Marketing Brew informs marketing pros of the latest on brand strategy, social media, and ad tech via our weekday newsletter, virtual events, marketing conferences, and digital guides.

Marketing Brew

Ryan Barwick

marketingbrew.com

A video ad promoting the film Wonka displayed on Lyft's app

Lyft introduces video ads to its app

The rideshare company also announced a partnership with Nielsen to measure ad campaign performance

A chocolate chip cookie disappearing into thin air on a light purple backdrop

Advertisers expect Google to delay its cookie phase-out, according to industry survey

But they’re also preparing for signal loss and planning around new privacy laws, according to IAB’s State of Data report.  

the Baltimore Banner on the side of a building framed by a blue heart statue in the foreground

Ads and events are bringing in more revenue than subscriptions at the Baltimore Banner—for now

The publication is courting local and regional advertisers while eschewing programmatic inventory. 

A square with a mouse cursor pointing at it denoting an advertising click

Ad Tech & Programmatic

A cartoon image of Kristina Monllos created by Morning Brew

Kristina Monllos

There’s a pivotal scene in the first season of 

 that could, in the not-so-distant future, be impossible.

Bob Odenkirk’s titular Saul (who at this point in the series is still known as Jimmy McGill; trust us, it’s complicated) has set up an all-too-literal publicity stunt to make himself out to be a hero. He’s in the midst of shooting a commercial for his law practice when a worker stretching a billboard vinyl out behind him falls, hanging perilously from his harness. McGill runs to go and save him, appears to be a hero, and potentially garners the kind of positive attention he needs to make himself a local household name.

If a real-world huckster wanted to try the same scheme today, they could make it happen. But as digital billboards continue to proliferate across the country, that could be increasingly more difficult to manufacture. The Out of Home Advertising Association of America (OAAA) estimates that there are roughly 30,000 digital billboards across the US today, up from 16,000 in 2023, and that more than a third of OOH buys are now digital.

While it’s still a small fraction of the approximately 350,000 static billboards across the US, digital billboards, which include both large-scale bulletins and smaller poster units, according to the OAAA, are growing, slowly but surely changing the industry. That change is coming in terms of media buying and planning, as well as creative approaches.

Digital billboards have changed the game for the creative possibilities of the medium. While static billboards rely on a single image and message to tell a story, the digital billboard has given the freedom to do far more.

Take, for example, the introduction of the first robotic 

 in August 2017: The Coca-Cola Company rolled out a billboard with undulating pixels that looked as if they were jumping off the screen. Even the early approach of a simple motion graphic has evolved; “today, it’s full movement,” John Mergen, chief media officer at independent agency The Shipyard, said.

“We’ve leveraged that [format] across a lot of our clients,” he told Marketing Brew. “It’s eye-catching…you see it when you walk around Times Square. You see people just staring at boards, because it is probably the most creative place to do it.”

Those kinds of activations can be more resource-intensive than static billboards, making high foot-traffic areas like Times Square and the Las Vegas strip prime places for brands to look to stand out.

“It takes more time, production, creative resources, and the cost is higher, obviously, than a normal board,” Stephen Weber, senior media manager, integrated media investment at Rain the Growth Agency, said. “Its usefulness is dependent on what your campaign goals are, but it can really help break through…in a way that other channels can’t really match.”

The format’s possibilities are changing the way advertisers view the medium and understand what a billboard can do. Unlike static boards, digital boards can be used to respond to the moment, whether that’s a change in the weather, a sports score, or a major news announcement.

“Now we have this canvas. How do we digitally use that to not only target our campaign toward what we’re looking for, but how do we measure it?” Billy Long, EVP, Publicis Media, OOH Practice, said.

Changing the creative to reflect real-time moments is making OOH all the more contextual, an attractive option that is fueling the category’s growth. “It’s been fantastic [for] us,” Anna Bager, president and CEO of the OAAA, said, noting that about 30% of the group’s total growth is coming from digital. Despite being “a very small part of our signage,” she noted, digital billboards are where “most of the dollars go now.”

The rise of digital billboards has also brought with it other shifts to the category beyond new creative possibilities.

In the past, consumers who drove past three billboards on their way to work would have seen the same three advertisements over and over again on their commute, at least until the ads were physically pasted over. But digital billboards mean media owners can cycle in more advertisers in the same location. That frequency pitch can be appealing to marketers when they understand that “you might not get them in that one time, but over the course of a 30-day period, you’re probably going to reach them about six times,” Mergen said.

To Mike Hauptman, founder and CEO of programmatic ad shop AdLib, the addition and wider availability of digital billboards has ultimately made billboards a more accessible medium.

“You used to have a piece of paper pasted on a thing, and [have] a team go up there, [they were] big commitments,” he said. Now, “the number of screens and the number of experiences that have been created has just grown exponentially, and it’s now mainstream. We recommend all of our brands do it.”

Coca-Cola digital billboard in NYC times square

How digital billboards changed the out-of-home game

From undulating 3D images to the Las Vegas Sphere, these aren’t your mother’s billboards.

Jasmine Sheena

Court is adjourned: The remedy phase of the Google ad-tech antitrust trial has wrapped. 

Over the course of about two weeks, lawyers for both Google and the US Department of Justice were in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss potential remedies to address Google’s 

. The DOJ has asked the court to consider remedies like open-sourcing the logic behind how Google’s publisher ad server decides which advertisements to show and a divestiture of Google’s ad exchange, AdX; Google has 

 behavioral remedies like enabling publishers to use ad servers not affiliated with Google to access AdX demand.

At times, the testimony got incredibly technical, with US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema listening to witnesses discuss the 

“There’s been quite a lot of valuable information surfaced,” Andrew Frank, research VP and distinguished analyst at Gartner, told Marketing Brew after the first few days of the remedy phase. “They’re really getting into the nitty-gritty.”

 Google’s proposed remedies are a “nonstarter,” Ari Paparo, co-founder and contributor at Marketecture Media, told Marketing Brew. The company’s proposed remedies, he said, don’t address the role of AdWords (now called Google Ads) in the equation.

“If you don’t want to change the dynamic, that’s one way to do it,” Paparo told Marketing Brew.

In contrast, Paparo called the DOJ’s remedies “probably a little more meaty, [but] they seem like overreach.” That’s partially what Google argued during the remedy phase, looking to poke holes in the feasibility of the DOJ’s proposals and arguing that one potential remedy, which could include open-sourcing its publisher ad server’s final auction logic, is simply too difficult.

Untangling ad tech can be difficult, and Paparo said there was “very convincing testimony that the DOJ’s written proposal is nonworkable.” The testimony “got into the specifics of what the DOJ said they wanted, versus the reality of how it works and how much data would have to be transferred back and forth, and effectively how much risk there would be to implementing this proposal.” Frank noted that there also appeared to be a disconnect in court about “whether publishers [would] benefit from a more competitive marketplace, or whether Google is actually their best option at this point.”

In terms of what could happen next? “I think it’s very unlikely the DOJ gets what they asked for here, but they may get a very slimmed-down version of something around this,” Paparo said.

 Another question that came up during the remedy phase: If Google were forced to sell off AdX, as the DOJ has proposed, would there be an appropriate buyer?

The buyer wouldn’t necessarily have to be another ad exchange, although that is the “obvious answer,” Paparo said; it could instead be a private-equity firm, another business that works with publishers, or a Big Tech firm, he theorized, citing Oracle’s involvement in the potential 

 Of course, the decision is now in the hands of Judge Brinkema. While no one knows what the judge is actually thinking, Frank observed that she seemed “truly interested in understanding last-bid dynamics and prebid, which is pretty arcane.” Paparo predicted that she might be less inclined to force a divestiture because she seemed “very sympathetic to the end user, which is the publisher in this case,” and any changes that “might hurt them”—many of whom have already argued during earlier parts of the trial that their businesses have been harmed by Google’s ad-tech dominance—could be off the table.

“I think Google’s engineering managers gave a pretty convincing case that this change [would be] disruptive and dangerous,” he said.

Even if Google is forced to divest, though, Frank doubts “it’s by any means a fatal blow” for the tech giant.

Google’s ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase has wrapped. Now what? 

Ahead of a decision from the judge, ad-tech experts shared their takeaways.

A puzzling question came on day four of the remedy phase of

, in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, when the Google team questioned Jon Weissman, a computer science professor at the University of Minnesota.

Google’s lawyers asked him if he knew whether AdX, Google’s ad exchange, is involved with Google Docs, among other Google properties (it is not).

Before the day’s end, each legal team asked questions about the feasibility of potential remedies. Thursday’s questioning was a departure from the earlier days of the remedy phase, when buy-side advertiser perspectives were in the spotlight and broader concerns, like generative AI and transparency into Google’s ads business were the focus.

Marketing Brew broke down a few key moments from Thursday’s proceedings below.

 DOJ witness, seemed to say that from an engineering perspective, a divestiture of AdX or DFP is feasible.

Weissman said that Google’s use of the “separation of concerns” design principle in its code, which makes it so that changes made in one part of a system won’t affect other parts, could support a successful divestiture.

When it comes to open-sourcing final auction logic, the DOJ has proposed open-sourcing remedies regarding DFP. He pointed to Google’s Android system, which is already open-source.

 Google’s cross-examination of Weissman involved questioning the relevance of his credentials as well as matters that could impact the migration of technology if AdX or DFP were to be divested. (As mentioned in 

 of the trial, Google is against an AdX divestiture.)

Google’s lawyers claimed that Weissman had last worked at a tech company in the early 1990s, before the internet or ad tech were widely used. The DOJ pushed back on this later, asking him to discuss his more recent involvement in the tech industry.

Google’s team also quizzed Weissman on his knowledge of modifications that could be needed if AdX or DFP were divested.

 Tim Craycroft, VP and GM of Google Advertising, was next up.

The DOJ’s team questioned him on Project Sunday, an initiative, in which he said that Google had determined it was possible to separate AdX or DFP and that publishers would remain live on the platform throughout the transition.

Internal analyses found that DFP final auction logic could be made open-source, he claimed.

Google’s team asked Craycroft about his time overseeing the display ads business for Amazon, where he worked before Google.

Craycroft seemed to confirm that his team had considered building a DFP competitor, but ultimately did not.

As the remedy phase begins its second week, the jury’s still out (pun intended) on 

 will be prioritized next. Check out our prior coverage of the 

An illustration containing the Google logo, a gavel, and the scales of justice 

Google ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase, day 4: The nitty-gritty

A computer science professor and a Google Ads exec took the stand on Thursday.

At one point during day three of the remedy phase of 

, US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said that her favorite words are “we settled.”

The DOJ’s and Google spent the day discussing the technical aspects of potential remedies. Marketing Brew has compiled key moments from Wednesday’s proceedings below.

 its ad exchange AdX or DFP, the DOJ sought to drive home why it might be needed. It called Harvard economics professor Robin S. Lee to the stand and probed him on 

Lee seemed to have proposed that those remedies might not resolve the persistent competitive harms that the company poses.

However, during Google’s cross-examination of Lee, he appeared to suggest that a divestiture of AdX or DFP might not prevent market monopolization on its own.

 If the court does order Google to divest some of its ad products, the level of ease with which such a transaction could be executed was disputed. Both sides questioned Paul Crisci, a former UBS banker and an M&A advisor, about how that might work.

Crisci appeared to suggest that both AdX and DFP would be attractive M&A targets.

Stay tuned for Marketing Brew’s coverage of Thursday’s proceedings.

Day 3 of the Google ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase

A Harvard professor and a former banker were called to the stand on Wednesday to discuss the feasibility of proposed remedies.

Day 3 of the Google ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase: Technical experts weigh in

Lawyers for Google and the US Department of Justice were once again in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, to present their cases during day two of the remedy phase of 

While some of yesterday’s proceedings were spent on both sides’ 

, today they were all in on questioning witnesses, notably about the effects of a potential divestiture of Google’s ad offerings and the impact of generative AI on Google’s ad-tech dominance.

Marketing Brew broke down some key points made by those who took the stand, below.

James Avery, founder and CEO of retail media firm Kevel: 

While being questioned by the DOJ, Avery was walked through proposed solutions to ease Google’s ad-tech monopoly, including a divestiture of Google’s ad exchange, AdX. Such a divesture could benefit Kevel, he said, which currently can’t access the demand that AdX sees.

However, when being questioned by Google’s team, Avery said that a connection into AdX could benefit competitors like Kevel too, with the caveat that they would need to be able to access demand the way DFP does. (Google has proposed that, as a remedy, it could increase AdX’s interpretability.)

Luke Lambert, partner and head of reputation marketing and insights at Omnicom Media Group: 

When questioned by the DOJ, Lambert discussed the nature of Google’s ad tech. Transparency is a major concern for him, which he said he feels Google has failed to deliver on.

“I don’t know why my bid wins,” he said.

Access to Google’s final-auction logic through open-sourcing would provide greater insight, Lambert said. A divestiture of AdX could be beneficial for Omnicom in certain circumstances, he said, but in the short-term could have a negative effect on its business given the disruption it could pose. In the long run, however, he said that a divestiture could drive innovation. Google lawyers pursued that point in their questioning, during which Lambert said that even one day of an AdX outage caused by a divestiture would cause major harm to clients.

Jay Friedman, Goodway Group strategic advisor and former CEO:

 Friedman took the stand virtually to discuss an AdX divestiture. While that would be a good start, he said while being questioned by the DOJ’s team, divestiture alone wouldn’t be enough. AdX’s being tied to DFP is what made it so powerful in the first place.

A divestiture would be like “taking that first double dose of antibiotics,” Friedman said.

While being questioned by Google’s team, Friedman said AI could help advertisers make more accurate channel selections for their ads.

Another factor to consider: While generative AI hasn’t had a major impact on the evolution of open web display ads so far, the development of generative AI could have consequences for the market down the road, Dedrick said during examination by the DOJ’s team.

Day 2 of Google’s ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase

Execs from The Trade Desk and Omnicom Media Group were among witnesses who testified.

Divestiture and AI take center stage at day 2 of Google’s ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase

 kicked off in a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday. In its opening statement, the US Department of Justice’s team called Google’s proposed remedy a “Band-Aid on a seriously severed limb.”

Google and the DOJ are back in court to make their cases in front of US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who 

 with the DOJ in April. Lawyers from both sides gave opening statements today and questioned witnesses. Marketing Brew condensed several hours’ worth of ad-tech executives using obscure vocabulary into a digestible roundup, below.

 Both the DOJ’s and Google’s opening statements focused on pushing back on the other side’s proposed remedies. The DOJ’s team argued that Google should divest its ad exchange AdX. Google’s team, on the other hand, argued against a divestiture, making 

 for other, smaller remedies. Among the remedies Google’s team suggested were amending its contracts with publishers and increasing interoperability with other ad servers.

Grant Whitmore, VP, ad tech and programmatic revenue at the publisher Advance Local: 

Whitmore took the stand to share his experience using Google’s ad products. He advocated for the divestiture of AdX to boost competition, saying that Google’s dominance is “unhealthy.” He also criticized the “opaque” nature of Google’s publisher ad server.

Andrew Casale, president and CEO of Index Exchange, an SSP:

 Casale, who appeared in the first phase of the trial last fall (and whose company is an AdX competitor), claimed that Google’s ad products have stifled competition.

We’ll be back tomorrow with another recap of everything that happened in court.

What happened during the first day of Google’s ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase

DOJ called Google’s proposed remedy a “Band-Aid on a seriously severed limb.”

Ahead of the busy holiday shopping season, Google is souping up its retail ads with new loyalty features.

The new features include a way for retail brands to offer personalized pricing and shipping perks to members of their brand loyalty programs on both free and paid shopping listings on Google, while also helping brands target lapsed customers.

That includes rolling out a “loyalty mode” within Google Ads’s retention goal feature, which creates bidding strategies designed to target loyal customers. If a brand sees higher lifetime values (LTV) from its existing loyalty program members than from new ones, it may choose to set lower target ROAS for higher LTV customers, Jyotika Prasad, the company’s senior director of retail ads, explained.

In the US, the company has also rolled out personalized annotations on Performance Max Shopping campaigns that emphasize exclusive deals, which can also be used to incentivize lapsed customers to come back, Prasad noted.

In a blog post about the new features, Google said that Sephora’s use of personalized annotations drove a 20% increase in click-through rate in ads served to loyal customers. The new tools incorporate Google’s Customer Match and first-party data to help with targeting.

“Loyalty is a foundational feature,” Prasad told Marketing Brew. “The core of this is really [having] a personalized loyalty experience versus [showing] the same experience to all your customers.”

In June 2024, Google began to offer retail advertisers the ability to display “personalized price and shipping creatives on Google based on a shopper’s affiliation with a retailer.” At the time, it also updated its “deals destination” feature to show shoppers offers in a carousel and enabled price alerts that monitor the price of products and notify users when a price drops.

The company plans to share more about its plans to target retail advertisers at its Think Retail event in September.

Other companies are also leaning into the opportunity that comes from retailers looking to target consumers across the internet. In April of last year, Chase Bank rolled out its retail media network, Chase Media Solutions, and this month, Best Buy 

 a third-party marketplace to complement its own growing retail media network. The Home Depot debuted its retail media network in 2018, later overhauling it with a rebrand to 

 in April 2024, a change aimed at helping it stand out in the competitive retail media landscape.

A retail shopping bag with a computer mouse hovering over it