographic profile for many advertisers.

• Price -- ad networks can offer advertisers more cost-efficient pricing than direct publishers can afford to charge. While large publishers justly sell their premium brands at high rates driven by scarcity of inventory, networks can aggregate smaller, less popular sites (with very similar audience characteristics) that do not command the same price premium but can deliver scale. Many agencies/advertisers will continue to prioritize reach and price efficiency equal to or greater than premium-content adjacency.

I believe that, in the next few years, many ad networks will survive but relatively few will flourish and become great businesses with compelling economics. The former group will remain undifferentiated (in terms of technology, focus or services) and compete primarily on price, leading to the continued commoditization of pricing and tighter margins. The latter group will target attractive segments in which they can achieve critical mass and build true barriers of entry through proprietary technologies, value-added services, advanced analytics and reporting, scale operations, etc. This is hard to do but financially rewarding if you are one of the few who can do it, which is why I personally continue to be fond of the ad-network business model (disclaimer: I sit on the board of Tremor Media, the premium-video ad network).

Ironically, the fact that it is easy for most ad networks to generate some level of revenue will likely persuade many of their investors to continue to fund these companies. Better to fund a company that has some revenue but is unlikely to achieve venture-like returns than to admit defeat and to pull the plug. Unfortunate, but true. It will be interesting to watch.

Ad Networks: Venture and Private Equity Investments

29 Comments

  By srpatterson | Columbus, OH August 27, 2009 02:01:26 pm:

Seems that many of the ad networks are making a profit and providing good ad sources for online content creators.
Steve
http://BrutusReport.com

Permalink

  By zach | sf, CA August 27, 2009 02:17:02 pm:

While I think that Warren is right to some extent, I think he did miss the consequences of the rapid technical transformation of ad exchange buying that is currently happening with real time bidding. At the moment it is possible to run a pretty good business on top of Right Media with commodity technology and good sales folks. The playing field for getting access to media at scale is pretty level-right now- on the exchanges. That is not going to be true for long. With the advent of real time bidding, proprietary bidding technology and data suddenly become a huge differentiators. Because media is a zero sum game, where any incremental advance shuts out the loser, any significant advantage on being able to price and match media with ads more efficiently will result in players with commodity technology finding themselves without access to media. Those Ad Networks that currently source their media on the exchanges may find themselves scrambling.

Permalink

  By tddaly | Yardley, PA August 27, 2009 03:36:19 pm:

The main reason that Ad Networs are still succeeding is that Agencies haven't replaced their services with their own in-house network exchanges yet. 2010 and 2011 will be tough upcoming years as Agencies pull their spend back and run it through their own systems. As Agencies shift spend, ad networks will feel the pain.

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 27, 2009 04:06:20 pm:

Hello Zach,

I'm glad you raised the topic of ad exchanges and real time bidding systems. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to squeeze those items into this article (word limit) but I will tackle that topic in a future article. I agree that these two developments are becoming increasingly important, though I believe that the pace of transformation will take time and that different segments of the online ad market (i.e., text, display, online video, etc.) will be impacted differently and at different rates.

Warren

Permalink

  By johngardon | new york, NY August 27, 2009 04:50:44 pm:

I think Warren's last statement regarding the continued funding of ad networks by VCs shouldn't be understated. Although ad networks have survived for many of the reasons Warren outlines, the driving force has got to be that VCs continue to fund them (for now).

Take a look at the top 25 ad networks highlighted in the article. Less than 50% of them by my estimate have reached or are close to reaching profitability. Warren rightly points out that VCs have continued to fund them because by definition ad networks make money (vs. other web 2.0 companies in many VCs' portfolios that don't), but that will change when VCs realize that ad networks can't be valued on revenue generation ability alone.

Take a look at ValueClick's (public) revenue multiple. It's pathetic because VCLK has terrible margins and no growth. The public has figured out that ad networks need to be valued on revenue AND margins -- when will VCs?

Permalink

  By aboer | GREENWICH, CT August 27, 2009 05:47:52 pm:

Great piece Warren. I noticed the same phenomenon.

We have now have two types of inventory in the market: high priced premium inventory that is sold directly, and non-premium inventory that is powered by ad networks. But coupled with the targeting and profiling now widely available, they now tend to perform roughly the same.

So does Gresham's law apply here? If so, bad money will chase out the good and the premium inventory will disappear. Publishers who are dependent on selling premium inventory (good money) will die well before the ad networks (bad money) do.

Interestingly, pre-2000 there was considerable consolidation in the ad network space by DoubleClick and 24/7 -- for scale, one supposes. But in the last year we have seen proliferation with out consolidation -- a year ago there were 300 networks, but according to recent reports there are as many as 400 today -- aside from the brief buying spree of two years ago by GOOG, YHOO, AOL, and MSFT.

Consolidation occurs when there are economies of scale. Does this suggest that there are no economies of scale left in the ad network business? If the platforms, data and inventory are now commoditized, then any group of talented salespeople with a group of agency relationships in a vertical can start an ad network.

Zach -- I agree that demographic/behavioral data (and not content) is now king, and really ought to be the main differentiator between ad nets. But I can't understand how proprietary bidding technology can ever be a sustainable competitive advantage beyond the very short term.

If bidding tech truly gives certain ad networks an edge, a vendor will enter to supply it, just as vendors now supply the platforms and data. In the SEM market...seven years ago you could have a real sustainable advantage by bidding intelligently on keywords. But the tools for SEM bidding are now widely available and understood.

I do think some ad nets will be more profitable and trade better than others, just like some hedge funds trade better than others (and many fail). But I doubt any networks will be "shut-out of access to media." There is plenty of media.

Publishers are still price-takers in an oversupplied content economy. The losing ad networks will just lower their prices and survive with thinner margins, until the Publishers disappear. When the content boom truly ends, then we might see a shake out.

Permalink

  By janestone | New York, NY August 27, 2009 06:10:55 pm:

Only a few hundred publishers have the resources to hire internal sales teams to sell premium inventory to advertisers and agencies. Inventory is growing by the day and in the fragmented web that we live in today the easiest and most cost effective way to generate revenue from traffic is to work with ad networks. CPM's on display via networks may run between $1 to $3, but all you have to do is slap on code to your adserver and voila. Moreover, many premium advertisers are spending more on networks because they realize they can get the same kind of traffic for 80% cheaper.

Jane Stone
VP Marketing
http://www.pointbanner.com

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 27, 2009 06:29:18 pm:

Aboer,

Appreciate the great comments. Definitely worth thinking about further.

My personal view is that it's relatively easy to start and operate small-scale ad networks (solutions such as Adify's make it super easy), but I believe that operating and scaling a large ad network requires significant work and investment (hence the need for venture capital). Managing a handful of advertisers/agencies and publishers is one thing; doing the same for tens or hundreds of each becomes increasingly challenging and difficult.

Warren

Permalink

  By znakit | Warsaw August 27, 2009 06:36:36 pm:

Warren,
with all due respect, but the question should not have been whether some/most of the ad networks make any money now, but if the billions invested in them have generated expected (optimum?) return. In my view, the answer is NO.

Was it an opportunity lost? Yes. Investing in platforms that enable content creators and publisher monetize their offerings in ways other than advertising -- such as pay-as-you-go and micropayment models -- would have been a much better deal. Better in terms of ROI, but also resulting in a safer, cleaner and bigger Internet, a bigger pie to share for everyone, not just a handful of big players who monopolize the Net but still need to figure out how to monetize it.

Permalink

  By zach | sf, CA August 27, 2009 06:39:18 pm:

Andrew,
The differentiation is between commodity and proprietary bidding software. If all the software does is something simple, where no significant advantage can be found, it becomes commodity and a vendor can provide it- think email clients, ad serving, word processing, etc. On the other hand, if one company's software can be significantly better then another's, it can provide a competitive advantage to that player in the marketplace. The software providing an advantage becomes proprietary and companies certainly don't want to share it with their competitors- think Google's algorithms, Goldman's high frequency trading software, UPS's package software, any hedge fund's system. In real time bidding, the individual impression valuation process, algorithms, data (including data about users, domains, placements, and creative optimization), ad matching, and human insights all provide a huge (exponential in our experience) advantage over other bidders. When ad companies are bidding to buy media and spending hundred of millions of dollars, it lends to reason that the best companies will want to control such a competitive advantage.

I challenge you to find any market where competitors are bidding for a core piece of their business where the top players would be happy all using the same commodity system.

To your point, the SEM business is very different. Keywords are single dimension problems, very simple to solve and a plateau is hit pretty quickly. Display media buying is multi-dimensional, much, much harder. Even still, I imagine Efficient Frontier can argue that their propriety software is better then their competition's.


Zach Coelius
CEO, Triggit

Permalink

  By jglickman | New York, NY August 27, 2009 09:34:21 pm:

Warren's 5th point on why networks are surviving is a good one: "delivery of attractive audience demographics at scale". With advanced targeting capabilities now commonplace amongst ad networks and the proliferation of a new breed of data exchange technologies, networks have the tools needed to offer what many advertiser's value most – delivery of a target audience or user behavior profile at scale. Individual publishers (even very large ones) are limited to delivering only to the users that visit their sites. When you segment to specific target demos, that potential userbase shrinks even further. Ad networks ability to aggregate thousands of sites and build vast pools of target demographics is a huge advantage. Their inventory is not finite and they can acquire new sites quickly (even real-time through an exchange), enabling them to deliver larger budgets and at a lower cost. The best ad networks pre-select their sites based on demographic composition analysis to optimize the model even further. It is this diversity and ability scale that networks will exploit, and it will allow them to continue to increase their share of online budgets.

Permalink

  By dumlobb | Palo Alto, CA August 27, 2009 10:57:04 pm:

Thanks Warren for this article. Excellent data and analysis. The bottom line is that ad networks need to find a long term strategy that makes them sustainable and create real value for advertisers and consumers. What happens when all those VCs start to realize that their companies aren't going to go public or get acquired for hundreds of millions of dollars?? Then those companies will really be TOAST.

Mark

Permalink

  By jsimp | Philadelphia, PA August 27, 2009 11:17:14 pm:

Where can I get a copy of the investment data? Would love to see what other ad networks have raised money and in what sectors. It will be interesting to track which of these startups receive more money from their investors.

Thanks,
Jeff Simpson
Twitter: @jsimpson

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 27, 2009 11:58:23 pm:

tddaly: Good point about agencies and the in-house network exchanges that they are building. While I admit that there is a possibility that agencies might shift a large amount of spending from the ad networks to their own network exchanges, I doubt that it will happen in a significant fashion over the next few years given the technical hurdles and business model conflicts. What we should watch for over the next 12 months is if/when agencies begin acquiring some of these ad tech startups to gain new capabilities rather than try to build it themselves.

Jeff: Let me know what your email address is and I'll send you a copy of the data.

znakit: I respectfully disagree. While pay-as-you-go and micropayment models can be quite successful for a number of online content categories/types (i.e., sports, entertainment, gaming, virtual goods, etc.), I believe that online advertising still offers the biggest revenue generating opportunity. Even during one of the worst recessions in over fifty years, online ad spending in the US will either be flat or maybe slight up this year. Not bad given what has happened in many other industries.

Warren
wlee@canaan.com

Permalink

  By znakit | Warsaw August 28, 2009 02:30:32 pm:

Warren,
I would agree that the current recession is a good reference point, a sort of a measuring stick one can use to evaluate the performance of the ad-supported and pay-as-you-go models. But then... If it is true that online ad spending is mostly flat or "slightly up" this year, then paid content is booming, during the same worst-in-years recession. And, you have to agree that hardly any VC has invested in those paid content models lately.

So, on the one hand, you have the ad networks, heavily supported by the VC/PE, and which make little or no money at all; on the other, there are the paid content sites that use micropayments or pre-paid cards, they do not get any funding, and still they generate billions. Yes, billions! What is the better or the best opportunity then?

As my finance professor would say, It is very easy to make someone a millionaire -- all you need is for that "someone" to be a billionaire first. This is precisely what the ad-models did to the billions invested in them -- turned them into millions.

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 28, 2009 05:56:43 pm:

znakit,

If paid content (I'm assuming online content here) is indeed booming, can you provide specific examples? I'm genuinely interested ... perhaps I need to add this as a future investment area.

In regards to ad networks, I would argue that it is too early to judge how good or bad these investments are. Remember that over 75% of the $1.5 billion that has been invested has been raised in just the last three years. How well these startups deploy this capital in the next few years will determine whether these investments can be considered successful or not. Too early to tell at this point in time.

Final point: Adify, Blue Lithium, Quigo, Tacoda, and Third Screen Media collectively raised $100 million in venture capital and in the past three years have returned close to $1.3 billion to shareholders. In addition, three other ad network/exchange companies -- Advertising.com, Massive, and Right Media -- collectively raised $150 million and returned another $1.3 billion. Clear examples of where millions have indeed been turned into billions, I think.

--Warren

Permalink

  By farrami | Emeryville, CA August 28, 2009 07:24:17 pm:

A timely article. Thanks for that. Ad networks continue to survive and grow currently due to low costs to enter the space and to operate. They survive on relationships and commoditization. But that's not really the point. The question is will they continue to survive when Google launches its full-fledged exchange and when agencies react to the RM and Google exchange. The answer will be no. There is mention of technology above as a differentiator. 1st of all that is extremely debateable, especially as we move a to a commodity environment (more than likely its relationships currently and the lack of in-house talent at agencies to buy on exchanges.) 2nd, does anybody think their technology now or in the future will be better than the behemoth that is Google? I think not. Do you remember MSFT in sw on the 90s? Google has the opportunity to be just as dominant. (Open question as to whether they will choose to.)

As to profitability, I am well in tune with the FS at the above companies. They are all profitable at their core businesses. If they are burning VC money, it is because they are electing to invest. The comment on VCLK reflects a lack of knowledge of their biz. Fastclick is the network. The rest of the company is a leadgen play and that space is getting slammed due to competition, govt regulation and other factors.

Permalink

  By znakit | Warsaw August 28, 2009 08:49:48 pm:

Warren,
I'd be happy to send you our numbers :) in a private e-mail.

I am sure you have heard about PlaySpan's acquisition of PayByCash first and then of SpareChange, which monetizes successfully social networks, an area where ad-supported models seem to have been doing poorly. NB: Facebook tries to copy the success of Spare Change and plans to launch its own "Pay with Facebook" platform; same with PayPal, which already eliminated the fix minimum to make its micropayment offer more attractive, it also builds its own Platform X (I believe it is called) to cash in on the paid content trend. And this is just social networking and virtual good. The virtual goods business alone is estimated to bring up to $17.5 billion by 2015 (according to Startegy Analytics) You can also check JupiterResearch or the recent VSS Forecats; they both predict that paid content (in general) will grow faster than the free or ad-supported one.

Then, there is the music or -- broader -- the entertainment and gaming, of course -- just as you mentioned. Both types of content generate billions in annual revenues. Then, there is the Amazon's Kindle, Sony's eReaders and an array of other similar hardware by major companies that hope to turn their devices into content distribution channels. Their business models are long-term subscription or on-demand, pay-as-you-go solutions with an option to skip ads.

But as I've said at different occasions, the ad-supported and pay-as-you-go models do not have to be mutually exclusive. They can work in tandem. Unfortunately, many of the VCs who invest so eagerly in the ad-supported models, stay away (often as far as they can) from the one based on users' direct payments. I hope the current recession and the fast and mostly "organic" growth of such companies like SpareChange or myYearbook or Zong will prove that they are mistaken -- as paid content models increase the pie and maximize profits.

Permalink

  By bussgang | Boston, MA August 29, 2009 09:46:29 am:

Warren - great analysis. I remain bullish on ad networks as well (e.g., Flybridge portfolio companies Transpera and Jingle), and think premium inventory, data and making it easy for buyers will all be critical success factors. Real-time bidding is going to be an interesting evolution. We have made a stealth bet in that space (DataXu) and are bullish there as well.

What I still struggle with, though, is who is going to buy all these ad networks and give us our great returns? Yahoo is now effectively out of that business and ValueClick has a depressed currency. That leaves Google and Microsoft, at least until AOL gets its spin out done. It takes a long time for shake outs to play out, so I'm not sure I'd declare victory on this one quite yet. Check in after two more years, when investor and management fatigue set in and there remains a dearth of interesting M&A options.

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 29, 2009 12:01:29 pm:

Hello Jeff,

Thanks for chiming in. Good luck with DataXu; Mike Baker is terrific and that space is certainly going to get very interesting in the next 18 months.

In terms of returns, I agree that it's an important question, not just for the online ad network space, but also for the many other (all?) sectors that VCs have come to know and love. In regards to ad networks, it's just like any other typical VC sector where all the returns are concentrated in a handful of companies. Per a prior comment, eight companies - Advertising.com, Adify, Blue Lithium, Massive, Quigo, Right Media, Tacoda, and Third Screen Media -- made up the bulk of the returns (over $2.5 billion) generated in the past 3-4 years. Several of these companies, I believe, were hitting many of the metrics (i.e., profitability, revenue growth) that were needed to go public; in fact, Advertising.com was about to go public before it was acquired by AOL. I believe that the same will hold true for the current crop of ad networks and that a small number of them (i.e., Adknowledge, Collective, Specific, Tremor) will have the potential to either go public or be acquired for premium prices. Unfortunately, there won't be 60+ great exits.

Warren

Permalink

  By dumlobb | Palo Alto, CA August 29, 2009 11:08:36 pm:

Having worked in the digital advertising space (Razorfish, DoubleClick) since the 1990s, I've seen many supposedly can't-miss technologies come and go. It takes more than just great technology to succeed with advertisers and consumers. Relationships, creative, execution, and understanding of the consumer all matter. I doubt that Google will be as dominant in display or video as it is in search. They're still a one-trick pony looking for a second act.

Permalink

  By ConradBaker | Boston, MA August 29, 2009 11:42:29 pm:

Terrific analysis and article. The conclusions match what we see at our shop. We work regularly with 7-8 ad networks and I would say that only a few consistently give us something different and valuable. We're beginning to focus more of our budget one these few networks. Suspect that other advertisers will start to do the same.

Keep the great articles coming. Would love to see something on ad optimization companies like Rubicon, Pubmatic, etc.

Permalink

  By moleary | new york city, NY August 31, 2009 01:28:32 pm:

Warren, where are Tremor's competitors in this chart? I don't see Yume, ScanScout or BBE on there. Maybe a bit of an investor bias here?

Permalink

  By Warren | Westport, CT August 31, 2009 02:14:35 pm:

moleary,

Of course not. Funny. The chart lists the top 25 ad networks sorted by total amount of funding raised. Listing all 60+ ad networks would have been unwieldy. According to VentureSource, YuMe has raised $19 million, ScanScout - $17 million, and BBE - $10 million.

Warren

Permalink

  By matthew | ny, NY August 31, 2009 10:19:02 pm:

Warren, excellent post. I too thought the ad networks were nearing extinction 12 months ago.

As you mentioned above, "The number of online sites and publishers continues to increase rapidly, which makes it increasingly difficult for advertisers and agencies to decide which sites to work with."

For me, the recent increase of online ad impressions on the web has occurred because of the proliferation of user generated content -- facebook, comments on articles, blogs, etc. and I think this is here to stay. So, while traditional, top tier, publishers may start to pull back the inventory they give to ad networks/exchanges, I see it being offset by ad impressions coming from sites with user generated content.

Hence, the ad-network apocalypse was diverted.

Permalink

  By Alain | London September 1, 2009 09:13:14 am:

Warren, very good post.

The situation here in Europe resembles what you are seeing in the US market. The predicted large scale shake-up in the ad-network space has not occured yet. While the purchase of Adlink by hi-media and Unanimious by Orange has helped consolidate the market, there are over 76 ad networks in the UK market alone.

The growth of ad-networks in Europe is being mainly driven by a few factors including:

1. The growth in display ad-spend across large markets including Spain, France and Germany.
2. The explosion of social media and the supply of cheap unsold ad inventory it has provided.
3. The ability to trade and monetize inventory on an IP address basis; this alone has made Europe attractive enough for some large US ad networks including Burst, Specific Media and Tribal Fusion.
4. The growth of video advertising which while in its infancy delivers higher margins for publishers and networks alike. Networks like SmartClip in Germany are doing very well out of it.

Permalink

  By tolman | NY, NY September 8, 2009 12:33:36 pm:

Warren just catching up on my summer reading, good piece. Certainly agree that targeting data is key to support margins over long-term. I think we'll see more M&A interest here, like Akamai's acquisition of Acerno which we handled. But the other area I'd highlight is "plumbing" - tools that integrate into your customers' workflow and make switching out a lot harder. Tremor's Acudeo tool for publisher-side video management is one; Collective Media's AMP for publisher-managed networks is another. Companies that can make themselves important to a meaningful number of their inventory sources by ways other than price will have a strong position to continue growing. Thanks, Tolman

Permalink

  By ssambasivan | Belle Mead, NJ September 19, 2009 02:04:44 pm:

Ad Network in the US may still be saturated. There is a lot of scope from a global perspective. There are lot of Global Advertisers wanting to reach targetted audience in the US and vice versa.
RevenueMantra.com is focussed on this space.
Thanks

Sam

Permalink

  By mtmannino | New York, NY September 25, 2009 11:39:13 am:

Warren -
Your parenthetical comment at the start that only 15-20 really matter is critical here. What do we really consider an ad network? When Valueclick launches an ad network focused on mothers - what does that mean? How is that different than a mother channel in a network.

Here's a list of 400 networks - http://adnetworks.net/?p=18 . It's a bit of a crazy list and I've never heard of most of them. Are the rest really networks and do they really matter? No. In fact, unless a "network" is offering a really valuable niche (think GoodHealthAdvertising in the health space) or a technology (eg, Tremor, Scanscout), if you're not in the top 25 on Comscore then nobody is calling you back.

What's most interesting to me is not what happens to the 400, it's what happens to the top 25. MediaMath works with top agency holding companies and they consistently say they want to move all their "network spend" to the exchanges as soon as they can. Agencies want control and the exchanges give it to them. I talk to many of the big networks, some are leaning into the challenge (eg, Adconion, TMP), others are not (I won't name them). No matter, the next few years will be fun.

Mark Mannino
VP Supply + Data, MediaMath
www.displayandsearch.com

Permalink

Comment:

Note: Comments submitted to AdAge.com are posted automatically and will include the user name with which you registered. Ad Age reserves the right to delete comments that are insulting or personal in nature. Comments may be used in the print edition at editorial discretion. Comments are restricted to 500 words or less.