We think that is going to continue to get worse even though the amount of inventory goes up. And as a result, you’re seeing more and more advertisers sort of flee to safety. I want to be associated with premium content, and I want to be associated with ads that I know are getting visibility. And as there are getting to be more and more of those ads, it makes it easier for them to say, I want to be associated with those where I know I’m getting the 32nd spot, I know I’m getting people’s attention, I know they’re not skipping it, I know they don’t hate my ad in front of that 14-year-old falling off of something. So increasingly, you’ll see us talk about the premium side of the Internet because we know that that’s where the most premium advertisers in the world want to go.
And there’s more and more question about UGC, as it becomes more and more the epicenter for hate speech and all the worst parts of the Internet. So, I expect that separation to continue. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be budgets going there, but I think the majority of the growth is going to go to the premium side of the Internet because the premium side of the Internet is getting so much better at making those available in a data-driven way, which kind of gets to the second part of your question. You’re exactly right actually that one advantage to these — to sort of the social media video as you put it, is that the supply chain is one company end to end in large part. So, they go get demand and then they execute it themselves. And so, while they’re — while we can criticize them for not having objectivity, we have to, like, praise them to some extent for making it super easy, and it’s easier when your ecosystem is really just one company.
Because now we’re doing integrations like the one we just talked about with Disney. We’re making the supply chain of the open Internet so much more effective, that when you couple that with the most premium content, whether we’re talking about in music or in journalism or especially in CTV, all of those things make the premium Internet more accessible to the most premium advertisers in the world. And as the amount of inventory goes up in that world, we also expect more of the dollars to do that — to move in that direction. So, I think, all of this is good for us, but I just wanted to paint a picture of that contrast. There are those two centers of gravity. They will continue to get spend, but the one that is growing most, I believe, is the premium side of the Internet.
Chris Toth: Thanks, Jason. Next question, John, please?
Operator: The next question comes from Laura Martin with Needham. Please proceed.
Laura Martin: Hey, Jeff. I believe that great leadership creates great value and I really appreciate your leadership with the open Internet. So, I wanted to say that first.
Jeff Green: Thank you.
Laura Martin: My question is on — my question is on CTV full funnel. So it feels to me like with your deal with Walmart on the RMN, and then buying Vizio, and Amazon turning all of its 200 million Prime Video advertising driven, it feels like the TAM expansion going on in CTV is bottom of funnel, which is making connected television an omni-funnel channel, not just top of funnel, which was sort of the historical thesis. My question is, is part of your growth, this 28% industry-leading growth you’re reporting, because you actually have a full funnel option in connected television?
Jeff Green: The short answer is yes. So, it is true that the easiest dollars to move over are top of funnel because that is, of course, where the biggest advertisers in the world have historically spent. And so, they are moving over budgets that previously they put in linear, and those would come over to CTV. They’re taking the same assets and in some cases, even the same way of thinking about it. They’ll improve the metrics a bit, and then they improve the targeting a lot, and therein is the new sort of ported over TV budgets. However, as you point out, you don’t have to spend that way very long to say, now what do we do next? How can we improve on that? And that’s where bringing retail data to bear really is just showing amazing advantages for those that have historically sold in brick-and-mortar stores, that have historically had difficulty getting data online, that now they can partner with many of the biggest retailers in the world who are also trying to compete with big tech, and in large part, they’re trying to compete with the Amazons of the world.
So, all of them are saying, how can I put my data to work so that we can sell more product at a Walgreens or a Dollar General or a Walmart or a Target or so many others, Albertson, so many others, Kroger, so many. But if they can sell more product in their stores by making their data available on our platform, then, the advertiser is getting a bit more bottom of the funnel, the retailer is being able to provide proof that their data is actually selling more product in their own four walls, and that makes it easier for them holistically to spin their flywheel faster, which is exactly the way they think about it at places like Amazon. So, it ends up being a win-win between the retailer, as well as the advertiser as they get data and insight and efficiency that they haven’t had before.
And that is, by its very nature, a bit more bottom of the funnel. I think we’ve merely scratched the surface on what’s possible there. I think there’s so much ahead for that, not dissimilar from what we were just talking about in supply chains. There’s a lot of work we need to do to unlock that data to make it easier. There’s way too many manual processes today. We — and I had a meeting with a very large data company today about just making certain that the pipes are very connected so that we can make it easier for the biggest advertisers in the world to use their own data, to keep it safe, to do only things that they would want to do with it that are respecting the very sacred relationship that they have with consumers, so that they can leverage that data top and bottom of the funnel to be more efficient.
And the amount of unlock and things that are possible, in large part started by retail media, are just things that we hadn’t even imagined even just a couple of years ago. So, it’s a really exciting time.
Chris Toth: Thanks, Laura. Next question, John?
Operator: Next question comes from Mark Zgutowicz with The Benchmark Company. Please proceed.
Mark Zgutowicz: Thank you. Good evening, Jeff. Just maybe a follow-up to Jason’s question on social walled gardens. If you look at your mix across all of your ad categories, it’s been relatively unchanged since December of ’22. This quarter, you indicated mobile dropped from a high 30% to mid-30s, but we haven’t seen video move up from the mid-40s since December ’22. So, I’m just curious what’s sort of driving that dynamic would have — I guess expect to see video mix moving higher as all these CTV initiatives are in play? Thanks.
Jeff Green: Honestly, I don’t spend that much time on measuring the mix. Of course, I’m very interested in seeing CTV continue to grow and I am interested in the overall growth rate, but because when you’re looking at the growth rates against each other, when one is doing really well, it doesn’t necessarily mean the other is doing badly, even though the slice of the pie goes down. Because the pie is getting bigger, we’re excited about that growth across the board. So, whether it’s high-30s to mid-30s and mobile and whatnot, we’re still heading in an amazing direction of growth. And honestly, we spend a lot of time trying to actually properly categorize inside of things like video, and sometimes small moves like people watching video on phones or offline versus watching them on CTV have an effect on what we describe as growth in CTV versus video or otherwise, when the content is almost the same, it’s just the device.
And so, creating distinction between premium content and devices can sometimes muddy the waters in the numbers, which is not ever what we intend to do, but we’re simply just trying to show the value of premium content. We know that that trend overall is very good irrespective of what devices they’re used on. And in fact, even if you look at it on a device basis, the trends are also very good. So the small changes that you’re describing, I honestly don’t spend that much time thinking about it.
Laura Schenkein: Yeah. And Mark, this is Laura. I would just add that video does continue to increase. We just don’t break out the exact percentages.
Chris Toth: Cool. Thanks, Mark. Next question, John?
Operator: Absolutely. The next question comes from Mark Mahaney with Evercore. Please proceed.
Mark Mahaney: [Technical Difficulty] from analogy. There’s been rising regulatory scrutiny of Google, I think, and I know and Meta for a couple of years, but it’s really kind of come home this year. You mentioned some of the stuff that’s been disclosed. You’ve got two trials that will probably have decisions between now and the end of the year. So, is that actually causing a notable material acceleration or shift of ad budgets away from Google towards The Trade Desk? Have you actually seen that now that we’re — the whatever the right analogy is, the chickens have come home to roost? Thank you.
Jeff Green: Yeah. Thanks, Mark. I really appreciate the question. So, when you get an incremental dollar, it’s sometimes hard to figure out why you got it or where it came from. But — so, it’s hard for us to attribute how much of that is coming from people’s fear of Google. I mean, I know that we win money from Google’s DSP all the time. Sometimes, we think that’s because our product is better, sometimes I think it’s because our objectivity is better, sometimes it’s because we’re not going to spend most of your money on YouTube. There’s a whole bunch of reasons why that’s the case. And regulatory scrutiny is one of those, but I will speak to the sentiment, which I think is just easier to speak to as I have more and more conversations with C-Suites at some of the biggest companies in the world and talk about it in the context of either partnership or are seeking their advertising dollars.
