What AdTech needs to stop talking about

‍Better thought leadership starts with an opinion, not a product‍
‍

AdTech has a sameness problem.

‍

AI-led. Powered by AI. Built for a cookieless world. Solving CTV fragmentation. Delivering transparency across the supply chain.

‍

The phrases change slightly, but the story often does not.

‍

The problem is not that these subjects are irrelevant. AI, data, streaming and measurement are reshaping advertising. The problem is that too many companies start with the product they want to promote, then look for an industry trend to attach it to.

‍

That is product marketing dressed as opinion.

‍

Stop talking about the product

‍

No journalist is waiting for another article explaining what your platform does. That is what your owned content is for. Blogs, LinkedIn posts, customer stories and advertorials give you the space to promote capabilities and explain the technology in detail.

‍

Earned thought leadership has a different job. It should show that you understand the challenges your customers face, have a distinctive view on what needs to change and can make a complicated issue feel relevant, urgent or human.

‍

Journalists are part of that audience too.

‍

Any editor from a leading media trade title doesn’t want a disguised product pitch about performance, supply path optimisation or cloud infrastructure. They want a quick, timely and headline-ready idea that connects with the wider marketing or cultural conversation.

‍

A specialist AdTech publication may want the technical detail, but expertise is not the same as jargon. The argument still needs to be original and useful to its readers.

‍

The question is not: how can we get our product into this article? It is: what do we know that will help this audience understand the problem differently?

‍

AI is not a point of view

‍

By now, most platforms, agencies and brands are powered or supported by AI in some form. Simply saying so is no longer interesting.

‍

Slapping “agentic” on a headline does not make it licensed to thrill.

‍

The stronger story is what the technology is doing, which decisions it improves and what changed as a result. Can it identify an opportunity earlier, reduce waste, improve creative or give a marketer greater confidence? Where does human judgement still matter? What evidence proves the claim?

‍

“AI-powered” describes the machinery. It does not provide the argument.

‍

In fact, some of the best AI thought leadership in 2026 may barely mention AI at all. It will focus on the bigger commercial or human challenge and use the technology as part of the answer, rather than treating it as the story.

‍

“CTV is fragmented” is an observation, not an opinion

‍

CTV fragmentation matters. Measurement remains difficult, walled gardens still create barriers and advertisers still need a clearer view across different environments.

‍

But journalists have heard that story repeatedly. Saying CTV is fragmented now identifies the subject without adding anything to the conversation.

‍

A stronger opinion might be that CTV fragmentation has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, made worse by the companies that keep using complexity as an excuse. Or it might challenge the industry's fixation on channels and argue for planning around viewing behaviours, cultural moments or audience signals instead.

‍

Those ideas can be debated. “CTV is fragmented” cannot.

‍

This applies across AdTech. Signal loss, transparency, attention, attribution and privacy are topics. They only become thought leadership when a spokesperson says something specific about them that will create a discussion, or at least resonate.

‍

A topic is not a hook

‍

The best thought leadership is connected to something happening now.

‍

Sometimes that hook is directly industry-related, such as a regulatory change, a shift in first-party data strategy or a major streaming announcement. Sometimes it comes from wider culture: a breakout celebrity, a Gen Alpha behaviour or a last-minute rush for eclipse glasses.

‍

Both routes can work. The important thing is to use the moment to reveal something useful, not bolt a pun onto a product message.

‍

The eclipse, for example, could shine a light on the power of responsive campaigns: an organised data stack detecting a sudden change in intent, allowing marketers to react while interest is still high. But the hook should illuminate the message, not eclipse it.

‍

That also means writing for the publication in front of you. A tier-one trade title needs the fast, edgy and human version. A technical title may want to explore ad spend, attribution or the cloud infrastructure beneath the issue. The core expertise remains consistent, but the pitch changes with the audience.

‍

Find the thing that actually bothers you

‍

One of the most useful questions we ask of a spokesperson is: what is genuinely pissing you off?

‍

Frustration is not a communications strategy, but it often reveals the contradiction, complacency or pain point they care enough to challenge. It produces a real opinion rather than another carefully approved paragraph about an industry “at an inflection point”.

‍

Thought leadership should still support the company's wider positioning. Reactive does not mean random, and an edgy view should reinforce what the business wants to be known for rather than confuse its prospects.

‍

But it needs to sound like a person with experience, judgement and something at stake.

‍

So, before pitching the next article, ask yourself these questions:

‍

What am I actually arguing?

‍

Why will this matter to the publication’s readers now?

‍

Could the article stand on its own without mentioning the product?

‍

If you cannot answer all three clearly, do not pitch it.

‍