The programmatic advertising industry, a complex ecosystem built on data and technology, is experiencing a growing tension between its vocal commitment to transparency and the practical realities of platform access. This dynamic has recently come into sharp focus with the experience of Check My Ads, a nonprofit organization dedicated to serving as a watchdog for the programmatic industry. Despite the widespread industry rhetoric championing openness and accountability, Check My Ads has encountered significant resistance when seeking to gain direct access to Demand-Side Platforms (DSPs), the very tools advertisers use to purchase ad inventory. This reluctance from DSPs to grant a seat to a transparency advocate raises critical questions about the true depth of the industry’s commitment to openness and the potential for self-preservation to overshadow genuine reform.
Check My Ads, which has spent years building its reputation as a critical observer of ad tech practices, has found that while many vendors are quick to publicize their collaborations with the organization as a testament to their transparency efforts, offering actual platform access—the kind that enables in-depth analysis and auditing—is a far more difficult proposition. Arielle Garcia, COO of Check My Ads, highlighted this apparent contradiction, noting that providing the organization with a DSP seat, which would allow it to conduct inventory analysis akin to any other buyer, seems to be a step too far for many platforms. This resistance is particularly striking given the industry’s continuous emphasis on "supply chain transparency" and eradicating fraudulent or low-quality inventory.
A recent incident underscores this challenge. In a case that Check My Ads has declined to name on the record, a DSP reportedly backed out of onboarding the watchdog group just prior to the launch of its first campaign, despite both parties having already cosigned a Master Service Agreement (MSA). AdExchanger has reviewed emails exchanged between the organizations, provided by Check My Ads, which corroborate the existence of the MSA and the initial enthusiasm from the DSP.
A Swift Turnaround: From Eagerness to Hesitation
The initial interactions between Check My Ads and the unnamed DSP were reportedly very positive. According to correspondence reviewed by AdExchanger, the DSP was so keen to partner with Check My Ads that it voluntarily waived its minimum spending requirements for new clients. This waiver, a significant concession, indicated a strong desire from the DSP to engage with the watchdog group.
Following a platform demonstration in April, a representative from the DSP sent a summary of the meeting’s takeaways to Iesha White, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads. This summary explicitly acknowledged Check My Ads’ objectives: to move beyond performance-focused platforms like Google’s Performance Max and Demand Gen into "real" programmatic with "full transparency and control, no black box." The DSP understood that Check My Ads intended to run "small but meaningful test campaigns" in the $1,000 to $20,000 per month range for its own research and analysis, and potentially for select advertisers. The email also recognized Check My Ads’ long-term vision of evolving into a "selective mini-agency model." The DSP’s representative expressed honor at being considered for this initiative, indicating a shared vision for a more transparent programmatic future.
Subsequently, in mid-May, the DSP provided an MSA for Check My Ads to review and sign. This document was indeed cosigned by both entities, signifying a formal commitment to the partnership. At this stage, the groundwork was laid for Check My Ads to establish its DSP seat and commence its planned campaigns.
Unforeseen Obstacles Emerge
However, the trajectory of the partnership took an unexpected turn in the weeks that followed. On May 20, the DSP’s contact informed Check My Ads that its DSP seat should be live within the following week. Crucially, the DSP requested more detailed information regarding Check My Ads’ planned test campaigns, including the brands involved, expected budgets, and campaign objectives.
Iesha White responded on May 21, explaining that Check My Ads was still finalizing commitments with potential brand clients. She did, however, disclose plans to run its own brand lift campaign and a Cost Per Acquisition (CPA) campaign aimed at driving newsletter sign-ups. The CPA campaign was slated for a test budget of $1,000, well within the range previously approved by the DSP.
A follow-up inquiry from White on June 3 regarding the status of the DSP seat yielded a less definitive response. The DSP’s contact stated they were "still confirming next steps." More telling, however, was a subsequent question posed by the DSP: "If you identify any vendor performance concerns on [redacted], can we agree to loop us in first before escalating externally?" This question, according to Check My Ads, was perceived as a significant red flag, suggesting a concern about the watchdog group’s investigative intentions and a growing discomfort with granting it platform access.
White responded on June 3, assuring the DSP that they would indeed inform the named entity of any supply issues first and reach out to any impacted SSP vendors, aligning with their standard operating procedure.
Despite this clarification, the situation remained unresolved. After another follow-up from White on June 5, an unequivocal response arrived from the DSP’s head of client partnerships. The message stated that the platform had "decided not to move forward with this partnership."
The Stated Rationale: Supply Partner Protections
The formal explanation for the partnership’s termination cited a lack of comfort with "the scope of protections extended to our vendor and supply partners." The DSP elaborated that it has 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 to the DSP’s head of client partnerships, highlighting the fact that an MSA had already been cosigned. The DSP executive, while acknowledging their personal advocacy for the partnership and their own disappointment, stated 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." The executive added, "I respect what you’re building, and I hope our paths cross again under different circumstances."
Understanding DSP Vetting and the Underlying Concerns
It is important to acknowledge that DSPs do routinely conduct thorough vetting processes for potential buyers before granting them access to their platforms. These processes often include assessing a buyer’s financial stability and their potential risk to the platform and its partners. An ad tech consultant, speaking anonymously, confirmed that DSPs may perform their own financial audits and that any perceived red flags in a buyer’s financial filings could lead to caution.
However, Garcia asserts that the unnamed DSP never conducted any financial audit of Check My Ads. Instead, the DSP’s expressed concern revolved around the protection of its supply partners. The ambiguity surrounding the nature of these protections has led Check My Ads to infer that the DSP was apprehensive about a watchdog group actively investigating its supply chain.
The consultant’s perspective offers a potential explanation for this apprehension: "No DSP is going to knowingly onboard a party whose stated purpose is to turn that seat into an exposé." This sentiment suggests a conflict between the watchdog’s investigative mandate and the DSP’s desire to maintain control over its relationships with its suppliers and partners.
A Pattern of Reluctance: More Than an Isolated Incident
The experience with the unnamed DSP is not an isolated incident for Check My Ads. The organization has encountered similar resistance from other programmatic platforms that initially expressed interest.
In another instance, a different DSP, which Check My Ads also declined to name, reached out to Iesha White for a podcast appearance. Following the recording, White inquired about obtaining access to the DSP’s platform for testing purposes. The DSP ultimately declined this request.
A similar situation occurred with Thrad, a platform specializing in placing ads within generative AI responses. While Thrad initially approved Check My Ads for platform use, it later flagged issues with the watchdog’s campaign setup. These issues included the selection of sensitive targeting categories (politics, abortion, mental health, and LGBTQ) where Thrad stated it could not place 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 rectified these issues by removing sensitive targeting categories and correcting the storefront error, Thrad refused to launch the campaign. Andrea Tortella, CEO of Thrad, later informed Garcia that Check My Ads did not fit its ideal customer profile. Thrad did not respond to multiple requests for comment from AdExchanger.
These experiences collectively suggest a broader industry trend where a stated commitment to transparency appears to have practical limitations when confronted with entities whose primary function is to scrutinize and expose potential improprieties. Garcia and White maintain that Check My Ads is not seeking to undermine the industry but rather to foster a more equitable and efficient programmatic ecosystem, particularly for smaller businesses that often struggle with the complexities and costs of programmatic advertising.
The Broader Implications: Transparency’s Shifting Boundaries
The reluctance of DSPs to grant direct access to organizations like Check My Ads highlights a critical juncture for the programmatic advertising industry. While the narrative of transparency has become a ubiquitous talking point, these recent events suggest that the implementation of this principle may be selective. The industry faces a challenge in reconciling its public pronouncements on openness with its internal practices regarding platform access and data scrutiny.
The implications of this dynamic are far-reaching. For advertisers, especially smaller ones, a lack of accessible oversight can perpetuate inefficiencies, waste, and potentially fraudulent activities within the ad supply chain. The ability for independent watchdogs to conduct real-world testing and analysis is crucial for identifying best practices, highlighting areas of concern, and ultimately driving meaningful improvements.
Furthermore, the industry’s hesitation to engage with transparency advocates could undermine its credibility. If the very entities that champion transparency are perceived as being resistant to scrutiny, it fosters an environment of distrust. This can lead to increased regulatory pressure and a more fragmented, less efficient advertising ecosystem.
Despite these challenges, Check My Ads remains committed to its mission. Garcia has issued an open invitation to any DSP that is "confident in their supply and wants to help us make programmatic accessible to small businesses" to reach out. This call to action underscores the organization’s belief that genuine partnerships, built on a foundation of good faith and a shared commitment to transparency, are still possible and essential for the future of programmatic advertising. The industry’s response to this invitation will be a key indicator of its true dedication to a more open and accountable future.
