The programmatic advertising industry, a complex ecosystem built on data, efficiency, and increasingly, transparency, is facing a peculiar paradox. While Demand-Side Platforms (DSPs) readily tout their commitment to transparency and welcome scrutiny from organizations like Check My Ads, a recent experience by the nonprofit watchdog suggests a stark reluctance when it comes to granting them direct access to their platforms. This refusal, even after a Master Service Agreement (MSA) was signed, raises critical questions about the true depth of the industry’s commitment to openness and the lengths to which some platforms will go to protect their supply chains.
Check My Ads, a respected entity within the ad tech space for its dedicated work as an independent programmatic industry watchdog, has built a reputation for scrutinizing the inner workings of digital advertising. Their COO, Arielle Garcia, notes that many ad tech vendors have actively sought to highlight their collaborations with Check My Ads as evidence of their transparency initiatives. This engagement, however, appears to have reached a critical juncture where the prospect of granting Check My Ads the same operational capabilities as any other buyer – specifically, a DSP seat for inventory analysis – has proven to be a step too far for at least one unnamed DSP.
The incident, which AdExchanger has corroborated through reviewed email correspondence provided by Check My Ads, involves a DSP that initially expressed significant enthusiasm for partnering with the watchdog. The DSP even went so far as to waive its standard minimum spending requirements, a clear indication of their eagerness to onboard Check My Ads. However, this promising engagement abruptly soured before any campaigns could be launched. The DSP cited discomfort with "the scope of protections extended to our vendor and supply partners" as the reason for terminating the nascent partnership.
A Seat at the Table, or Shut Out?
This marked the first formal attempt by Check My Ads to secure a DSP seat, a move driven by a multifaceted strategy. According to Garcia, a primary objective was to bolster their research into programmatic buying practices. By gaining firsthand operational experience, Check My Ads aims to develop and publish best practices, particularly for smaller advertisers, to help them navigate the complexities of programmatic campaigns and mitigate wasteful spending. Their recent in-depth report on Google’s Performance Max, for example, was a direct result of their hands-on analysis of the platform.
Beyond its research endeavors, Check My Ads envisions a future where it can offer "agency-lite" managed services to small advertisers in a nonprofit capacity. To effectively achieve this, establishing a DSP presence, mirroring that of a traditional agency, was deemed a necessary step. This would allow them to gain practical expertise and maintain a current understanding of the evolving programmatic landscape.
Furthermore, there was a pragmatic, albeit mundane, motivation for seeking a DSP seat: marketing and self-promotion. In addition to its watchdog activities and platform analysis, Check My Ads actively runs campaigns to promote its services, newsletters, and branded merchandise. Iesha White, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, who brings a decade of experience as a media buyer to the organization, emphasized the importance of "having skin in the game and spend money" to remain technically proficient and informed about industry advancements.
The Initial Spark of Interest
White’s outreach to the unnamed DSP earlier this year was based on her prior positive experience buying ads through their platform. The DSP’s response was initially highly receptive. A platform demonstration was scheduled and conducted in April. Following this demo, White’s contact at the DSP sent a summary email that clearly articulated an understanding of Check My Ads’ objectives. The email stated, "Your objectives: Moving beyond Google PMax / Demand Gen into ‘real’ programmatic with full transparency and control, no black box. Running small but meaningful test campaigns ($1k-$20k/month range) for your own research and analysis, and for select advertisers where you can learn and potentially generate revenue. Evolving over time into a selective mini-agency model. (woot woot! SO honored you’re thinking of us)." This enthusiastic endorsement underscored the DSP’s apparent alignment with Check My Ads’ mission.
Subsequently, in mid-May, the DSP provided an MSA for Check My Ads to review and sign. AdExchanger’s review confirmed that both parties duly executed this agreement, signifying a formal commitment to the partnership.
A Sudden Shift in Stance
The initial warmth of the engagement began to cool in late May. On May 20, White’s contact at the DSP informed her that her DSP seat should be live the following week. However, this notification was accompanied by a request for more detailed information regarding planned test campaigns, the brands involved, projected budgets, and specific campaign objectives.
White responded on May 21, explaining that commitments from brand clients were still being finalized. She did, however, disclose Check My Ads’ intention to run its own brand lift campaign and a Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) campaign aimed at driving newsletter sign-ups, with a test budget of $1,000 – a figure well within the range previously approved by the DSP.
A follow-up inquiry from White on June 3 regarding the status of her DSP seat yielded a cautious response: "still confirming next steps." This was followed by a critical question that signaled a significant shift in the DSP’s disposition: "In the meantime, I have one last question: If you identify any vendor performance concerns on [redacted], can we agree to loop us in first before escalating externally?"
This query was perceived by Check My Ads as an indication of suspicion regarding their investigative intentions and a clear sign of the DSP’s growing unease about allowing a self-proclaimed watchdog direct access to its platform. White reiterated Check My Ads’ standard operating procedure, stating, "We would absolutely inform [redacted] of any supply issue first, and we would reach out to any impacted SSP vendors, as is our standard practice."
Despite this assurance, a subsequent follow-up from White on June 5 received a definitive rejection from the DSP’s head of client partnerships. The response stated unequivocally, "we’ve decided not to move forward with this partnership." The rationale provided was, "As we worked through the agreement, we weren’t able to get comfortable with the scope of protections extended to our vendor and supply partners. We have an obligation to consider the downstream impact on them before bringing on new clients, particularly in cases where the nature of the research or activation may intersect with those partners in ways that fall outside what our MSA covers."
Garcia expressed her disappointment regarding the abrupt termination of the partnership, especially given the executed MSA. The head of client partnerships acknowledged her personal advocacy for the partnership and stated that the decision was made at a higher level, influenced by feedback from the DSP’s supply and legal teams. They added, "I respect what you’re building, and I hope our paths cross again under different circumstances."
Navigating the Nuances of DSP Vetting
It is important to acknowledge that extensive vetting of potential buyers is a standard practice for DSPs. They are inherently risk-averse entities that prioritize the security and integrity of their platforms and the financial stability of their clients. Ad tech consultants familiar with DSP onboarding processes, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, confirm that DSPs often conduct due diligence, including financial audits, to assess a buyer’s financial health and potential risks. Such audits could potentially uncover red flags in a company’s financial filings, leading a DSP to reconsider onboarding.
However, Garcia asserts that in this particular instance, the unnamed DSP never initiated any financial audit of Check My Ads. The primary concern, as communicated, revolved around the perceived lack of protection for their supply partners. While the exact nature of these unspecified concerns remains unclear, Check My Ads’ interpretation is that the DSP was apprehensive about a watchdog scrutinizing its supply chain.
The consultant’s perspective suggests that this apprehension is not entirely unfounded from a DSP’s viewpoint. "No DSP is going to knowingly onboard a party whose stated purpose is to turn that seat into an exposé," they remarked, highlighting the inherent conflict when a watchdog seeks direct operational access.
Nevertheless, this reluctance stands in apparent contrast to the industry’s persistent emphasis on transparency. The disconnect between the rhetoric of openness and the reality of restricting access to a reputable watchdog raises a pertinent question about the boundaries of this proclaimed transparency.
A Pattern of Hesitation
The experience with the unnamed DSP is not an isolated incident. Check My Ads reports similar encounters with other programmatic platforms that, after initial expressions of interest, ultimately declined to proceed with a partnership.
In one instance, another DSP reached out to White for a podcast appearance. Following the recording, White inquired about gaining access to the DSP’s platform for testing purposes. This request was subsequently denied.
A comparable situation arose with Thrad, a platform specializing in ad placements within generative AI responses. While Thrad initially approved Check My Ads for platform usage, issues later emerged regarding the watchdog’s campaign setup. Specifically, sensitive targeting categories were selected, including politics, abortion, mental health, and LGBTQ+ topics, which Thrad stated it could not accommodate for contextual LLM response ads. Additionally, the Check My Ads merchandise storefront was not configured for European shipping, despite the campaign targeting European audiences.
Even after White removed the sensitive targeting categories and rectified the storefront issue, Thrad ultimately refused to launch the campaign. Thrad’s CEO, Andrea Tortella, later informed Garcia that Check My Ads did not align with their ideal customer profile. Thrad did not respond to multiple requests for comment from AdExchanger.
These cumulative experiences suggest a broader trend within the programmatic advertising industry. Despite the vocal advocacy for transparency, there appears to be a tangible limit to this commitment when it involves organizations actively seeking to scrutinize and expose potential vulnerabilities within the supply chain. Garcia and White maintain that Check My Ads remains committed to fostering good-faith partnerships with any DSP that is confident in its supply chain and willing to collaborate in making programmatic advertising more accessible and understandable for small businesses.
"If there are any DSPs out there that are confident in their supply and want to help us make programmatic accessible to small businesses," Garcia stated, "reach out to us." The industry’s response to this call for collaboration will undoubtedly shed further light on the true meaning of transparency in programmatic advertising.
