The Loom version of the video is located here and allows people to react and comment on the video which I highly encourage.
NOTE: This transcription isn't the best. Time permitting, we'll clean it up.
Hey, this is Rob Beeler with a Beeler.Brief for July 21st, 2021. This is the first, Beeler.Brief. I'm trying this way.
Cut me some slack while I work this out, but I'm excited about this idea of sharing content in this way, with the community.
So all of this information is based on a publisher-only call that we had last week about identity solutions.
I thought there were a lot of really good points to share, with everyone. So first, everyone is waiting for the publishers to task their ID solutions or test the idea solutions that are out there.
But how do we know that the identity solutions are actually working? here's the problem that some ID solutions don't really even provide the reports that we need.
And we discussed the need that, they need to do that. And we as publishers need to articulate what we need in terms of reporting.
But as we talked about that, I think one of the main themes that emerged is we probably actually need to see more data at the rapper level than necessarily the ID solutions that yeah, w we'll need it at the ID solution level, but there is a part that I think all of us are going to be looking at our inventory across the ID solutions, as well as everything else.
And we're going to need to see the data in ways that allows us to get a more holistic picture. Um, to me, this is an opportunity for publishers to start to articulate what they want in terms of data and where they want it, so that we can start to truly understand, again, our inventory, as well as what these solutions provide for us.
And so those, I think will be ongoing, ongoing conversations that we'll be having a couple of people did mention, that they had run some tests with various ID solutions.
one, it was early days for them. They saw minimal uplift, and their main thing was trying to figure out how to measure it.
And in one respect, it looked like it was all coming down, just having higher CPMs. I think we need more, more concrete data than to assume a higher CPM is because of an ID solution.
One other publisher. However, I do think had a little bit better picture of that. And they were saying that within safari, that some of their inventory was getting double the amount of high CPM within the safari environment, which is quite exciting actually.
Now I think their main issue is the fact it wasn't a lot of impressions that they were actually getting related to an ID solution.
it might not be much of a scale issue, but to me, it spawned a couple of ideas.
And one of them is that if you're a publisher, seems to me like why wouldn't you do testing and especially look in the safari environment to see what uptake you can get.
It's probably your lowest CPMs as it is. So why not try and make more money in that particular browser and see what you get?
Why not think the other idea though, is just that it's really hard to do these tests while third-party cookies are still the main oxygen of the ad tech ecosystem.
I think that we're going to see buyers test the ID solutions, and I'm sure that there'll be people saying if that's successful, I think it's going to be very key for publishers to truly understand and do their own tests to see what they're actually getting out of all of this effort.
Ultimately, I think it will pay off. I think it's very important for publishers right now to dive in and being engaged with the ID solutions, but it's not going to necessarily make your year in terms of revenue.
I just think that you're just going to have to look to see what signals it tells you. Um, but at the same time, I say that I'm sitting here thinking it's so hard to say what the future is going to be.
Once third party cookies are deprecated, um, by looking at data now, I think once third party cookies go away, um, you're gonna put a lot more weight on the identity solutions, and perhaps only then are we going to see whether they hold up and truly bring us the amount of revenue that we're going to need as publishers?
So it's making of that. What do we do at the time that Google has granted us? So one pub weighed in on that question and really talked about continuing to do more testing, continuing to focus on creating their first-party data strategy.
I do think that there's a need for publishers to keep the level of urgency up. And at the same time, I do expect there to be some stagnation, right?
I mean, it's called Q4. And when most publishers are making revenue and are going crazy, just keeping whatever direct deals or whatever things they have to maximize revenue.
It's hard to start to talk to think about the future at that time. I think many people know that, um, Q4 is the hardest time to work on new projects for many.
And so I think that will look like it'll slow down. I think that's what it'll probably feel like. And at the same time, I think that this is just going to be something that's top of mind for everyone.
All we have to do is just keep working on the urgency. We have to keep working on sharing the results that we get so that we kind of collectively share information and move forward as we have these conversations.
I think that one other thing that I would say about the amount of time we have, it is now time again for publishers to work with the ID solutions, to build publisher-facing tools, to make this really work for the publisher.
And I'll talk about that a little bit further along, but I just sit there and think that there is time here to get what we want versus racing against the clock to get things done.
So hopefully that's what starts to happen. So two other conversations kind of emerged, as part of the discussion and one Senate around security, one publisher.
and again, I go anonymous on this mentioned that a malicious actor had actually scraped hash emails from their pages and did bad things with them.
And they have, they had issues with users, because of this scraping of hashed emails, I'll be honest, the first time I'm hearing of this, this sounds really, really bad.
And it seems like something that like, this is an actual issue. We need to solve that. And perhaps I don't understand all that, all that's involved in this, but I'm, I'm sure going to talk with people and understand what the risk is with hashed emails.
Someone else mentioned that just you have built there is the ability to buy hashed emails. I mean, if this is going to create a more secure ecosystem, how, how is it doing that?
If you think about it, an email is the worst ID thing to build around than a cookie, if privacy is your main concern, right?
Because if that email gets stolen a lot more goes as tied to that than a particular cookie. So hopefully we can talk more about this and, and if there is a need for greater security that that gets built, the other aspect of it just kind of turned into, well, what's the role of a CNP if this kind of security issue exists and let's, let's be clear on something, right?
It is the publishers who get consent for everyone else. And guess what? You're welcome. but how do we monitor that once we get consent and we start working with it that the rest of the ad tech ecosystem is even adhering to it, it's a daunting task.
It changes over time. One interesting aspect of this conversation is that it came up that confined as a solution, a privacy compliance solution.
And in my mind it just strikes me as so, so us that we now need to buy and work with security systems to monitor ad tech, not the malicious actors, but the actual ad tech players to make sure that they are adhering and complying to the regulations that we're trying to follow.
The other thing that kind of came up as just a conversation right of this is, is the, is it our jobs as publishers to keep propping up the open marketplace, the open marketplace.
And I mentioned before the oxygen that powers the open marketplace is data and is third-party data. And in the setting up of that publishers really just gave a lot away.
It's something where again, between data leakage and everything else that we're doing, we don't know really how like it wasn't built with us necessarily in mind.
Let's just put it that way. And I think that we're in danger of doing the same thing. Again, you work with an identity solution and, you get that consent and you get that person logged in, and then you just pass that on without any level of controls or not understanding of what you just got consent for.
I think you're losing something. I think I think you're helping prop up bad practices in while the side needs scale and they need that information.
And then in some respect that isn't necessarily ours to see, it's their information, there's a transparency piece to this that like really has to go and get into place.
And it's an opportunity for publishers., what, if you get consent, perhaps your best thing to do is to hold back a little bit and just start to work on ways.
And with people who are going to allow you to understand what's going on. I mean, it is really up to us as publishers.
And we need to look at next year that we need to own context and we need to own, and we need people to understand that consent has value.
The only way to future-proof your business as a publisher is to establish and maintain a trusted relationship with the people, the people that come and visit to your sites, okay.
Ad tech should be paying you for the privilege of living off that consent. And so publishers work to figure out how to communicate to your users, the value exchange you have so that when you get that consent, you can build your business.
And then let's have ad tech follow where we take that conversation. So that's the first Baylor brief, lots of ums.
Lots of you knows a little bit of rambling here and there, but hopefully, this was useful to you all. And I look forward to your feedback.