Home The Sell Sider Sellers.json Is Great, But It Could Be Better

Sellers.json Is Great, But It Could Be Better

SHARE:

The Sell Sider” is a column written for the sell side of the digital media community.

Today’s column is written by Adam Schenkel, senior vice president of global commercial development at GumGum.

Even if you haven’t followed the 2019 launch of the sellers.json spec, the thinking behind it should sound like a positive move forward. Together with the IAB’s ads.txt and OpenRTB SupplyChain object specs, sellers.json gives buyers new vision into the supply chain, disclosing all entities involved from the demand-side platform (DSP) all the way to the end publisher.

Specifically, sellers.json designates whether any entity in the chain is a direct seller of inventory (a “publisher”) or a reseller of inventory (an “intermediary”).

If you’re in or near ad tech, it’s easy to understand why that transparency is important. Sellers.json can assist with supply-path optimization (SPO), cutting questionable intermediaries to the most direct path for publisher inventory when 10-plus exchanges offer the same impression.

Like ads.txt, sellers.json is not a cure-all for the ailment at hand – at least not in its current form. We’re moving quickly toward transparency, but speed can leave some gaps. I’ve been hearing some grumbling from those in one of those gaps: ad management platforms and the small yet high-quality publishers for whom ad management platforms present the most viable means of monetization.

The small sites I’m talking about are the mommy blogs and other pubs operating on a similar level. In many cases, they may be lone content creators. They produce quality content and have engaged audiences, but they don’t have great ways to monetize, unless they plug into an ad management platform that delivers demand. Those platforms also give advertisers a chance to reach otherwise hard-to-reach audiences – and at scale.

For all intents and purposes, the ad management platform serves as the small publisher’s proxy. But, in sellers.json, that platform looks like an intermediary because it’s not the publisher.

This matters for advertisers, publishers, inventory aggregators and users. DSPs and their advertisers can choose whether they want to buy from direct sellers, intermediaries or both. An intermediary may seem less desirable to marketers than direct sellers. So if the marketer chooses to avoid intermediaries, they will avoid these ad management companies that look like intermediaries.

It’s not just the ad management platform that suffers. The content creators lose monetization that makes their content creation possible. Users lose out on content they love and may even rely on. And advertisers lose out on access to highly engaged audiences.

Many ad management platforms deserve to be classified as direct sellers because they’re the only viable source of the inventory they manage. But there’s also a reasonable concern that if you label some of those companies as direct, other companies will do the same. We’ll want to avoid mysterious companies claiming they’re a publisher’s exclusive monetization source. These companies must earn the new classification. Maybe they could be verified by the publishers they represent or be required to join TAG and pay for verification audits as a cost of doing business, similar to other larger players, such as SSPs. Or maybe it’s something else entirely. This is really the kind of problem industry groups like IAB are best suited to solve.

The OpenRTB Working Group appears to be working on this issue as it relates to the next version of ads.txt. Ideally, any changes to ads.txt will influence the sellers.json spec. Of course, as with most standards in our industry, proposed changes and updates, such as OpenRTB 3.0, are only as good as their rate of adoption – and adoption generally occurs only when buyers demand it.

That’s why I hope buyers realize that a whole class of smaller publishers and their monetization partners have fallen into the gap between “publisher” and “intermediary.” The lack of a proper designation for ad management platforms is too trivial a reason for them and their publishers to be blocked from quality monetization – and for buyers to pass up access points to target audiences.

Follow GumGum (@GumGum) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

What Platforms Say Will Bring Bigger Ad Budgets To Digital Audio

To close the gap between digital audio ad spend and audience engagement, audio platforms want to get more deeply embedded in omnichannel campaign planning tools.

AdExchanger's Big Story podcast with journalistic insights on advertising, marketing and ad tech

Programmatic TV Home Screens And Gaming Ads For Kids

How can companies put ads in new places without hurting the user experience? Smart TV makers, like Samsung, are adding programmatic ads to the home screen, and Roblox will now show ads to users under 13. We examine the trade-offs as platforms expand their ad footprint.

This AI 'Brain' Wants To Get Rid Of The Grunt Work In Creative Campaigns

Innovid’s latest offering serves as the “brain” behind a company’s orchestration layer. Optimum says it reduces manual work and cuts down on execution time.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
multiple sets of eyes

Amazon DSP Adds Adelaide’s Pre-Bid Attention Targeting

Advertisers can target high- and medium-attention ad inventory in Amazon DSP while filtering out low-attention placements and made-for-advertising sites.

Marketers Are Getting Used To AI In The Ad Stack

Marketers and media buyers are gradually getting more comfortable talking about ad campaigns they’re testing on large-language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

For Video Publishers, Performance And AI Go Hand In Hand

In Connected TV Ad Land, proving performance is the priority for video advertisers. To drive more demonstrable reach and results, publishers are trying to expand their reach while wringing more data and AI features into their offerings.