Concentration creates two risks: sudden loss of the account, and no reference point for whether the rates are fair. A second source addresses both, and the cost is complexity rather than money.

The two risks

Discontinuity. An account suspended, a policy change, a category deprecated, or a network exiting a market. Any of those takes revenue to zero without notice, and reinstatement is slow when it is possible at all.

Publishers who have experienced this describe the same thing: no warning, no route to a person, and weeks of no income.

No reference point. With one source you cannot tell whether the rates are good. There is nothing to compare against, so the only evidence is the trend, which reflects the market as much as the partner.

The second risk is quieter and probably costs more over time.

What diversification actually means

Not running four networks simultaneously on every slot, which adds latency and complexity for diminishing benefit.

Three sensible arrangements, in increasing order of effort.

A primary with a backfill. One source takes most inventory, a second fills what the first declines. Simple, and it means unsold inventory earns something.

Competing sources on the same inventory, where each bids and the highest wins. More revenue potential, more latency, more to maintain.

Split by inventory type, where different placements or sections use different partners. Useful when partners have genuinely different strengths.

For most small publishers the first is the right starting point, and it captures most of the risk reduction for very little of the complexity.

Choosing a second source

What to compare, in the order that matters.

The fourth is the one publishers miss. Two intermediaries sourcing from the same buyers give you two relationships and one demand pool, which halves the diversification benefit while doubling the maintenance.

Asking a prospective partner where their demand originates is a reasonable question and the answer is informative.

The exclusivity question

Worth reading for before signing.

Some arrangements require exclusivity across your inventory, or across particular formats, or prohibit running competing sources on the same page.

That is a legitimate commercial term and it is also the thing that recreates the concentration you were trying to remove.

Where exclusivity is required, the rate needs to compensate for the risk, and the term length matters more than it would otherwise.

Testing without disrupting everything

  1. Start on a portion of inventory, a section or a placement rather than the whole site.
  2. Run long enough to cover normal weekly variation.
  3. Compare session RPM, not the rate each partner reports about itself.
  4. Watch page speed, since additional scripts have a cost.
  5. Check fill, since a partner with good rates and poor fill can earn less.
  6. Keep the incumbent running throughout.

The third is where comparisons go wrong. Each partner reports favourably on its own inventory, and the only figure that reconciles them is your total revenue over the same traffic.

The other kind of diversification

Worth naming because it is the more durable one.

Every demand source is still advertising, and advertising as a whole is exposed to the same forces: signal loss, blocking, rate cycles, and platform changes.

Revenue that is not advertising, whether affiliate arrangements, direct sponsorship, a paid offering, or services, is not correlated with any of that.

A publisher with three ad networks has diversified within one category. A publisher with one network and one non-advertising stream has diversified across two.

Which is the more meaningful protection, and it takes considerably longer to build, which is why it is worth starting before it is needed.

The direct relationship half of that is covered in direct-sold vs programmatic, compared honestly.

Frequently asked questions

What are the two risks of one demand source?

Sudden loss of the account with no warning or route to a person, and having no reference point for whether the rates you receive are reasonable.

Does diversifying mean running several networks at once?

Not necessarily. A primary with a backfill filling what the first declines captures most of the risk reduction for very little complexity.

What do publishers miss when choosing a second source?

Whether it sources demand from the same underlying pool. Two intermediaries buying from the same buyers give two relationships and one demand pool.

What should I watch for in the terms?

Exclusivity across inventory, formats, or pages. It is legitimate, and it recreates the concentration you were trying to remove.

How should a test be run?

On a portion of inventory, long enough to cover weekly variation, compared on session RPM rather than each partner's own reported rate, with the incumbent still running.

What is the more durable diversification?

Revenue that is not advertising at all, since every ad source shares exposure to signal loss, blocking and rate cycles.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Everything running through one network?

We usually add a backfill first, which removes the worst of the risk without adding much to maintain.

Start a Conversation