David Kohl’s Post

View profile for David Kohl, graphic

Co-Founder & CEO, Symitri | Safeguarding privacy | Driving transparency | Building the sustainable future for trusted advertising

There are handful of folks in our ecosystem that consistently speak the truth and say what needs to be said. My friend, Dave Morgan, is one of them. In his most recent MediaPost editorial, Dave describes the epidemic of "strategic partner deals" (or a more a more cleverly-named version, "SPO deals") that are all secret code words for non-transparent volume-based rebates. There's nothing inherently wrong when commercial entities choose to trade margin for volume, but with extremely rare exception, these arrangements are anything but. -- Would anyone be surprised to hear that it's the norm for tech platforms to take margin not from their own pockets, but from the pockets of their publisher-side clients? -- Is anyone questioning that agencies generally pocket the rebates rather than passing them to their clients? TRUSTX is periodically asked to engage with an agency in a volume-based "SPO deal." Notwithstanding that we've not yet been able to determine what actual "optimization" of the supply-path is involved, we have no issue agreeing to reduce our own SSP margin once a buyer hits certain spend volume minimums. If we were to agree to such a volume-based rebate, our company policy is to send checks with transparent transactional reporting to the agency and brand directly. Sending a separate volume-based rebate payment ensures every party can validate that TRUSTX is paying from our own margin and not taking a penny from our publishers. Curiously, no agency has ever taken us up on this offer.

When Did We Become A Rev-Share-First, Not Client-First, Industry?

When Did We Become A Rev-Share-First, Not Client-First, Industry?

mediapost.com

Jeffrey Hirsch

Executive Leadership / Domestic & International Growth Management / Sales Organization Development / Product Strategy- Go to Market Planning & Execution / Marketing Comms & Brand Strategy / Bus Dev / Investor Relations

1w

I agree with your approach David Kohl . The truth is that these deals can be highly beneficial to all parties, which "should" mean they can be transparent to all parties. Perhaps there are some nuances in the definition of 'transparent' in this context. Does transparent mean that every detail needs to be declared or are there instances where transparency can mean less than all (allowing for competitive information to be obfuscated) and still provide the right level of detail to satisfy disclosure? Sounds like another place where we need standards.

The headline answers it's own question. When ad agencies became publicly traded companies, their first obligation became the shareholders, not their client, with executives being compensated on the bottom line rather than focusing on the output.

Mike Salerno

Transformational Leadership for Elevating Market Impact and Corporate Value | Global | Revenue | Operations | Products | Partnerships | Former: Amazon, Endeavor, Fandom, WBDiscovery

1w

I wonder if the answer to the question in the title aligns with the proliferation of adtech in the "value" chain - too much of it only intended to grab a piece of the pie and primarily add enterprise value to the adtech firm for potential future liquidity options?

When SPO was the new buzzword in 2019 and I was trying to make sense of it for my peers and leadership, I thought of a 3-cell meme which showed an agency leader touting the benefits of SPO to various audiences; first to the public, then to their clients, and last to their own colleagues, each with a different message.

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics