Home The Sell Sider The Myth of Unlimited Inventory

The Myth of Unlimited Inventory

SHARE:

sell-sider

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

Today’s column is written by Jim Spanfeller, CEO, Spanfeller Media Group, a new age media company.

It has often been said that due to nearly “unlimited inventory”, pricing on digital advertising will continue to decline.  This is a thought that has been taken as gospel for some time now, but in the light of day is, in fact, simply not true.

How so? Well let’s look at this from both ends of the telescope. The first is the belief that an overwhelming abundance of impressions results directly in lower CPMs; the second is the reality of those impressions in the first place.

Is the apparently unlimited amount of available banner inventory at the root of the continuing downturn in average online CPMs? I would tell you no. In just about every other medium out there (with the possible exception of Network Television) there is available inventory well beyond what the demand curve calls for. One can always add another form to the folio in a magazine or newspaper, there are more than enough available placements in radio, and spot, fringe and cable television rarely sell out.

So the implied supply and demand curve logic might be true for widgets, but has never been true for media. Media costs have always been the result of ongoing negotiations between buyer and seller. Of late, and especially true in the digital world, the buyer has been doing a much better job of negotiating than the seller.

But the issue in the digital world is twofold. The seller side of the negotiation is not helped by the appearance of way more inventory than there really is — which is the other end of the aforementioned telescope.

All too often, what passes for good inventory is anything but. It is either within environments that are corrosive to the advertising message or, as we have recently learned, is simply never in view — which means it was not really inventory in the first place.

When one distills down these issues it becomes quickly apparent that true “premium” inventory (and while there are varying definitions of premium in the digital world, almost all them would work here) is actually very much limited.  We have been living a lie for some time now. And while that lie has served a few players well, a majority of the most important participants in the marketplace have been negatively impacted. It is clear that publishers are getting rates well below what they should, but equally notable (or perhaps even more, given that marketing dollars fuel the industry) is that advertisers have been dealt a blow by seeing big percentages of their spend go to useless impressions (not seen) or, worse yet, destructive placements that actually hurt brand perceptions.

As we move further down the path of programmatic sophistication, and as more and more marketers work hard to realize metrics that go well beyond the click, the reality of these issues will become increasingly obvious and slowly they will recede into our past.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

As Abraham Lincoln said, “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Slowly but surely, we are getting to a point where the reality will simply win out over the bad actors. At first, some of the people, and then, all of the people, will no longer be fooled into acting on assumptions that are based more in myth and obfuscation than in reality and transparency.

Follow Jim Spanfeller (@JimSpanfeller) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

Comic: Alphabet Soup

Buried DOJ Evidence Reveals How Google Dealt With The Trade Desk

In the process of the investigation into Google, the Department of Justice unearthed a vast trove of separate evidence. Some of these findings paint a whole new picture of how Google interacts and competes with its main DSP rival, The Trade Desk.

Comic: The Unified Auction

DOJ vs. Google, Day Four: Behind The Scenes On The Fraught Rollout Of Unified Pricing Rules

On Thursday, the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia boarded a time machine back to April 18, 2019 – the day of a tense meeting between Google and publishers.

Google Ads Will Now Use A Trusted Execution Environment By Default

Confidential matching – which uses a TEE built on Google Cloud infrastructure – will now be the default setting for all uses of advertiser first-party data in Customer Match.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Unraveling The Mystery Of PubMatic’s $5 Million Loss From A “First-Price Auction Switch”

PubMatic’s $5 million loss from DV360’s bidding algorithm fix earlier this year suggests second-price auctions aren’t completely a thing of the past.

A comic version of former News Corp executive Stephanie Layser in the courtroom for the DOJ's ad tech-focused trial against Google in Virginia.

The DOJ vs. Google, Day Two: Tales From The Underbelly Of Ad Tech

Day Two of the Google antitrust trial in Alexandria, Virginia on Tuesday was just as intensely focused on the intricacies of ad tech as on Day One.

A comic depicting Judge Leonie Brinkema's view of the her courtroom where the DOJ vs. Google ad tech antitrust trial is about to begin. (Comic: Court Is In Session)

Your Day One Recap: DOJ vs. Google Goes Deep Into The Ad Tech Weeds

It’s not often one gets to hear sworn witnesses in federal court explain the intricacies of header bidding under oath. But that’s what happened during the first day of the Google ad tech-focused antitrust case in Virginia on Monday.