[ad_1]
Over the years, publishers have learned the hard way that there is no free ad tech product.
For the latest installment of our Confessions series, in which we offer anonymity in exchange for the franchise, we spoke to a publisher who fears that the data leak will become a major problem again since the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation.
The answers have been slightly modified for clarity.
Data leakage has long been a problem. Why is this worry again now?
It has increased significantly since the advent of the GDPR and the Authorization Management Platform. For a long time, middlemen of different flavors – be they IT companies or social media giants – offered free technology to publishers on the badumption that they would earn more money . Typically, these are services and utilities that are difficult to create for publishers. Thus, there could be tools allowing publishers to segment audiences and understand them better so that they can sell them better to advertisers, for example. Now, cMPs are free.
So what is the problem?
If someone offers you something for free and sells it aggressively, and we do not expect to give him money back, we wonder what we give them back. GDPR and ads.txt served as a warning to publishers accepting free technologies. Once the data has left their pages, the publishers really have no control over what happens to them. Thus, ads.txt and GDPR have had a positive effect on this point. This [accepting free CMPs] is currently canceling some of this work by allowing the output of data from a different source.
So what do publishers have to do?
These [CMP] technologies are often developed and sold by companies with media companies. Thus, anyone who accepts these technologies for free from companies that aggregate media and data to then pack and sell to advertisers, and have an undisclosed margin to consolidate media and data.
The GDPR has reopened the opportunity for publishers to regain control of their own data and publishers have realized over time that one of the most valuable badets is their relationship with the consumer and what they know about their subject. By giving this access to a company that might have a commercial interest in abusing it, it is a question of not leaving the fox inside the henhouse.
Is it not the publisher's responsibility to make sure this does not happen?
Many publishers are worried about this, but often opt for a free CMP because they admit it's easier. And sales pitches are often very convincing or aggressive. Each publisher has an extensive road map of the tasks they would like to do if they had time to do so. But taking what is a possible Trojan from an ad tech company to solve the problem seems like a tedious exercise rather than an opportunity to protect something that has such fundamental value for the publisher.
Give an example of an aggressive sale.
They highlight legislative risks with a slight threat when they warn a publisher that they are exposing themselves to legislative risk under the RPG Act or that they are exposing themselves to working with this publisher. This is an alarmist approach put in place since the GDPR. And now that high-profile cases are fined, they will probably get more and try to provide a free service.
Do not some CMPs simply want to add value to trusted partners?
I know it's good to have a relationship with publishers and to be seen as a valuable partner offering services beyond the basic service, but to dedicate so many R & D resources to the creation of solutions that do not generate an immediate commercial return in these busy times The ad tech companies seem to be an act of extraordinary generosity.
What are the consequences if publishers are not careful enough?
The worst case scenario is that publishers will never realize the true value of their data or media. It will be a faceless inventory that someone else will be able to target with the help of their own data and extract value from the supply chain, which is rightly the value of the logistics chain. publisher and advertiser. If they do not seize this opportunity, they will give this value to the intermediaries and the cycle will continue.
This famous example of 70 pence (92 cents) for unknown sources can never be improved. We will simply open new leaks. We will repair a leak and open another.
Source link
