“Other” is the natural enemy of any marketer pursuing a unified standard of transparency across premium video advertising.
On every major video platform, the media seller knows the full details of an ad buy. When they choose to label any significant portion of that activity as “other,” it’s a deliberate decision to withhold information for the seller’s benefit and the buyer’s detriment.
Agency investment leads have reported “other” line items representing double-digit percentages, even in the most “granular” reports from the biggest walled gardens.
But last week’s ruling that Google operates an ad tech monopoly could strike a blow against those nontransparent “other” line items that increasingly appear in post-campaign reporting – and which Google helped propagate.
The VAB recently set out to gauge just how much “other” is hiding in plain sight – starting with Google’s 10-K filing for 2024. The results were staggering:
- Just 14% of Google’s $265 billion in 2024 ad revenue is clearly attributed to “YouTube Ads” ($36 billion) – the most transparent category.
- “Google Search & Other” represents about 75% ($198 billion). Per a third-party transparency firm, at least 6.7% of that ($13 billion) can conservatively be classified as “other.”
- The remaining 11% ($30 billion), categorized as “Google Network,” is largely opaque – lacking detail on placements and largely composed of undefined platforms.
- In all, $43 billion of Google’s 2024 ad revenue came from “other” – a figure nearly equal to what marketers spent on all print advertising globally ($43.7 billion) in 2024.
Two things are indisputable about this level of opacity:
- Opacity benefits the seller. It leads to higher margins for platforms like Google while exposing marketers to brand safety risks and low- or no-value impressions.
- Opacity is a choice. Google, one of the most data-rich ad platforms, has no excuse for failing to provide transparency on the full lifecycle of every ad impression. From 2022–2024 alone, marketers spent $726 billion on Google ads – $1.6 trillion since 2014. The idea that “we can’t quantify that for you” is preposterous.
As one agency head I spoke to put it: “It doesn’t matter who you are, you get to see what they let you see.”
The fix: one unified standard
What is the instant fix to the multibillion-dollar transparency gap in digital video? It is simple: Marketers must demand that digital platforms meet the same transparency standards already in place for multiscreen TV.
That includes:
- Complete transparency across the full life cycle of all video ad impressions
- Clear methodology behind how impressions are calculated
- Granular visibility into exact ad placements
- Breakdowns of skippable vs. nonskippable ads in reach and performance metrics
Last week’s Google antitrust decision could also be a boon for transparency. The anticipated reshaping of digital advertising can open the door to (finally) breaking the perpetual “Google first/marketer a distant second” pecking order enforced by Google’s opaque ad practices.
All media owners like to call their advertisers “partners.” But real partnership should ensure apples-to-apples comparisons among major ad platforms via one transparency standard. That practice would separate the true partners from the predators.
Which means, as digital and TV advertising converge, we will need more marketer-led vigilance. Only by insisting on a higher standard – one that eliminates “other” – can we ensure premium video delivers premium value.
“On TV & Video” is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video.
Follow VAB and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.
For more articles featuring Sean Cunningham, click here.
