Allllrighty then!
Remember back in September when The Trade Desk definitely wasn’t working on developing its own CTV operating system? And then a few weeks later it definitely wasn’t working with Sonos as its hardware partner?
Well, despite CEO Jeff Green’s denials at the time, the rumors turned out to be true, as the company confirmed on Wednesday.
TTD has spent the last three years quietly building its streaming OS, called Ventura (in reference to their California headquarters, not the Pet Detective), to compete with the likes of Roku, Amazon’s Fire TV and Google’s Android.
It’s not unprecedented for an ad platform to get into the TV OS business, and vice versa. Amazon, Google and Roku all have their own DSPs for running CTV ads.
But they also each have their own libraries of content. And this, according to Green, creates a conflict of interest. The Trade Desk doesn’t have this issue, he argues, because it doesn’t own streaming content.
“We’re looking at a concentration around a handful of players that lack objectivity,” Green told Axios in an interview earlier this week.
But is that really the case? Is owning content a “conflict of interest” among current OS providers, and, if so, how does that affect the CTV landscape?
I decided to ask a few experts for their perspectives:
- Josh Chasin, principal and co-founder, KnotSimpler
- Tony Marlow, CMO, LG Ad Solutions
- Jason Manningham, CEO, Blockgraph
Josh Chasin, principal and co-founder, KnotSimpler
I don’t buy the argument.
TV manufacturers are essentially the “OS” for stations, networks and streamers, but companies like LG, Samsung and Vizio also sell ads (i.e., compete with the content providers they carry).
Perhaps more germane, Comcast cable is the “OS” for cable subscribers who use that platform to watch Comcast’s NBC and Telemundo network content. No advertiser has had a problem with Comcast as the OS for NBC or Telemundo, and Comcast carries competitors to those networks.
So that addresses the question of conflict for advertisers.
For consumers? Well, I can still watch Prime on Roku even though Amazon sells ads against football. I can watch Netflix, Hulu or YouTube on my Amazon Fire TV Stick.
Platforms owning content doesn’t appear to limit choice for either advertisers or consumers. Ventura may offer benefits, but I don’t think this is a problem that needs solving.
Tony Marlow, CMO, LG Ad Solutions
When consumers turn on their TV, they are in control and choosing what and where to watch. The idea that owning content creates a “conflict of interest” overlooks the empowering nature of this viewer-driven experience.
In the ever-evolving world of ad tech, there are many approaches to creating engaging environments. It will be interesting to see how The Trade Desk’s OS system navigates the balance between delivering value for advertisers and enhancing the user experience.
Jason Manningham, CEO, Blockgraph
The role of an operating system in CTV isn’t about “conflicts of interest” – it’s about control, innovation and – most importantly – identity. Owning content doesn’t inherently create bias. It creates opportunity.
Companies like Comcast and Charter, through Xumo, are integrating OS functionality with a deep understanding of consumer experience, premium content and identity management. This ensures relevance for viewers and value for advertisers.
The Trade Desk’s approach of staying content neutral is interesting, but neutrality alone doesn’t solve the foundational challenges of CTV, which are household identity, cross-platform attribution and secure, privacy-compliant data collaboration. In fact, OS control is critical for signaling, whether it’s managing ad breaks, delivering better targeting or supporting advanced measurement.
There are already several interesting OS initiatives, including Xumo and incumbents like Samsung and Roku, but it will be fascinating to see what The Trade Desk brings to the table.
Answers have been lightly edited and condensed.
Questions? Comments? Concerns? Float ’em my way at victoria@adexchanger.com.
