DoubleDown on DoubleClick?
Now, they’ve announced a new Ad Exchange which has been under development for over a year. Code-named Wolf, the exchange would seek to leverage DoubleClick’s extensive publisher relationships to develop what many consider to be a viable alternative to the traditional media buying/selling process.
The timing of this announcement is widely regarded as a pot-sweetener while DoubleClick courts suitors but it also raises the questions of Ad Exchanges - their viability and whether they are as inevitable as everyone is making them out to be. Case in point: TV’s latest foray into the AdExchange promised land appears to be d.o.a.
It’s not all surprising considering that many of the sellers who would presumably be participating in the auction didn’t want to commoditize their inventory. In the online world, it will probably be a similar story. What web publisher would want the market to know that their inventory is really only worth a $.15 CPM? How does that help them negotiate on the larger integrated deals that are becoming more frequent?
The trick of an online exchange is to give buyers control on their purchase while protecting publisher’s anonymity to ensure a steady supply of inventory - essentially what many networks do now. Buyers ask for a set amount of impressions in a targeted manner and the network aggregates those impressions without fully disclosing the origin of those impressions. Publishers are happy because they monetize their unsold inventory and buyers get the reach and performance they are looking for. All that’s missing is automation and pricing elasticity that an exchange could provide.
Will DoubleClick succeed in protecting its publishers? From what we know now there will be complete disclosure of publisher’s identities - let’s see how many quality publishers will rush to test.
-- John Ruvolo
Sphere It