The curation conundrum: separating fact from fiction in ad tech’s latest obsession

Myth: Curation is new.

Reality: Curation may be many things, but new isn’t one of them. Its been around for several years, spreading the term itself. Over time, it evolved into what we see today: a range of data-driven tools designed to curate impressions from the open programmatic market, where real-time auctions determine prices. Far from a fresh innovation, curation is more of a refinement of existing practices.

“The market is now starting to mature into the concept of why curation exists,” said Bob Regular, CEO of premium ad marketplace InfoLinks Media. 

Myth: Curation is just sell-side targeting.

Reality: Sure, curation can include sell-side targeting — but it’s a catch-all for a grab bag of strategies. Think traffic shaping, auction packages, curated marketplaces or supply-path optimization. At its simplest, it’s a handpicked list of sites. At its most complex, its targeted precision from the sell-side. In short, curation is a spectrum, not a single trick. 

Myth: Curation started because advertisers demanded higher quality.

Reality: Despite the claims in pitch decks, curation wasn’t born out of advertiser demand for better impressions. The real story is that it stemmed from ad tech vendors (i.e. data management platforms) needing to pivot. A few years back these companies bet that DSPs like The Trade Desk and DV360 would be open to data-sharing commercial deals to sharpen targeting. They miscalculated. DSPs rejected those partnerships, forcing these vendors to turn to SSPs like Index Exchange and Xandr. Many  of these SSps were already building their own sell-side targeting services, and curation became a way to amplify those efforts. It was less about quality and more about survival. 

Myth: Curation replaces demand-side platforms (DSPs).

Reality: A tempting theory, but unlikely. Yes, curation does rely heavily on sell-side data — audience, contextual and supply chain intel — so it’s easy to see why some might speculate that SSPs and curation platforms could eventually dominate targeting. But here’s the thing: DSPs have honed the art of buying impressions at the best price. It’s a competitive edge that wont erode easily, especially if DSPs double down on curation. Don’t count them out just yet. 

Myth: Curation poses no real threat to DSPs.

Reality: Not a danger today, but tomorrow? Maybe. The more targeting shifts to the sell-side, the fewer opportunities DSPs have to profit. Over time, marketers might start questioning what makes their DSP indispensable. If all a DSP offers is bidding capabilities, why stick around? Granted, a lot would have to fall into place for this scenario to pan out, but dismissing curation entirely would be shortsighted. It’s not an existential threat yet — but it could be. 

Myth: Curation specialists will replace SSPs.

Reality: Like the chatter around DSPs, claims that curation will render SSPs obsolete are overblown. Curation houses — ad tech vendors that curate supply chain data against ad inventory to sell overlooked, but valuable, ad impressions — are often seen as a disruptive force. But here’s the twist: these vendors still rely on SSPs to connect supply with demand through DSPs. Those relationships are deeply rooted and aren’t going to unravel anytime soon. SSPs aren’t disappearing, they’re adapting. 

Myth: Curation equals transparent quality.

Reality: Many marketers believe curation guarantees better ad performance but the reality isn’t so rosy. Curation can lead to redundant buys at best and outright fraud at worst. Why? Because marketers often have no clear idea of what they’re buying until the campaign runs. It’s a roll of the dice, and if the ads flop, they’re stuck footing the bill. Quality isn’t a given in the world of curation. 

Myth: Curation is great for publishers.

Reality: Sometimes, but not always. When it works, curation can give advertisers better access to high-value audiences, which should mean more revenue for publishers. But in practice curation can reduce a publisher’s control over inventory, disrupt pricing strategies, conflict with direct sales efforts and even push down revenue. Add in the operational headaches, and the rosy picture starts to fade. Curation isn’t always the windfall publishers hope for. 

Myth: Curation won’t make publishers money.

Reality: It’s not a panacea, but its not a total flop either. With the right partnerships, curation can funnel ad dollars to publishers that might have otherwise been out of reach. As Matt Sattel, chief revenue office at OpenX, explained: “What we’ve seen is that we’re able to get publishers on campaigns that potentially they wouldn’t have gotten on otherwise because of the audience targeting we’re able to offer.”

Myth: Curation replaces agency expertise.

Reality: Hardly. While curation tools enhance targeting capabilities, they don’t replace the strategic insights and multichannel expertise agencies bring to the table. Ironically, curation’s rise was partly fuelled by agency demands for better investment management tools from ad tech vendors, said Parag Vohra, chief revenue office at ad tech vendor Equativ. Agencies wanted platforms that streamlined publisher relationships across multiple SSPs, he added. The data-centric focus of today’s curation efforts evolved from those agency-led initiatives, not the other way around. 

Myth: All curation specialists are the same.

Reality: Far from it. Whether called “curation vendors,” “curation houses” or something else, lumping them together oversimplifies things. Scott Messer, founder of Messer Media, distinguishes between two types: signal generators and signal aggregators. Both deal in data, but how they acquire and use it differs, influencing their approach to curation. Recognizing these distinctions is crucial for understanding the ecosystem.

Myth: Curation is the future.

Reality: Maybe one day, but it’s far from certain. Its future hinges on advertisers’ willingness to pay premium prices. And that’s no sure bet, especially when DSPs can often deliver comparable audiences at a lower cost. What publishers view as fair value isn’t always what marketers are willing to pay.