In Batman v Superman, Batman famously asks Superman, “Do you bleed?”
Well, kids, Superman does, indeed, bleed—as The Trade Desk’s struggles continue following its rough Q4 earnings call. And when there’s blood in the water, competitors see an opening.
Enter DSP Viant. In a LinkedIn post today, Viant Co-Founder & COO Chris Vanderhook criticized the strategic shift Jeff Green laid out on The Trade Desk’s earnings call, arguing that its focus on Joint Business Partnerships (JBPs) with Fortune 100 brands is alienating mid-market advertisers and agencies. “TTD now treats agencies as a pass-through,” says Vanderhook.
His post suggests that The Trade Desk is moving away from its traditional agency relationships and prioritizing direct brand deals—just as Google has done. “This is huge,” he says. The fallout, he argues, could be significant for agency holding companies, many of whom are resisting The Trade Desk’s AI-driven Kokai platform due to concerns about rising costs and transparency. Hence the focus on brands—The Trade Desk is banking on large advertisers shifting spend away from Google’s DV360, either due to antitrust concerns or a potential breakup.
“I do believe TTD will convince some Fortune 100 brands to sign JBP deals, as spend shifting out of DV360 is inevitable,” says Vanderhook. “But this strategy carries great risk to TTD and great opportunity for everyone else. These ‘one-size-fits-all’ global platforms cater to P&G and Unilever, leaving a huge market need for others to serve diverse mix advertisers.”
Here’s the full post (link here):
What No One’s Talking About From TTD’s Convoluted Earnings Call
TTD’s #1 priority (out of 15 total) is SCALE—but that really means they’re laser-focused on the Fortune 100, not the Fortune 500+. Their strategy? Strike direct JBP (Joint Business Partnerships) with the biggest brands, capitalizing on Google’s retreat from the open internet.
This means mid-market clients and agencies are being deprioritized in favor of the largest advertisers—just like Google.
But the biggest fallout? HoldCos.
TTD just parted ways with several high profile executives in their HoldCo business and have diverted many sales resources toward brand direct sales. On the earnings call, they fired a huge shot across the bow, repeatedly emphasizing “JBP” and “Brand Direct.”
TTD now treats agencies as a pass-through. The final straw? Agency reluctance to adopt Kokai. Agencies know Kokai isn’t about AI—it’s about fees. They’ve been pushing back on rising costs, lack of transparency, and Google-like behavior. So, TTD is going around them, selling directly to brands.
This shift is huge. It means money will shake out of TTD and into alternative providers, creating new opportunities for the rest of the open internet. Hey! Maybe the leader of the open internet does care about someone other than themselves? 😉
That said, I do believe TTD will convince some Fortune 100 brands to sign JBP deals, as spend shifting out of DV360 is inevitable. But this strategy carries great risk to TTD and great opportunity for everyone else. These “one-size-fits-all” global platforms cater to P&G and Unilever, leaving a huge market need for others to serve diverse mix advertisers(more on that in a later post).So Who is TTD Now?
TTD is in no man’s land—becoming Google but staying focused on big brand advertising instead of outcomes. Seems puzzling, given that Google, Meta, and Amazon control ~65% of the market and all prioritize outcomes (regardless of the quality of outcomes they claim to drive). But P&G-type clients aren’t outcome-obsessed, which gives great insight into TTD’s product roadmap.
Where’s the Innovation?
There isn’t any. That’s why he’s firing people and making changes to Product & Eng teams while slotting AI at #9 on their priority list. No bold, industry-leading innovation and no clear narrative (which is critical). That’s why investors are running. AI will define the next generation of ad tech, and despite its market position, TTD has nothing real to show for it.
Jeff Green has built a hugely successful company (let’s give him his flowers). But if TTD had real answers, he would have stated them clearly. Instead, his lack of clarity suggests deeper problems—which is why investors are running for safety.
Viant’s pipeline has been swelling because agencies need:
True innovation and unique partnerships to win new business
Products that drive real outcomes so they can be fairly compensated for client growth
TTD isn’t speaking that language.
Why This Matters:
Viant’s critique adds to growing industry skepticism about The Trade Desk’s positioning post-earnings. Just yesterday, we covered an X debate on how Amazon’s DSP could put pricing pressure on TTD’s take rate. Now, a day later, the focus has shifted to JBPs, which the company claims are growing 50% faster than the rest of its business.
That said, TTD’s growing reliance on a small set of massive advertisers aligns with its focus on quality and the “premium internet.” But is a premium internet really an innovation story? Not exactly? It feels more like nibbling at the edges. Maybe the Sincera acquisition is meant to shift that perception, though so far, investors don’t seem to care. (Premium internet also screams “brand safety,” which isn’t an upward trending topic today, for obvious reasons.)
Speaking of innovation, Vanderhook also calls out what he sees as a lack of true innovation at The Trade Desk, arguing that recent executive shakeups, product changes, and AI ranking ninth on its priority list suggest a company struggling to adapt. Fighting words, for sure.
Experts React:
See Vanderhook’s full post, of course, but also see these replies:
Our Take:
What’s your take on Vanderhook’s POV? Valid criticism or opportunistic timing? From a competitor’s standpoint, speaking out here makes sense, but does it come off as harsh while a larger rival struggles?
Note that The Trade Desk is now down over 40% since its call, dropping nearly 5% today.
