The recent public clash between WPP and Publicis over the quality of programmatic inventory is more than just a high-profile disagreement. It’s a clear signal of deeper issues within the digital advertising ecosystem – particularly around trust, transparency, and accountability.
Programmatic may be powered by algorithms, but too often it feels like navigating a maze blindfolded - with someone else holding the map. That’s the core of the transparency problem we’re dealing with today.
At Adlook, we’ve been vocal for a long time about the questionable quality of some programmatic solutions available on the market. And let’s be honest: this isn’t a fringe problem limited to obscure vendors. It affects mainstream platforms and has real implications for advertisers investing millions into digital media. What matters isn’t just if audits are being conducted – it’s how those tests are run, who defines the criteria, and whether clients are part of the process.
As industry debates heat up, we believe the methodology of any media quality audit must be co-created with clients. Tests can easily be skewed depending on what someone wants to prove. The WPP-Publicis dispute is a perfect example of how the same media ecosystem can be interpreted in radically different ways. That’s why it’s critical to bring clients into the design of any evaluation framework and rely on independent partners – not just internal agendas.
A great example of this approach is the independent analysis Adlook carried out with Mattel and Fiducia. With Fiducia acting as a third-party auditor, the test parameters were defined together with the client to ensure objectivity, transparency, and credibility. This collaborative model gave Mattel full visibility into the process – and full confidence in the results.
Adlook has been recognized for delivering exceptional results in quality-focused programmatic evaluations. What drives this performance?
On one hand, we’ve built one of the most advanced deep learning algorithms on the market, developed entirely in-house by our engineering teams for the last 12 years. This isn’t an off-the-shelf solution. It’s engineered for precision at scale, designed to extract maximum value from every millisecond of the auction window – by understanding and acting on user intent in real time.
On the other, we take a rigorous approach to supply path optimization. But for us, SPO isn’t just about trimming costs – it’s about effectiveness and therefore curation of premium inventory. We work directly with trusted publishers, ensuring our supply is brand-safe, viewable, and meaningful. Inventory quality is not just a metric – it’s a standard we uphold across every campaign.
And notably, SPO was one of the core friction points in the recent WPP–Publicis dispute – highlighting how vital and contentious this topic has become across the industry. The ‘O’ in SPO stands for Optimization – but it’s not a universal truth carved in stone. It’s more like a customizable setting, not a factory default. Clients should be the ones turning the dials: choosing which partners to trust, what environments are safe for their brand, and what ‘premium’ truly means for their audience.
Unlike many in the industry, we don’t rely on opaque “black box” audience definitions. Every Adlook client knows exactly what goes into their audience segments. That’s because our audiences are built through advanced, transparent analysis of the content consumers engage with – not vague behavioral proxies or third-party segments of questionable origin.
Thanks to the quality of our data and technology, we can afford to be transparent. We don’t need to rely on unnecessary complexity – we let performance and clarity speak for themselves.
The WPP–Publicis conflict isn’t just headline material – it reflects a broader crisis in the client-agency relationship. Advertisers are increasingly voicing frustration over defensive posturing, lack of objectivity, and one-sided narratives. What clients want are partners who can advise them impartially, based on evidence – not agencies locked into defending their own tech stacks or undermining others.
Neither WPP nor Publicis is likely to be entirely right or entirely wrong in this case. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle – and it simply can’t be uncovered without the client’s direct involvement.
Running a media test without involving the client is like preparing a five-course tasting menu without ever asking about their allergies or dietary restrictions. It might look impressive – until you serve a rare steak to a lifelong vegan.
This growing erosion of trust is already leading more brands to explore in-housing, looking for control, clarity, and accountability. And unless the industry shifts toward collaborative, agnostic, and transparent advisory models, that trend will accelerate.
In the end, advertisers don’t want drama. They want clarity and effectiveness. And they deserve partners who aren’t just competing for attention – but committed to clarity and truth.
No data? No problem. Zero-party data lets FMCG brands scale personalization, build trust, and target intent - not assumptions.
Belgian court: TCF is not illegal, but consent signals are personal data and must be handled under GDPR.
Microsoft exits the DSP space. Explore what this means for programmatic's future, AI, and the next generation of platforms.
