Why we in digital advertising need to stop talking like bankers

"If you're trading XYZ company stock, you don't get "good" or "bad" shares, they're all the same (unless they are clearly marked as different e.g. preferred versus ordinary shares, etc). We know from the viewability discussions alone, that this is far from the case in media. There are many, many formats, every page is different, every ad unit behaves differently."

"Second, in a financial transaction the counterparts to the transaction are agnostic as to each other's existence. I don't care whom I am buying from or selling to - as long as the price is right. This is very different in media. Brands care deeply in most cases about where their ads go. Again, you only need to look at the hot topic of fraud, and the fact that brands (often via their agencies) are engaged in a lively discussion with publishers"

Media ad trading differs fundamentally from financial asset trading because inventory is heterogeneous and constantly changing. Financial assets of the same class are fungible, whereas ad formats, page layouts, and units vary widely and resist reliable classification. Brands care intensely about ad placements and context, making counterpart agnosticism impractical. Viewability and fraud concerns underscore placement sensitivity and trust requirements. High-frequency trading analogies misrepresent media dynamics and risk raising brand and client trust issues. Publishers also have placement preferences and contractual relationships, complicating automated, price-only trading models in programmatic advertising.

Read at The Drum