The programmatic advertising industry, a sector that consistently champions transparency and advertiser trust, is increasingly encountering a paradox: demand-side platforms (DSPs) are hesitant to grant access to organizations dedicated to scrutinizing their operations, even those with a proven track record of advocating for industry integrity. This reluctance, exemplified by the experience of nonprofit programmatic watchdog Check My Ads, raises critical questions about the true depth of the industry’s commitment to openness.
Check My Ads, a well-regarded entity in the ad tech landscape for its persistent efforts to police the programmatic ecosystem, has found that while many vendors are eager to publicize their collaborations with the organization as a testament to their transparency, the prospect of granting actual platform access—akin to that provided to any other buyer or agency—is a far more contentious proposition. Arielle Garcia, COO of Check My Ads, stated that the organization’s attempts to secure a DSP seat for direct inventory analysis have met with significant resistance, a stance that appears to contradict the industry’s vocal advocacy for transparency.
The most prominent instance of this resistance involved a DSP, which has requested anonymity, that initially expressed considerable enthusiasm for partnering with Check My Ads. This DSP even waived its standard minimum spending requirements to facilitate the collaboration. However, just as Check My Ads was poised to launch its inaugural campaign, the DSP abruptly rescinded the agreement, citing vague concerns about "the scope of protections extended to our vendor and supply partners." This abrupt reversal, detailed in emails reviewed by AdExchanger and confirmed by a co-signed Master Service Agreement (MSA), left Check My Ads perplexed, particularly given the DSP’s prior eagerness.
The Pursuit of a DSP Seat: Research, Advocacy, and Self-Promotion
For Check My Ads, securing a DSP seat was not merely an abstract pursuit; it was a strategic move with multiple objectives. According to Garcia, the primary goal was to enhance the organization’s research capabilities into programmatic buying. By gaining firsthand experience as a buyer, Check My Ads aims to identify inefficiencies and best practices, particularly for smaller advertisers who may struggle to navigate the complexities of programmatic campaigns and avoid wasteful spending. This aligns with their previous work, such as a recent report on Google’s Performance Max, which was based on direct operational experience.
Beyond its research mandate, Check My Ads envisions a future where it can offer "agency-lite" managed services to small advertisers on a nonprofit basis. To achieve this, obtaining a DSP seat is a logical step, mirroring the operational setup of traditional agencies. This would allow them to gain practical expertise and build a revenue stream to support their advocacy work.
Furthermore, the organization acknowledged that a DSP seat would also serve a more pragmatic purpose: promoting its own services. In addition to its watchdog activities and analysis of platform updates, Check My Ads actively markets its newsletters, merchandise, and consulting services. Iesha White, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, who possesses a decade of experience as a media buyer, emphasized the necessity of practical engagement. "It’s important for Check My Ads to have technical expertise and stay current with how the industry is evolving," White stated. "In order for us to do that, we have to have skin in the game and spend money."
White’s prior experience with the unnamed DSP made it a natural initial target for this initiative. She initiated contact with a representative at the DSP earlier this year, exploring the possibility of securing a platform seat. The initial response was highly encouraging. In April, the DSP provided a platform demonstration, and following this meeting, a summary email confirmed the DSP’s willingness to waive its minimum spending requirement. The subsequent dispatch of an MSA in mid-May, which was duly signed by both parties, further solidified the nascent partnership.
The post-demo recap email explicitly acknowledged Check My Ads’ 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 communication clearly indicated a mutual understanding of Check My Ads’ intentions and a positive outlook from the DSP.
A Shift in Stance: From Enthusiasm to Apprehension
The trajectory of the partnership, however, took a sharp turn following the MSA signing. In late May, the DSP’s contact informed Check My Ads that their DSP seat should be live by the following week. However, they also requested further details regarding planned test campaigns, including specific brands involved, expected budgets, and campaign objectives.
White responded on May 21, explaining that commitments from brand clients were still being finalized. She did, however, disclose plans for Check My Ads to run its own brand lift campaign and a CPA campaign aimed at driving newsletter sign-ups, with a test budget of $1,000—well within the previously approved range.
A follow-up inquiry from White on June 3 regarding the status of the DSP seat elicited a cautious response: "still confirming next steps." This was followed by a more pointed question: "If you identify any vendor performance concerns on [redacted], can we agree to loop us in first before escalating externally?" This question was interpreted by Check My Ads as a clear indication of suspicion regarding their intentions and a growing discomfort with allowing a watchdog organization direct access to their platform and its associated supply chain.
White responded by affirming their standard practice: "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 resulted in an unequivocal rejection. The head of client partnerships at the DSP formally stated that the platform had "decided not to move forward with this partnership."
The reasoning provided was that "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." The response further elaborated that the DSP had "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, highlighting the anomaly of a DSP backing out after both parties had signed an MSA. The head of client partnerships conveyed personal regret, stating that the decision was made "above my level, and was driven by feedback from our supply and legal teams that was first raised internally on May 20 and ultimately couldn’t be resolved within our organization." They concluded by expressing respect for Check My Ads’ mission and hoping for future collaborations under different circumstances.
Navigating the Nuances of DSP Vetting and Transparency
It is important to acknowledge that DSPs routinely conduct rigorous vetting processes for potential buyers before granting platform access. This is standard practice, driven by legitimate business concerns, including financial health and operational integrity. An ad tech consultant, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, noted that DSPs often perform financial audits to identify any red flags. If the DSP had uncovered any concerning financial information in Check My Ads’ recent filings, it might have triggered a precautionary stance. However, Garcia asserts that no such financial audit was conducted by the DSP in question.
The primary concern articulated by the DSP revolved around the protection of its supply partners. While the exact nature of these concerns remained unspecified, Check My Ads inferred that the DSP was apprehensive about a watchdog probing its supply chain. The consultant acknowledged this as a "reasonable concern for any DSP," stating, "No DSP is going to knowingly onboard a party whose stated purpose is to turn that seat into an exposé."
However, this reluctance stands in stark contrast to the industry’s continuous pronouncements about the paramount importance of transparency. The situation highlights a potential disconnect between rhetoric and practice, suggesting that the industry’s embrace of transparency may have discernible boundaries, particularly when confronted with entities that actively seek to scrutinize its inner workings.
A Pattern of Hesitation Across the Industry
The experience with the unnamed DSP was not an isolated incident for Check My Ads. The organization has encountered similar reticence from other programmatic platforms. In one instance, a different DSP, which also requested anonymity, reached out to White for an appearance on a podcast. After recording the podcast, White inquired about obtaining platform access for testing purposes, a request that was subsequently denied.
A comparable situation arose with Thrad, a platform specializing in ad placements within generative AI responses. Emails shared with AdExchanger by Check My Ads reveal that Thrad initially approved the watchdog’s use of its platform. However, the platform later flagged issues with Check My Ads’ campaign setup, including the selection of sensitive targeting categories (politics, abortion, mental health, and LGBTQ) where contextual LLM response ads could not be placed. Additionally, the Check My Ads merchandise storefront was not configured for European shipping, despite the campaign targeting European audiences.
Even after White addressed these concerns by removing sensitive targeting categories and rectifying the storefront error, Thrad ultimately refused to launch the campaign. Andrea Tortella, CEO of Thrad, later informed Garcia via email that Check My Ads did not align with their ideal customer profile. Thrad did not respond to multiple requests for comment from AdExchanger.
Implications and the Path Forward
The cumulative pattern of these experiences suggests that the programmatic industry’s declared commitment to transparency faces significant limitations when confronted by organizations like Check My Ads, which are dedicated to holding platforms accountable. Garcia and White maintain that their objective is not to undermine the industry but to foster a more equitable and efficient programmatic ecosystem, especially for smaller 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 urged, "reach out to us." This plea underscores Check My Ads’ ongoing commitment to finding good-faith partners who are willing to embrace genuine transparency and collaboration.
The implications of this trend are far-reaching. If DSPs consistently deny access to watchdog organizations, it could stifle genuine efforts to improve transparency and accountability within the complex programmatic supply chain. This could leave smaller advertisers more vulnerable to inefficiencies and opaque practices, undermining the very principles the industry purports to uphold. The challenge remains for DSPs to balance their legitimate concerns about supply chain integrity with a commitment to the broader goal of a more transparent and trustworthy advertising ecosystem. The industry’s future success may depend on its willingness to allow scrutiny, even when it might be uncomfortable, as a crucial step towards building sustained confidence among all stakeholders.
