<body><div><figure><img src="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?type=thumbnail_580x000&amp;url=45tiSm_0vyCChZv00" alt="https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=45tiSm_0vyCChZv00" width="640" height="360" ><figcaption>Ivy Liu</figcaption></figure>This article was provided as an exclusive preview for Digiday+ members, who were able to access it early. Check out the other features included with Digiday+ to help you stay aheadA growing consensus in ad circles: The Trade Desk is veering dangerously close to “bad actor” territory.If this rising unease had a name, it would be “TTD’s Dominance Distress Trauma (DDT)” — a growing fear that the ad tech powerhouse’s influence is pushing the industry into dangerous waters. And bit by bit, the evidence of this anxiety is beginning to pile up, as recently reported by Adexchanger.There was Lotame CEO Andy Monfried’s post on X that said “they [The Trade Desk] became what they preached against”.Then, Viant’s COO Chris Vanderhook piled on, comparing The Trade Desk to Google on LinkedIn.Even Therran Oliphant, svp of agency partnerships at Flashtalking, jumped into the fray, saying, “TTD is becoming a true hedged garden. Let’s see if they lay brick and control access to your performance data.”Of course, it’s worth noting that these critics aren’t exactly neutral. They have their own reasons to throw shade on The Trade Desk, especially since their businesses stand to gain from any negative buzz around the ad tech giant.But that doesn’t make their observations off-base. If anything, their critiques speak to a broader reality: The Trade Desk has hit that stage where public companies start flexing their market power — leveraging their size to outmaneuver old allies and muscle into new territories.Simply put, the neutral, everyone’s-best-friend approach that characterized The Trade Desk’s ascent is fading quickly, at least from an outsider’s perspective. The Trade Desk had not responded to a request for comment as of this story’s deadline.These days, every move the ad tech vendor makes is scrutinized for hidden motives. And that’s what makes the timing of these public putdowns so telling. They’re not just a reaction to The Trade Desk’s growing dominance, but specifically to its recent moves: launching its own operating system for smart TVs and pushing its alternative to third-party cookies. By now, the backlash is well understood. If The Trade Desk controls the operating system where most of the ad industry sells CTV ads, it gains massive influence over one of the most lucrative segments in advertising. And its cookie replacement has critics worried it could dominate how publishers make money.But there’s another layer here: the antitrust case against Google. It’s made everyone a bit more wary of monopolistic behavior and has some wondering whether The Trade Desk is following a similar playbook. As the industry watches the Google trial unfold, The Trade Desk’s actions are being viewed through a sharper, more critical lens.As one ad tech executive, who requested anonymity, put it: “It’s hard to reconcile the state of the market on the supply side with The Trade Desk’s own fortunes. It’s hard to believe that what they’re doing is about growing the open web for the betterment of the industry.”While there’s some truth to this view, it only scratches the surface of a much more nuanced story – one that traces all the way back to The Trade Desk’s beginnings.“The reason I think we all need to be fair to The Trade Desk is while they won the big prize, the enterprise market, it wasn’t theirs to win,” said Lana McGilvray, a veteran ad tech CMO who now leads Purpose Worldwide, an agency that represents companies across the industry. “In fact, they were the last enterprise-focused DSP to market and Jeff Green was the newer, hyper-focused, non-insider on the block when The Trade Desk entered the market.”What McGilvray is really driving at is that The Trade Desk’s rise wasn’t just about defying expectations —it was about doing so with a precision and agility that allowed it to outmaneuver incumbents. And ever since, it’s rinsed and repeated this strategy. Take those concerns over The Trade Desk’s rumored TV operating system. If it exists, it’s arguably just an extension of what The Trade Desk has always been praised for — dominating markets through innovation and quality tech, not shady dealings. And if some companies get squeezed out in the process, especially those trying to siphon off ad dollars, so be it. The Trade Desk has never been one to back down from collateral damage when it comes to its own success.Here’s how CEO Jeff Green addressed this at ExchangeWire’s ATS conference last month: “We have to obsess about supply chains because we have to make certain that the supply chain of the open Internet is better than that of wall gardens – while never leaving the buy side-only mantra.”What’s intriguing is not just Green’s response, but the context behind it. The question wasn’t whether The Trade Desk is building a TV operating system, but rather if the reports are true that it’s doing so to push out companies like Roku. Green sidestepped the core of the question by denying the intent, not the project itself, before swiftly pivoting to why his company is so focused on “obsessing over supply chains.” It felt more like a statement of principles than a direct denial of the operating system rumors — clarifying the “why” without confirming or denying the “what.”This pattern of interpretation isn’t limited to just the TV operating system rumors. It’s a similar story with The Trade Desk’s OpenPath initiative.Critics see it as a move to cut out the middlemen — the ad tech vendors that sell ads on behalf of publishers — so The Trade Desk can forge its own direct path to those ad dollars. But The Trade Desk has countered that OpenPath isn’t about replacing intermediaries; it’s about giving publishers more options to boost their revenue. By cutting out certain fees, OpenPath can theoretically free up more ad spend to flow directly to publishers — expanding the pie rather than shrinking it.As Milly Putley, the associate director of marketing at web 3.0 ad exchange Alkimi, said: “In contrast to more closed platforms, we are positively optimistic that The Trade Desk will continue to support and grow a partner ecosystem that offers advertisers more choice in transparency and trust, ensuring it remains a transparent, trustworthy environment that supports advertisers’ needs.”Ultimately, the debate around OpenPath — and much of what The Trade Desk has done or been accused of doing — boils down to perspective. On one side, The Trade Desk is leveraging its influence over ad dollars to secure impressions at the best price possible. On the other, it’s creating a commercial disadvantage for those trying to sell those same impressions for as high a price as they can. And that’s market dynamics at work.“I believe that it is in the nature and objectives of a company to try to gain market share and importance and, crucially, to keep control of its assets and position, but it must be done fairly and transparently,” said Alessandro De Zanche, founder of media consultancy ADZ Strategies. “And I also believe that it is positive that competitors ring an alarm bell to avoid the repetition of what happened with Google.”</div></body>

Mountain View, CA

NewsBreak

Untangling TTD’s DDT (Dominance Distress Trauma)

This article was provided as an exclusive preview for Digiday+ members, who were able to access it early. Check out the other features included with Digiday+ to help you stay ahead. A growing consensus in ad circles: The Trade Desk is veering dangerously close to “bad actor” territory.

Untangling TTD’s DDT (Dominance Distress Trauma)

Comments / 0