Loading summary
Transcript42 lines
- [00:01]
Podcast Host
This podcast is brought to you by audiohook, the leading independent audio dsp. Audiohook has direct publisher integrations into all major podcast and streaming radio platforms, providing 40% more inventory than what could be accessed in omnichannel DSPs. What's more, audiobook has full transcripts on more than 90% of all podcast inventory, enabling advanced contextual targeting and brand suitability. Audio Hook is so confident that in addition to CPM buys, they offer the industry's only pay for performance option where brands can scale audio and podcasting with peace of mind mind knowing they are only paying for outcomes. Visit audiohook.com to learn more. That's audiohook.com.
- [00:52]
Alan Chappelle
Welcome to the Monopoly Report the Monopoly Report is dedicated to chronicling and analyzing the impact of antitrust and other regulations on the global advertising economy.
- [01:01]
Dennis Buckheim
Alan I'm Alan Chappelle.
- [01:03]
Alan Chappelle
This week my guest is Dennis Buckheim, the founder and CEO at Think Media, an advisory services firm that helps clients address privacy, safety and efficiency as drivers of a healthy ads ecosystem. There was so much great content in my chat with Dennis that I decided to publish the interview in two parts. So the first half hour will focus on Dennis's time at the IAB and the IAB Tech Lab. I want to better understand the backstory behind some of the challenges Dennis and his team faced, particularly at Tech Lab as they built out Project Rear, which is one of the earliest attempts at creating an industry wide standard for addressability. But I also want to get Dennis's thoughts regarding the politics in play at our various industry trade associations. Dennis had recently penned a great thought piece and Ad Exchanger and I might be reading between the lines a little bit, but I wanted to talk with him a little bit about how we might be able to get our trade awards to collaborate more effectively. So let's get to it.
- [02:05]
Dennis Buckheim
Hey Dennis, thanks for coming on the pod.
- [02:07]
Guest Speaker
How are you doing? All right, how are you?
- [02:10]
Dennis Buckheim
I'm doing great. Let me set the stage here. You have spent a good deal of your career at places like Yahoo and Microsoft and Meta, so some great experience in the ad space but also from the point of view of big tech. You've also spent some time at the IAB and I definitely want to talk about that. And then and four years leading up to the IAB Tech Lab and your work at Tech Lab is particularly interesting as it included some of the first industry wide work to create standards around post cookies and addressability. So my friend, you had a front row seat into some of my favorite topics. Addressability Industry standards, industry dysfunction, and the role of big tech in all of those things. So, you know, my first question, it was 2017, on the eve of GDPR and the Safari cookie deprecation. What was your first priority upon joining the IAB Tech Lab? I mean, was it tcf? Was there, was there something else or what? You know, share with me what that experience was like.
- [03:12]
Guest Speaker
It seems like a long time ago, but also not right. It's one of those things, I think, you know, it's really two distinct tracks of answers to that. One is, one is about the standards themselves and the evolution of what was starting to happen in the industry then. And you mentioned TCF. We actually, as TechLab, were not yet involved in TCF. I'm sure I'll come back to that point because that was all kinds of interesting by itself on the bigger picture front. TechLab had been developing lots and lots of new standards, but was not really clear, I think, on how they all hung together and wasn't really running like a product org. And in many ways I think of standards as products, right? And unfortunately I had a couple of folks on the tech lab team who were former product managers and leaders, right. And so they totally got that, but they hadn't really been operating that way. And so we tried to start to shift in that direction, take stock of what we had, make sense of it, what grouped together logically towards a common purpose, what didn't quite fit, which is an interesting thing to look at and which standards maybe didn't make as much sense anymore. But really shoring up the team, making sure we had more of that product like process. And actually we also had a huge issue of revenue shortfalls and we're bleeding money. So there was a whole aspect of just shoring up the business, which is not what you'd expect from a trade org. But that was step one.
- [04:37]
Dennis Buckheim
Isn't that fun where you come into something and you're thinking it's an industry trade org? I'll come in, I'll do some great work, I won't have to deal with the, the tiny BS issues that one has to deal with in a small business like keeping lights on and then you get in there and then what happened?
- [04:54]
Guest Speaker
Well, yeah, exactly. And then we were in debt to the tune of several million dollars and blah, blah, blah. So yeah, so it was a lot that was a little bit of the eye opener. But I think the most interesting projects and standards that we were working on when I started were actually ads txt, which was pretty brand new and shiny at that point and Google and the trade desk were starting to talk about getting behind it and making it a big thing, you know, really to fight fraud and you know, ensure more transparency and programmatic. So that was exciting. And the other one that I'd really highlight from that period was actually a carryover from my time with IAB proper, if you will. It was the data transparency work and identity standards work that we had started as the data center of Excellence, which I used to joke at iab, right, it's the Data center of Excellence, but it's not. Sorry, geeky joke, but, but those are probably the two other project that was underway that I really, really had so much respect for. It was open measurement, which I think is the most, is the best example of collaboration across companies to really develop something that literally, you know, took the place of a lot of the tech that they, the participants already had in place. You know, IAs, double verifying and others were deeply involved in that. So that was, that's probably the third one that I highlight is really interesting.
- [06:17]
Dennis Buckheim
And let's start with open measurement because that gives me an opportunity to start with something positive. Why did that work? What was it about that particular project that made it more likely to have some success?
- [06:28]
Guest Speaker
I think the need was so acute on both the sell side and the buy side for what open measurement enabled. That adoption was almost a given. And I'll get back to what it, what it is, right. And I think number two, it actually took work off the plates. Like it took commoditized work off of the plates of the companies that were anticipating. So pre open measurement, if you wanted to measure viewability and you know, sort of other aspects of fraud and what the impression counts were and things like that, you know, you needed to work with Integral Ad Science or Double Verify or you know, any number of, you know, moat other at the time, right. Other vendors, they each had very different methodologies, they came back with different counts. There were lots of discrepancies. And the worst thing of all was the publishers, the app developers in particular had to integrate every one of those Companies Technologies, their SDKs right into their apps. And one company in particular was super vocal Pandora of all companies was saying we only want to integrate one of these because every one of them bloats. Our app causes crashes, we have to update frequently. This is stupid. There's got to be a better way. And if we don't have one that brings them all together, we can only support advertisers that choose the one that we chose to adopt. And that doesn't work for us because then we lose ad spend. So open measurement brought together those companies to develop that kind of baseline SDK, right, to enable viewability and counting. They all then kind of deprecated their legacy technology and made it easy for app developers to do one integration, gain access to Integral, to double verify, to Moat, to Nielsen to others. And that made advertisers happy because they could just pick whatever they wanted with whomever they wanted, made agencies happy for the same reason, and made it work better for app developers. So it's just solved an acute need that was glaring, but it wound up bringing together competitors to co develop something in a really, really tangible way. And I thought that was pretty powerful.
- [08:36]
Dennis Buckheim
That's wonderful because that's sort of a great example of how standards and self reg and industry associations are literally supposed to work. And for whatever reason, it doesn't always happen that way. And before we get into some of that meat, I'd love your sense of why the IAB Tech Lab was not involved earlier in the tcf.
- [08:58]
Guest Speaker
It was viewed, I think, as just a European problem and a European initiative and they were going to solve it. And there was absolutely, I think, skepticism about, you know, letting the Americans come save the day, which even, you know, today, even a bigger deal. But it's, you know, I think that was a huge part of it is, you know, they, they thought they had the expertise they needed, they wanted to solve it for themselves. They didn't think, you know, Americans understood gdpr, understood privacy really, and really believed in it. So it took a lot of conversations to get to a point of building confidence that Tech Lab actually add the skill set among its membership because of the unique types of people that participate or group of people that participates in Tech Lab with product managers and software developers. They finally got to a point where they realized, okay, we're a little bit over our heads here. Right on. With IAB Europe leading the charge on TCF and would benefit from help with the technology side of it, in particular, not the policy side, the technology. And that became a really nice split between the two and absolutely acknowledged that Ivy Europe and others in Europe knew gdpr, knew the policy side of it, but maybe they could use some help with technology. But it took a while to get to that point.
- [10:16]
Dennis Buckheim
No, and fair enough. And I do think, give you guys all credit in the world, I was tangentially involved in some of that stuff. I have a lot of friends who were much more closely involved in it, but that just conceptually passing privacy signals up and down the midstream really may have saved the programmatic industry in many respects, because I don't know what we would have done with respect to some of the US Privacy laws had we not had at least some semblance of what that framework looked like, because I was there sitting when we had three years to argue over who puts icons on which ads. And the stakes and the complexity has expanded pretty significantly since then.
- [11:01]
Guest Speaker
And to your point about TCF transparency and Consent framework, you know, we, as soon as Tech Lab got involved, we started talking about what is this going to mean in the us what might it mean in other countries? And that's when we kicked off in parallel, the global privacy platform we called it. Right. And started defining that not to supplant tcf, but to kind of build on and extend on it, to your point, and allow the passing of different kinds of privacy signals, even at the state level. Right. If that's what needed to happen.
- [11:30]
Dennis Buckheim
Okay, so I'm going to shift a little bit and fast forward a couple of years. At TechLab, you were part of the team that purchased the Digitrust from Jordan and then worked to build Rearc and Pram. So first, you know, what are Digitrust, Rearc and Pram? A fair amount of my audience are clearly ad nerds, but I've got a lot of policy folks who may not be as familiar with those terms. And heck, REARC and pram. I don't remember the last time I've said that in polite company, either of those terms. So it's sort of fallen out of the lexicon. So it would be great to get.
- [12:01]
Guest Speaker
An overview, or digitrust for that matter. Last time I said that was on stage about a year ago at the Tech Lab Summit when we were reflecting on our times leading Tech Lab and our disappointments. So we'll get to that. Yeah, I actually came up with the idea of acquiring digitrust and had been talking with Jordan for a while. Love the guy, loved the passion that he brought and what he had developed with help from Sam Tinglef in particular, who became the CTO of TechLab in the acquisition was really a way to improve cookie matching and make it more secure, you know, exchange IDs in a much more reliable, more efficient way with some protections on them that I think was way ahead of its time. It actually came out of the, I think it was 2014, right in the future of the cookie working group that even like slightly predated the formation of IAB Tech Lab. It was an IAB Group. And so that it kind of started there and had grown slowly. And I saw a way, Jordan and I saw a way to accelerate its adoption through Tech Lab. So that's digitrust. Rearc was 2020, interesting time in many ways, but January 2020 is when we launched Rearc. And it was an umbrella for a number of different standards efforts and even educational efforts. So standards through Tech Lab, education through IAB to a large degree. And Rearch was short for rearchitect. Right. So rearchitecting digital marketing, the standards that were kind of included under the umbrella, many of which were not even defined yet at the time, were actually, you know, Digitrust was part of that. TCF was intended to be part of that. The global privacy platform that I mentioned became part of that, the accountability platform. You know, many of these things are just rolling out now and have evolved quite a bit. But the accountability platform was another piece of it because we recognized there needed to be reliable, very pragmatic ways to assess, to verify essentially the signals you were getting and the behaviors you were seeing in the programmatic supply chain, again related to privacy. And the last pieces that I'd highlight that were kind of under the REARC umbrella were the then newly defined seller, defined audiences and the data label, which came from the IAB data transparency work that I mentioned. So lots of different things to, you know, to galvanize IAB members, tech lab community, right. To really do some, some good work together that connected all the pieces kind of connected and really, you know, integrated in a way to solve for privacy. You know, the wake up call of gdpr, the wake up call of Safari, the wake up call of Google announcing what they maybe were going to do with Chrome and privacy Sandbox.
- [14:49]
Dennis Buckheim
The cool thing about pram, you know, boy, those guys do a great job of getting building a coalition. It felt like you had everybody you needed in the room. But then what happened? Like, where did that ultimately go? Because the reason we don't talk about PRAM anymore.
- [15:06]
Guest Speaker
Yeah. So again, you know, REARC was what I just listed. All the components of PRAM came slightly after. And it was a recognition, exactly as you said, that we needed an even broader coalition. It couldn't just be IAB and Tech Lab. It had to involve the advertisers, the agencies, ANA Forays respectively, and others. The DAA even. Right. It was the Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media. A mouthful also means stroller. It's like a stroller in Britain, which was really unfortunate. Lots of memes on that. But it was Less focused on tech and standards, although REARC was almost like a plug into CRAM and more on understanding the use cases that were going to be affected or already affected by changes in cookie availability, consent requirements, et cetera, and starting to define different paths forward with very broad engagement, as you said. So we formed it because the other organizations wouldn't really just become part of rearc and we needed something that was a new umbrella and ANA actually had the, you know, wound up leading it overall. And I think a couple of things kind of tanked it over time. One is that the most important work was probably the technology focused work, which in my opinion I'm biased, but the Tech Lab was doing. Two is the timing of COVID was really tough on pram. And the reason is that when Covid hit, and this is my assessment, when Covid hit and events businesses shut down, so did most or a good chunk of the revenue of these of the different trade orgs. Tech Lab did not have much of an events business. Right. So we didn't, we weren't hit as hard, but every other trade org was hit horribly hard and it's in revenue. Back to kind of my concerns about coming into Tech Lab, you have to run these things sort of like businesses. And so everybody to a degree, I think had to get go into existential mode of okay, how am I going to maintain this organization and how do I prove my value almost as a standalone organization and maintain my membership and the dues paying members that were starting to question every expense at the beginning of COVID Right. So I actually kind of say it's a lot of, a lot of it was Covid. It's not like it was going phenomenally well even before it disbanded. But you know, it was a loosely formed coalition. But I think that's the biggest issue honestly was, was the unfortunate timing of all the setbacks that were caused by Covid.
- [17:41]
Dennis Buckheim
I would say as somebody who's interested in that effort but was not intricately involved in, felt like it was a series of really big announcements and then silence for a while. And sometimes silence is good because the silence means that there's people in the background, you know, building and creating and arguing about over the standards. But my sense, at least from the outside looking in, was that there was a big announcement and the announcement itself was supposed to carry enough weight to get the initiative through to the next announcement. That may be an overly cynical way of looking at it, but I'm not sure it's an inaccurate one.
- [18:24]
Guest Speaker
And that's where I do Think it's helpful to distinguish between PRAM and rearc, which I was pretty difficult in the PRAM organization and saying, I was saying we need to maintain the rear umbrella for the tech standards. So we maintained that brand, if you will. And I think a lot of the work under REARC actually continued pretty well. You know, this, the actual standards development. We didn't get a lot of new input from agencies and brands that were participating in pram, which was disappointing to me. But we, we continued to move forward as best we could. And to your point, I think pram, the biggest thing that was released by PRAM was a compendium of the use cases. You know, again, it's sort of affected by loss of signal of various kinds. And you know, that was useful but it didn't solve a problem. It just helped maybe raise awareness and it actually, maybe raised, it maybe was a little dramatic even in saying like we can't do anything anymore and we need to, we need to maintain IDs and cookies. And I didn't actually believe that we should get stuck on that.
- [19:27]
Dennis Buckheim
You know, one thing I thought the use cases were helpful is when we got around to some of the initial discussions around the privacy sandbox and like what functionality should it achieve. I thought those use cases actually came in handy. Now maybe it was too much, but, but that may have been more of a limitation of the sandbox technology and less a problem of an industry trying in good faith to, to come together.
- [19:53]
Guest Speaker
Yeah, I think that's a great point. And it's, yeah, it's again, if the use cases had been slightly tighter and a little more forward looking. Right. I think they would have been incredibly useful for Sandbox and for other initiatives through the W3C. But even, even so, I think you're right, they were, they were. It was helpful to have that material.
- [20:11]
Dennis Buckheim
I've been involved in a whole bunch of standards. I've been affiliated with the NAI on and off for about 20 years. So I, I do have some experience in the standards world. So this is probably another cynical view. But show me a standards initiative and I will show you a bare fisted fight for supremacy of the ad space. And so as somebody who's running one of those things, how do you try to address all of the competing interests? I mean like, how do you ensure that the smallest members aren't distracting everyone with some piece of unrelated nonsense? Or how do you make sure the big players aren't exerting too much influence over the process despite the fact that they are often funding a Large portion of the process. What's your approach there? How do you solve for that?
- [20:52]
Guest Speaker
It's such a good question. I think you're making me flashback to. It may have been my first meeting. It certainly was a really early meeting with the, the GC of IAB and Tech Lab, who I later came to refer to as my work husband, who told me that your most important job, again this was from a legal perspective, but your most important job leading Tech Lab is to ensure fair representation. And you can tell that really stuck with me. And I mean, you're absolutely right that there are, there are the smaller players that in some cases saw a really interesting opportunity, you know, an angle, right. In a sense to get something pushed through as a standard that would benefit their business. You know, inherently, if you get the right inputs into that and if the germ of the idea comes from that, but you get the right inputs and it evolves into something that's more broadly useful, that's not a bad thing. And if it gains adoption, right. Pretty wide adoption. So I certainly did what I could to encourage that broader adoption. We did, you know, we always had public comment periods, for example, on the different standards before they were launched. And that was at least a last chance opportunity to get others to weigh in if they didn't agree with something. I think it was probably more interesting to watch out for moves by the larger players, not surprisingly, who, if they could make a little change sometimes in one of the standards being defined, it could have enormous benefit for their businesses and maybe hurt others. And so, you know, I remember the first example of that for me was actually with tcf. You know, there, there was a, a kind of feature argument in TCF that, you know, if it had gone one way, it absolutely would have limited the visibility that smaller vendors would have through tcf. And that was not acceptable. Right. Even if it made TCF more complex, it didn't seem right from a competitive standpoint, you know, for only larger vendors that were maybe more household names, for example, right. To benefit. So watching out for even at that sort of feature level sometimes had to happen. And it was a wonderful team of folks leading Tech Lab and the working groups that could flag that. Sometimes even members would come to me and say, did you know this is happening in this working group? And I would step in, right. And so it was incredibly important, I think, to keep an eye on that.
- [23:14]
Dennis Buckheim
Do you think that that phenomenon has gotten worse over time or is it just some of us are more of aware that it's taking place?
- [23:23]
Guest Speaker
I don't know, Honestly, I don't think it's gotten worse. I think there are more standards that aren't standards being developed now than when I was leading Tech Lab. And that's take it as a criticism or not. I think maintaining a certain level of focus and purity almost of what is the standard and what is more like guidance or best practices is pretty important, I think, for, you know, for an organization like Tech Lab or others, for sure. So I think that's my. That would be a concern. And that can mean, you know, it is much easier to develop a white paper than it is to develop a deployable standard. Right. And so by virtue of that, you wind up with smaller companies maybe coming to the table and, you know, having an idea and a white paper is produced. Right. And that's.
- [24:10]
Dennis Buckheim
Well, just two thoughts. The first is when the NAI code was created, I think they had two, maybe three members. So, you know, not exactly 100 different companies that you've got to, like, negotiate something with. And all of those companies, I think at the time recognized that you needed to do these very important things, otherwise there wouldn't be a business. Second observation, as somebody who did participate in the great do not track battles of 10, 15 years ago, so it's really interesting. So the number one thing, most important thing that the browsers wanted in that standard was to not interfere with anything that the browsers were doing. So really what they were trying to protect was most of them, if not all of them, were sending search data to Google for monetization. So it's kind of interesting that a standard that was proposed, reported to do nothing but help privacy, was still leaking a great deal of data out to a company that like most of the browsers in, in other rooms will say was the worst company for privacy ever. I'm not saying. You're saying that. I'm just saying that, like, that's definitely the, the sentiment. And so for me, that's sort of where, where a lot of these things come down to is it's sort of like when you really look under the hood, you got to figure out why do they want it to be this way? Because there's usually a backstory.
- [25:37]
Guest Speaker
Yeah, I think that, Yeah, I think that's generally true at a. I would say usually at a higher level, but sometimes down to the, you know, why is this field what, you know, defined the way it is. Right. In a standard. I totally agree. Yeah, there, there can be, you know, benefits to certain companies and arms to others for sure.
- [25:58]
Dennis Buckheim
So I think we're going to try to make this a two parter with your permission. And so assuming you're okay with that, the last question I want to ask in this part is what caused you to ultimately leave Tech Lab? Because in a recent Ad Exchanger piece, I think you said something to the effect of politics amongst trade orgs and some member companies thwarted the adoption of important Tech Lab standards. So how specific are you able to be on those things? Because I think that sort of gets it. I tend to say these things a little more cynically, but you have a much better way of framing this type of stuff. But I think it's a message that the industry needs to hear.
- [26:34]
Guest Speaker
Yeah, I appreciate that. And yes, it's a delicate matter for sure, but I mean, I thought I was going to stay at Tech Lab for another one to two years. I felt that there was, you know, there were so many pieces of work that were relatively far along but not quite there. Like global privacy platform, for example. Right. You know, I felt like, okay, there's still work to be done. But I was, I was burning out a little bit candidly. And, and the reason is, you know, I don't think of myself as an idealist. I think of myself as pretty much a realist, probably not a pessimist, but I was, you know, that the roller coaster of we're going to do these things together and we're going to get it done and we're going to have the impact. I am, I am so motivated by having, you know, impact at scale in a positive way that, you know, when we formed PRAM and I had to give right on. Okay, this is what it's going to look like and this is what it's going to do. And had to contribute in good ways. Of course, through Tech Lab I had some optimism. Right, okay, here we go. And then there were the setbacks. And there was a similar thing that happened with Digitrust and where we acquired it with full support from the board. And by the time it came to actually, you know, launch it as Tech Lab or got closer to that, the board rejected it for, I think, competitive reasons by that point, because there had been alternative IDs that were forming at that point. So it was enough of these sort of, yes, we've got this, we're making good progress. And then the setback, Right. And then, you know, then Covid hit and that was like the ultimate setback where all of the work that I, you know, that we had been doing as Tech Lab for so long to try to build relationships Globally with different trade orgs and numbers to build relationships across the trade orgs in the US it all felt like it was set back dramatically. And when then Facebook came and said, hey, we have this role for you that seems like a really good fit to be VP of advertising ecosystem at Facebook. And I looked at that and I said, wow, okay, Facebook is the biggest company that isn't involved enough in defining the future of this business, number one. Number two, I looked at it as a way to be almost, well, to be on the other side of the table with Tech Lab, with Ana, with Forays and you know, like Facebook or not, you had to pay some attention to Facebook. And so I saw an opportunity to kind of continue the same mission from a fresh perspective and, you know, and have an impact from a very large scale, you know, company that I thought could be quite positive. And, you know, I had just been named CEO of Tech Cloud. It was a very weird time to exit, but I was the first independent CEO and the board had just voted me in. And then I went and did something different. So it was an interesting moment. But yeah, I think it was mainly that need to continue having a large scale impact and finding a different place to do it from.
- [29:34]
Dennis Buckheim
No, fair enough. And that's certainly an interesting gig to jump to. I got one last question. What advice would you give to Tony.
- [29:42]
Guest Speaker
Katzer framing it that way? That's great. I think the biggest thing is, I mean, it's sort of obvious in a way is look ahead but focus. Right. It's not like, don't get stuck with the legacy standards because like I said, a standard is a product. You have to maintain a product once you start it or you have to declare it officially dead or deprecated. And that's really hard when people start using it. So be really, really selective about what you invest in and make sure that you've got the buy in way up front that it's going to be adopted, which kind of comes back to open measurement. Like people had skin in the game before it even launched. And I think that was incredibly powerful. And I think that's what's needed is people who are more forward looking being a little bit more aggressive to move the industry forward, coming together and doing maybe fewer things together, but getting really active in adoption.
- [30:42]
Dennis Buckheim
Yeah. And all respect to you and to Tony, I mean, that's a thankless job. And so you say, oh, hey, I see a problem in the marketplace. We have an idea that might work, so we don't know it's going to work. But we think it might work well enough that we're going to invest some resources into it and then we press release it and then somebody starts taking shots at it and then it's sort of rinse and repeat and that's sort of the, that seems to be the gig, as far as I can tell.
- [31:10]
Guest Speaker
Yeah. And it's, it's, you know, it's very disappointing to define a standard and have it not really be a standard, right. To have it not gain the adoption to become a standard. And I think that's, that's the thing to watch out for. And that kind of goes to my Ad Exchanger piece also, which, yeah, easier said than done. But that upfront commitment and the skin in the game by those who support the development of a standard I think just goes so far and we just need more forward looking people and companies to be doing that work, defining the fewer standards that will take us to a hopefully better place.
- [31:44]
Dennis Buckheim
Absolutely. Well, we're going to leave it there for now, but Dennis, I'm really looking forward to the second half of our discussion.
- [31:49]
Guest Speaker
Likewise. Thank you.
- [31:53]
Alan Chappelle
That was a great conversation. I think it's important for us to talk openly about what our industry associations are good at as well as places where they struggle. In my view, there's way too much infighting amongst our industry trades and the turf wars are holding us back as an industry. Dennis noted a significant revenue crunch in the early days of Tech Lab, which I thought was interesting. By all accounts, running a trade body while struggling to keep the lights on is, well, we'll just say an unfortunate distraction. But also, there are implications around our industry traits focusing too much on driving revenue, particularly if reaching revenue goals becomes more important than solving the problems we face within the industry.
- [32:33]
Dennis Buckheim
I hope you listen to part two.
- [32:34]
Alan Chappelle
Of my interview with Dennis Buckheim where we nerd out a little bit more about talking about privacy enhancing technologies and how they're used in the ad space. Please subscribe to the show@monopolyreportpod.com or on Spotify, Apple, YouTube or wherever you listen to your podcasts. And thanks for listening.
- [32:55]
Podcast Host
Thank you for listening to the marketecture podcast. New episodes come out every Friday and an insightful vendor interview is published each Monday. You can subscribe to our library of hundreds of executive interviews at marketecture tv. You can also sign up for free for our weekly newsletter with my original strategic insights on the week's news at News Market tv. And if you're feeling social, we operate a vibrant Slack community that you can apply to join@adtech God.com.