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

Single continuous line drawing robot riding pencil rocket flying in the sky. Tech education and creativity. Future technology development. Artificial intelligence. One line design vector illustration

Q3: Omnicom’s Media Business Is Growing, But Is It Agent-Proof?

If AI agents can plan and buy media, who needs a holding company? Good question. It came up during Omnicom’s Q3 earnings on Thursday.

Netflix Touts New Measurement Capabilities As It Struggles With “Modest” Engagement Growth

Netflix’s revenue grew 12% YOY to $12.9 billion in Q3, which it maintains is in line with its forecast. Its ads business, however, is lagging slightly compared with expectations, causing Netflix to tweak its forecast for the rest of the year.

Apple Publishes Its Plan To Wipe Out Web Tracking

Apple is coming for identity resolution. WebKit’s latest tracking crackdown targets the infrastructure behind post-cookie IDs – and switching to a first-party setup won’t necessarily spare vendors.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

AI Slop Sites Are On The Rise. Is Ad Tech Ready For Its New MFA Challenge?

Advertising supply chain intelligence company DecryptAds uncovered more than 2,100 AI-generated recipe sites that are monetized with programmatic ads and feature fabricated author profiles.

How Australian Home Lender Lendi Measures The Invisible Work Of AI

Most brands and businesses are trying to figure out how to improve their metrics when it comes to AI – and also what those metrics even are.

AI Startup Minerva Built An Agentic CDP, But Don’t Call It That

Minerva wants to turn fragmented customer data into something marketers can use, with AI agents doing the work behind the scenes.