Alan Wolk (AW): How do you define the difference between measurement and currency? Kristen Williams (KW): Measurement is about showing business results—whether that’s unique viewers, site visits, or audience size. Currency is when there’s a value assigned to a metric, and both parties agree that’s what they’re going to transact on. AW: Why do you think the definition of “currency” has become so fuzzy? KW: A lot of it started when the industry began talking about “alternative currencies.” But the reality is, most buyers and sellers weren’t ready to use them as true currencies. They were running them side by side with other metrics to get a sense of how the data lined up. So even though they were labeled as currencies, they were really being used as measurement tools while everyone got more comfortable. AW: Do you agree with the idea that a currency is whatever both sides agree to transact on? KW: That definition makes sense—as long as both sides agree on what that means. If each party has a different idea of what constitutes the currency, that doesn’t really work. AW: Does the industry benefit from having multiple currencies, or is it more trouble than it’s worth? KW: More vendors spur innovation. That’s the upside. The downside is cost. Adding more vendors doesn’t mean the prices go down. If anything, it’s created a situation where having two vendors is becoming the practical limit for many. Cost is definitely a factor. AW: Is there a push from the buy side to create more standardization among measurement vendors? KW: From Magnite’s standpoint, our focus has always been on supporting whatever vendors our clients want to work with. That means ensuring interoperability—making sure inventory can be measured regardless of which provider is being used. That’s how we help facilitate the buy. AW: Are clients asking for more transparency into how these vendors actually measure things? KW: Absolutely. We’ve seen OEM clients with formal certification processes before they’ll even agree to a buy with a particular measurement partner. Transparency is no longer optional. Clients need to understand the methodology to ensure their inventory is actually being measured properly. AW: So transparency becomes a differentiator among vendors? KW: Yes, 100%. If vendors can’t be transparent, how can buyers be confident the numbers are accurate? AW: Do your clients typically come in with a strong POV, or are they looking to you for guidance? KW: It varies. We work with everyone—from big brands and agencies to mid-market buyers. The level of in-house expertise can vary a lot. For those with fewer resources, they tend to lean on us more. We usually don’t recommend just one vendor—we’ll offer a few options in each category based on who we believe can measure CTV effectively. AW: What are a few key things you look for when recommending a vendor? KW: Identity resolution is huge—how they’re linking exposure to outcomes, whether it’s at the household or person level. Flexibility is another big one. Every client’s tech stack is different, so platforms that can “play nice” with others are always a plus. AW: Some digital platforms like Meta or TikTok aren’t exactly transparent. How is that shaping expectations for CTV? KW: We’re seeing the industry adopt similar measurement frameworks used by walled gardens, like conversion APIs that match transaction data with exposures. There’s still less transparency in those environments, but there’s a push to find similar comparisons across channels. It’s interesting to see some CTV companies use these frameworks to help make that comparison easier for buyers. AW: Should linear and streaming be measured the same way? KW: I don’t think GRPs were ever anyone’s ideal—they were just what the tech could support at the time. As more devices become IP-enabled, it’s opened up new ways of measuring, including impressions. A lot of this isn’t about preference, it’s about what’s possible with today’s tech. AW: What role should oversight bodies like the MRC play in all this? Are they helping or holding things up? KW: Magnite doesn’t have a horse in the race in terms of picking a preferred vendor. We’re focused on interoperability. But I think there’s value in accreditation—whether it’s MRC or others. It gives buyers a confidence level that a vendor is doing what they say they’re doing. Whether it should be stricter or looser—others may have stronger opinions—but the concept of independent validation is important. AW: As more viewing shifts to streaming, how are you helping clients who are less familiar with this ecosystem? KW: Performance means different things to different people. The good news is CTV measurement has evolved—whether it’s brand lift, conversion, footfall, etc. There are more tools now. And we’re seeing more brands bring their own audience data, which changes the dynamic. AW: Looking ahead, do you think we’ll settle on a few currencies and measurement vendors—or is this still an experimental phase? KW: I think cost will be a limiting factor—we might land on two or three core vendors. But what I really see improving is optimization. We’re getting faster and smarter about how we optimize media spend, thanks to better tools—and yes, I’ll say it: AI. AW: Five years from now, will measurement be more exact? Or just better understood? KW: “Exact” might not be the right goal. Privacy concerns will make it harder to get super precise. But that doesn’t mean measurement won’t be meaningful. We’ll just have to recalibrate our expectations. We may not know exactly who’s watching what, but we can still get the insights we need to make smart decisions. |
