In her latest column, Shirley Marschall looks at why there’s a huge gap between what the industry says it wants, and what it chooses to pay for…

When was the last time you looked at an ultrasound screen and thought: yep, I can see everything loud and clear. And now that I saw my insides/dog/whatever 'fully transparent', it all makes sense. Or, did you quietly nod along when the doctor explained "that’s a head" or "that’s your dog’s bladder", having zero clue what and how they’re seeing a thing...?

Now imagine the ad tech ecosystem turned 100% transparent overnight. A glass box instead of a black one. Or, to be seasonally appropriate, a big unwrapping event.

Would you understand a thing? And what would you even expect to see?

When we ask for transparency, what do we even mean? The tech? The pipes? The results? The measurement? All of the above? I'm not entirely sure…

Transparent ad tech could mean staring into complex systems: DSPs, SSPs, ad servers, measurement tools, brand safety, identity layers. Or, even worse, the technical weeds like auction dynamics, bid shading, frequency management, or log-level data. The list of tools and tech is so long, it’s a language of its own. New acronyms keep joining the club faster than anyone can keep up. (Transaction ID, anyone? That one, not long ago, caught even most experts with their pants down.)

Now imagine being an advertiser. Many don’t even know the vendors in their own supply chain, let alone the difference between a DSP and an SSP. And every ad tech pro who’s ever tried to explain programmatic 101 to a non-expert knows that glazed-over look (hats off to those experts who managed to explain to family and friends that they work in ad tech without them assuming you’re either in marketing or an IT person).

Looks like transparency isn’t the only issue here, is it? Natasha Whitfield-Niven, founder of CertM8, put it brilliantly: "Transparency without clarity is just noise, the ecosystem needs signals that are understandable and actionable, not a flood of raw metrics that overwhelm decision-makers."

We say we want transparency, but what we really want is clarity. And can we even have clarity without simplicity?

Because when simplicity disappears, black boxes start to look oddly comforting.

And sorry agencies, no finger-pointing here, but you were meant to be the translators, advocates, and strategic guides. But unfortunately, somewhere between bundled deals and preferred partnerships, you stopped asking the hard questions. Audits became optional, and black boxes became normal. Not entirely your fault, though.

Anyway, back to transparency, clarity, and simplicity or the lack of it. Looks like all of the above is how we ended up with an enormous gap between what we say we want - transparency - and what we actually do - choose simplicity.

Overcomplicated tech, overwhelmed decision-makers… siloed, mind-numbing complexity, and a lack of defined metrics. Meanwhile advertisers watch their budgets evaporate into a system so complex, even the experts can't fully explain where the money went.

Still wondering why Amazon, Meta, and Google keep winning? No, it’s not because they offer the best outcomes but because they offer the fewest questions.

Simplicity sells.

Google says: Skip the funnel. Buy more YouTube.

Amazon says: Plug into our retail graph. It’s all you need.

Meta says: Skip measurement. Just connect your bank account.

And the ecosystem listens, because easy is seductive.

Meanwhile, these same players do what they do best, build higher walls and thicker ecosystems, further fragmenting the rules of engagement.

Google is closing Search around its own AI answers and brand sources.

Meta walked away from MRC audits.

YouTube launched its own proprietary brand-impact tool.

It’s not just the walled gardens, though. Even The Trade Desk, the Switzerland of ad tech, shows how transparency and clarity still don’t necessarily equal simplicity. A prime example, OpenAds or when TTD forked Prebid to run their own auction logic. 

Each one of these moves promises speed and control, but at the same time multiplies work for marketers: different dashboards, metrics, and policies to compare, understand and trust. 

So what now? It’s no secret that ad tech has plenty of problems, and there is no better place to hide those than inside a black box. And yes, there are many incentives to keep everything just the way it is and on the flip side, zero incentive to fix this. And in a truly transparent ecosystem, the number of companies that would be exposed (and possibly fail) could be staggering.   

Still, that’s supposed to be ad tech, right? The move to automation was supposed to increase efficiency, but instead, it’s leaking budgets, data, and trust along the way. Which makes one wonder what business we are actually in? Ad-tax? Ad-fraud? Ad-budget-waste? Ad-leak? 

And now, of course, we’re asking AI to make this inefficient system efficient. Right? Right…as if bolting on another tool will do the job. As if the solution to too much tech has ever been more tech.

AI is being sold as the "orchestration layer" that will finally simplify the patchwork. But as Natasha Whitfield-Niven described it: "It’s like signing up for an Ironman when you can barely run a 5K. There are so many fundamental issues in the ad tech ecosystem that need addressing, and realistically CAN be."

So instead of making up excuses and repeating annoying sayings like "don’t blame the players, blame the game" … let’s blame the game and while at it, fix it. Let’s collaborate. Let’s standardise. Let’s focus on transparency, that leads to clarity, and clarity that leads to simplicity.

Because if we don’t, budgets will keep flowing to the "easy" solutions, Google, Meta, Amazon, and whoever else promises fewer questions.

After all, the only thing better than easy… is cheap. But that’s a story for another day.