Rembrand’s AI: Product Placement Without the Headache
Why reshoot when you can remaster? Rembrand’s AI Studio lets you drop products into your videos like they were always meant to be there—seamlessly, effortlessly, and without the post-production migraines.
🎬 Creators: Monetize on your terms—no awkward ad breaks, just seamless integrations.
📢 Advertisers: Be part of the story, not an annoying pop-up.
Try it now and you could snag $10,000 (because who doesn’t love free money?).
Adtech is a dysfunctional family drama, and Andy Dhanik has had a front-row seat to all the chaos. In this episode, he pulls back the curtain on the backstabbing, inflated bid prices, and mystery fees that keep the industry running (and ad buyers blissfully unaware).
Your daily AI dose
Mindstream is your one-stop shop for all things AI.
How good are we? Well, we become only the second ever newsletter (after the Hustle) to be acquired by HubSpot. Our small team of writers works hard to put out the most enjoyable and informative newsletter on AI around.
It’s completely free, and you’ll get a bunch of free AI resources when you subscribe.
The ad tech world never disappoints when it comes to delivering chaos, and this week was no exception. Hightouch grabbed an $80M bag to build an AI that promises marketers they’ll never have to make a creative decision again—because why trust instincts when you can let an algorithm hyper-target dog lovers with cat memes? Meanwhile, The Trade Desk fumbled its revenue forecast by a mere $15M, sending Wall Street into a toddler-esque meltdown, proving once again that investors don’t care about making money—they care about making exactly the amount they were promised. And Nike, in a desperate bid to reclaim its cool factor, turned to the one thing guaranteed to print money: a Kardashian collab. Get ready for NikeSkims, because nothing says “performance wear” like shapewear designed for Instagram thirst traps.
But wait, there’s more. Coca-Cola has decided it’s no longer the villain ruining your diet and is jumping on the prebiotic soda bandwagon. Because, sure, gut health is trending, and if slapping “wellness” on a can sells more sugar water, why not? And then, there’s the week’s biggest disaster—ad verification companies once again proving they have the efficacy of a screen door on a submarine. A new Adalytics report exposed how supposedly “brand-safe” ads ended up next to some of the worst content on the internet, making MRC and TAG’s certification processes look about as trustworthy as a used car salesman. Naturally, rather than fixing the problem, the industry’s finest are more focused on shooting the messenger.
And finally, let’s talk about the one thing ad execs fear more than a TikTok ban: accountability. With fraud siphoning off billions from digital ad budgets, and malvertising running rampant, the industry’s solution is—as always—to throw out some vague promises, form a committee, and hope the problem magically goes away. Spoiler: it won’t. But hey, why address systemic fraud when you can just blame “bad actors” and pretend it’s all under control? So, grab your overpriced coffee, fire up that ad blocker you totally don’t use, and let’s get into the mess.
🚨 Hightouch’s $80M AI Gamble—Personalized Marketing or Just Fancy Guesswork?
🔍 Why Should You Care?
Marketers are so scared of making creative decisions that Hightouch is stepping in with an AI agent to do the thinking for them. Because nothing says “cutting-edge” like outsourcing your job to a robot that might just send dog pictures to cat lovers.
📜 Show Me the Receipts
Hightouch’s AI Decisioning tool promises to learn consumer behavior and send ultra-personalized marketing messages—like if Netflix recommendations and retargeted ads had a weird, hyper-obsessed baby. PetSmart is already using it to determine which dog breeds get the most engagement, because apparently, Corgis and Golden Retrievers now run the economy.
⚠️ The Potential Disaster
AI-driven marketing sounds great until it inevitably goes rogue and starts offering cat food to dog owners. Plus, marketers still have to set the rules and watch over it like a toddler with finger paint. So, really, how “autonomous” is this thing?
🔥 Will It Take Over Marketing, or Are We Just Feeding the AI Hype Machine?
Investors threw in $80M in record time, but let’s check back in six months to see if marketers are singing praises or sending out emergency apologies for AI-generated disasters.
🚨 The Trade Desk’s $15M Oopsie—Wall Street Reacts Like They Lost a Kidney
💰 Stockholders to TTD: “We trusted you.”
For the first time ever, The Trade Desk missed its own revenue forecast, and Wall Street threw a fit like a toddler denied a Happy Meal. Shares tanked 27% after the company came up $15 million short—which, in TTD terms, is couch cushion money.
📜 What Actually Happened?
Revenue still grew to $741M in Q4, and profits nearly doubled. But investors don’t care about more money, they care about exactly how much money was promised. CEO Jeff Green blamed “execution missteps,” which is corporate-speak for “some people really dropped the ball, but I’m not naming names.”
⚠️ How Bad Is This?
Green admitted they had layoffs, restructured the org chart, and are trying to go more direct-to-brand while keeping agencies happy. Because that’s never caused problems before.
🔥 Fixable or a Sign of Doom?
Look, TTD is still a monster in CTV and programmatic, but missing earnings guidance is like breaking a pinky promise to Wall Street—it may never forgive you.
🚨 NikeSkims—Kim K Saves Nike’s Women’s Line from the Fashion Graveyard
👀 Nike’s Bold Strategy? Slap Kim Kardashian on It
Nike is teaming up with Skims to launch NikeSkims, because when in doubt, just let the Kardashians fix your brand. The move is part of Nike’s desperate bid to regain ground against Lululemon and Athleta, who have been eating their lunch like bullies at the cool kids’ table.
📜 What Are We Actually Getting?
A shapewear-infused training line that’s supposed to be both “sculpting” and “performance-driven.” So, basically, leggings that hug your curves and let you do squats without wardrobe malfunctions.
⚠️ Real Talk—Genius or Desperate?
Nike’s lost key athletes, its marketing has been struggling, and this partnership screams “please make us cool again.” Meanwhile, Skims is worth $4B and doesn’t need Nike, which makes you wonder… who’s actually helping who here?
🔥 Will This Be a Game-Changer or Just Another Hype Collab?
If this sells out in five seconds, expect Nike to double down. If it flops, well, there’s always an influencer apology video in the works.
🚨 Netflix Patents Targeted Ad Splicing—A Game-Changer or Just More Interruption?
🎬 What Just Happened?
On February 18th, Netflix secured a patent for splicing targeted content—like ads—into live streams. Basically, Netflix now owns the tech to seamlessly drop ads right into your favorite live events without missing a beat. Cue the collective groan from binge-watchers everywhere.
📜 The Master Plan
The patent details how Netflix will use a computing model to decide exactly what ads to show and when. By analyzing signals and markers within the live stream, it’ll determine the perfect moment to serve you that ad for cat food—right as you’re crying during the emotional climax of a K-drama.
⚠️ Why This Might Backfire
Netflix is walking a tightrope. They’ve built their empire on being the anti-ad streaming service, and even with an ad-supported tier, viewers are still skeptical. One wrong move and they risk alienating their most loyal subscribers. Plus, splicing ads into live content? That’s a minefield of technical glitches just waiting to happen.
🔥 The Big Question
Will Netflix redefine live-stream advertising, or is this just another way to annoy viewers into upgrading to the ad-free tier? And can they do it without turning into Hulu 2.0?
🎤 Industry Buzz
This could be a goldmine for Netflix, but it’s also a huge gamble. Rivals like Disney+ and Prime Video are watching closely to see if Netflix cracks the code—or falls flat on its face.
💡 Our Take
If Netflix pulls this off smoothly, they’ll not only secure a new revenue stream but also set a new industry standard. But if it gets too invasive or glitchy, they’ll be reminded the hard way that nobody likes ads breaking up the drama.
💣 Is AppLovin Just a Fancy Click Farm?
🎮 Same Old Mobile Game Hustle
AppLovin claims to be an ad tech powerhouse, but a brutal report from Lauren Balik says it’s just recycling cash through shady mobile games. Think low-tier apps pumping out ad clicks from Cyprus-based, Belarusian-owned studios. Classy.
📜 Circular Revenue, Shady Ties
Balik accuses AppLovin of cooking the books with related-party transactions, click hijacking, and ties to folks with fraud-filled resumes. Basically, it’s Silicon Valley meets Money Laundering 101.
⚠️ House of Cards?
If true, this isn’t just bad PR—it’s a financial implosion waiting to happen. Investors don’t like words like “fraud” and “money laundering” showing up in their earnings calls.
🔥 Will It Crash and Burn?
Is AppLovin the next big scandal or just another overhyped tech play? If regulators catch wind, this unicorn might lose its horn real quick.
💡 Our Take
If it quacks like ad fraud and walks like a click farm… well, you get the idea. Buckle up—this could get messy.
🚨 Coca-Cola Joins the Prebiotic Soda Trend—Because “Gut Health” Is the New Sugar
🍹 Coke’s Big Idea? Steal Olipop’s Playbook
Coca-Cola, the company that made sugar an essential food group, is now launching Simply Soda, its first prebiotic drink. Because apparently, gut health is a billion-dollar business, and Coke would like its cut, please.
📜 What’s in This Stuff?
Prebiotic fiber, Vitamin C, and zinc. Also, 25%-30% real fruit juice, which is a nice way of saying, “Look, it’s healthy-ish, okay?” It’s rolling out in select markets, aka “let’s see if people actually buy this before we go all in.”
⚠️ Too Late to the Party?
Olipop and Poppi have already built a cult following with Gen Z, and Coca-Cola is… Coca-Cola. Can they pull this off, or will younger consumers see this as a cash grab?
🔥 Will Simply Soda Be the Next Big Thing, or Is This New Coke 2.0?
If it takes off, expect Pepsi to copy it in about 6 months. If not, well, there’s always another Super Bowl ad spot to try again.
🚨 Ad Verification Scandal—MRC & TAG Get Put on Blast
🛑 Brand Safety? What Brand Safety?
An Adalytics report just revealed that MRC-certified vendors like DoubleVerify and IAS let ads run on CSAM-linked sites (that’s child exploitation material, aka the absolute worst possible placement). And now, everyone wants to know why ad verification keeps failing at the one thing it was designed to do.
📜 Who’s Getting Roasted?
MRC and TAG, the industry’s self-proclaimed ad watchdogs, who were supposed to be making sure this didn’t happen. Advertisers are now questioning whether these certifications mean anything, or if they’re just expensive participation trophies.
⚠️ Is This Just a One-Off, or a Systemic Issue?
If ad safety tech can’t even catch this level of risk, how is anyone supposed to trust it with normal brand safety? It’s starting to look like these “verification” companies are just fancy middlemen cashing checks while bad placements run wild.
🔥 Will Advertisers Finally Revolt, or Just Complain Until the Next Scandal?
There’s a lot of anger, but real change? Don’t hold your breath—until brands actually pull budgets over this, nothing’s going to happen.
Ad Tech’s Favorite Magic Trick: Making Accountability Disappear
Ah yes, the grand tradition of Ad Tech Clean-Up Promises™, which have the shelf life of a gas station sushi roll. Every time a new scandal erupts—whether it’s bot-ridden inventory, fraudulent IDs, or shady bidstream practices—the industry clutches its pearls and gasps, “We’ll do better!” And then, spoiler alert, they don’t. Because there’s too much money at stake, and money has a way of making people forget their morals faster than a politician in an election year.
And now, instead of addressing the glaring issues Adalytics has highlighted, some of the industry's most distinguished gentlemen (read: guys who have been benefiting from the muck for years) have decided the best defense is a personal attack on the guy behind the research. Because nothing says thought leadership like bullying someone for shining a light on the roaches scurrying around your revenue stream.
Let’s be clear—I have my own questions about Adalytics' methods, but questioning methodology is not the same as launching a full-scale character assassination. And yet, here come the industry’s McCreepies, armed with their podcasts and corporate marching orders, desperately trying to discredit the messenger so they can go back to business as usual.
And what is “business as usual”? Oh, just a supply chain that is at least 50% blatant fraud, 25% absolute garbage, and maybe—if you squint and really believe in miracles—25% actual inventory worth advertising on. We know this. We’ve seen the reports. We’ve watched the videos of ads running on sites that no human has ever voluntarily visited. The display ad inventory is shrinking, the scams are getting more sophisticated, and the biggest players would rather gaslight everyone into pretending it’s fine than actually fix anything.
In 2023 alone, digital ad fraud siphoned off a staggering $84 billion. That’s billion with a ‘B’. To put it in perspective, that’s like setting fire to the GDP of a small country. And if you think that’s bad, projections suggest this could balloon to $172 billion by 2028. Oh, and let’s not forget that up to 22% of digital ad spend is lost to fraud. So for every dollar spent, a significant chunk is lining the pockets of fraudsters. Meanwhile, everyone keeps pretending this is fine—like a bad sitcom where the laugh track drowns out the impending disaster.
And then there's malvertising—because, apparently, it's not enough that your ad dollars are getting flushed down the programmatic toilet. Cybercriminals are slipping malicious ads into legitimate networks, leading unsuspecting users straight into digital booby traps. It’s like finding a razor blade in your Halloween candy—unexpected, dangerous, and wholly unacceptable.
So, what’s the game plan? Continue the charade of self-regulation while the ship sinks? Or perhaps it’s time for a radical overhaul, starting with a bit of introspection and a lot less shooting the messenger. Because if the industry doesn’t get its act together, it won’t just be the advertisers and consumers paying the price—it’ll be the industry's own credibility left in tatters.
But sure, let’s all pretend another “task force” will fix this.
🚨 IPG’s Not-So-Hot Quarter—Is Ad Spend on a Diet?
📉 The Sad Reality
Interpublic Group (IPG) just posted a fourth-quarter report that’s about as exciting as watching paint dry—unless you’re an investor, in which case, it’s downright painful. Revenue is down 3% in the U.S. and U.K., 3% in Europe, and nearly 8% in Asia Pacific. In the ad world, that’s like missing your New Year’s resolution before January even ends.
📜 Blame It on the Economy
IPG warned about “economic and political uncertainty” back in October, and—surprise!—that’s exactly what happened. Brands got skittish, ad budgets got trimmed, and suddenly, IPG’s Q4 numbers were looking thinner than an agency’s lunch break.
⚠️ The Competitive Smackdown
Meanwhile, Omnicom, IPG’s arch-nemesis, somehow managed to post stronger-than-expected earnings. And now, the two companies are merging into what will be the world’s largest advertising agency in a $13 billion deal that’s sure to give regulators heartburn.
🔥 The Big Question
Is IPG just having a rough patch, or are we looking at a long-term slowdown in ad spend? And with global advertising growth expected to drag in 2025, will this mega-merger be a lifeline—or a Titanic-sized headache?
🎤 Industry Chatter
IPG still owns some of the biggest names in advertising, but if clients keep tightening budgets, that won’t matter. Stay tuned for how this consolidation drama unfolds—because when two giant ad holding companies merge, you just know there will be fireworks.
AdDog(TM): 🐾 Ad Tech’s Latest Brand Safety Snafu—And This One’s Got Teeth
Every time Adalytics drops a report, the industry howls about whether ad tech vendors and so-called "brand safety" partners are actually protecting advertisers—or just rolling over for revenue. But this latest one? It’s a real tail-tucker.
🚨 Congress is now paying attention. After Adalytics revealed ads from major brands appearing alongside explicit and harmful content, Senators Marsha Blackburn and Richard Blumenthal sent sternly worded letters to the top dogs at Google, Amazon, DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science, the Media Ratings Council (MRC), and TAG. Suddenly, a lot of industry folks are playing dead, while others are barking about systemic failures like misaligned incentives and an industry built on self-policing.
💥 What’s the leash-length on brand safety vendors? Jeromy Sonne, founder of Daypart.ai, told Digiday this is an “emperor has no clothes” moment—without URL-level transparency, brands are basically chasing their own tails and over-relying on safety partners that may or may not be actually doing their jobs.
🐾 Meanwhile, IAB CEO David Cohen wants advertisers to stop sniffing around for the cheapest route and start looking at actual effectiveness over efficiency. Because "efficiency at all costs" is how you end up eating garbage.
🐕 Check My Ads Bites Back
The watchdogs at Check My Ads Institute (CMAI) didn’t just growl about this—they filed a formal complaint against TAG, questioning whether its certifications are just “pay-to-play” rubber stamps.
They want a public investigation and real enforcement, instead of letting the fox guard the henhouse.
TAG CEO Mike Zaneis has been in full-on “LinkedIn debate club” mode, going head-to-head with industry consultant Lou Paskalis, who isn’t mincing words. In a Substack post, Paskalis called this a full-blown "all hands on deck" crisis and slammed anyone trying to downplay the issue:
“I don’t care—and neither should you—if it’s less than a thousand impressions or less than $5. Wrong is wrong. And this? This is as wrong as it gets.”
🐩 Industry Players Try to Clean Up the Mess
While some companies are dodging the fire hydrant spray, others are rolling out new features to prove they’re not asleep at the doghouse door.
🛑 DoubleVerify unleashed a new “highly illicit” content category after digging through three years of data from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (the same group Congress just grilled companies about). It’s also working with the FBI and child safety organizations.
🔎 Google quietly updated its Transparency Report to show off its AI-powered CSAM detection and content de-indexing efforts—because nothing says “we’ve got this under control” like a stealth update to a website no one reads.
📌 Integral Ad Science (IAS) dropped a Friday night blog post (because that’s when all great PR happens, right?) announcing new brand safety tools—but the bigger news is its new block-list partnership with Meta, DoubleVerify, and Zefr. Apparently, frame-by-frame AI-driven analysis is the hot new trick for identifying bad content.
🐾 TL;DR—Who’s a Good Boy? Who’s Getting the Cone of Shame?
✔️ Congress is watching. Brand safety vendors are on a VERY short leash.
✔️ Advertisers are finally sniffing out the truth: Safety vendors may be more bark than bite.
✔️ Some vendors are scrambling for new tricks, but it’s an open question whether these are real solutions or just PR flea baths.
CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS HERE
Subscribe to our premium content at ADOTAT+ to read the rest.
Become a paying subscriber to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.
Upgrade