The Leadership Letter

Real correspondence from the people running real companies — and what it reveals about leadership.

Use Your Hot Product to Lock Customers Into Your Platform

When you have a product everyone wants, the real question isn't how to sell it — it's what else you can pull through the door with it.

We are very excited that you guys have integrated AdX Mobile directly into the Octagon SDK, so that we can sell it as a stand-alone solution (without XFP). Quite frankly I think it will fly off the shelves, and we are starting to look for some early Beta partners for you now. Having said that, I am concerned about 3 things: a) Many of our target publishers are using third party ad servers or mediation platforms. I think we should have a clear testing and integration plan, so that we can certify these partners. I would start with Mocean, Admarvel, and Nexage. b.) We should figure out first level support for the publishers that will utilize this solution. c.) While I know I might be in the minority, I would like to stress that I think that it is too early to give AdX to non-XFP partners. Most of them will give the tag/SDK to third party ad servers, and yield management companies. These companies will claim 'AdX integration' and use this lever to sell their own solutions. This is an amazing time to 'lock in' impressions by offering XFP to publishers with full AdX dynamic allocation. AdX can serve as a tool to pull publishers onto XFP. By allowing third parties to integrate with AdX mobile web/app we are giving away this advantage. Dynamic allocation allows AdX to see all XFP impressions. We lose this advantage behind other ad servers. Ad Servers are sticky and hard to replace. The next 12 months are a very good time to switch publishers over. That opportunity will pass. Do we really want to miss it?

On September 10, 2012, Marc Theermann emailed Scott Spencer and others at Google about AdX Mobile being bundled into the Octagon SDK as a stand-alone product — meaning publishers could now use AdX without also adopting Google's ad server, XFP. Theermann is enthusiastic about demand but raises a sharp strategic concern: opening AdX to outside partners might actually undercut Google's best lever for pulling those same publishers onto XFP.

Theermann's hidden move is about switching costs and timing. He writes that 'ad servers are sticky and hard to replace' and that 'the next 12 months are a very good time to switch publishers over.' He sees a closing window. If Google lets third-party ad servers integrate with AdX now, those servers will advertise 'AdX integration' and remove the main reason a publisher would switch to XFP. The bundle — AdX's dynamic allocation seeing 'all XFP impressions' — loses its pull once AdX works just as well behind a competitor's stack. This is a classic platform bundling decision: do you maximize short-term distribution by opening up, or do you restrict access to drive adoption of the full platform? Theermann is explicitly arguing for the latter, and his logic rests entirely on a time-sensitive competitive position, not on product quality.

If you have a feature that drives adoption of your core product, ask before unbundling it: does standing alone help partners more than it helps you? Map which integrations strengthen your platform lock-in and which ones quietly hand that lock-in to a rival. Revisit that map every six months — windows like the one Theermann describes are real, and they close.

Court Exhibit
United States v. Google LLC (Ad Tech)
1:23-cv-00108 (VAED), Trial Ex. PTX0114 — DOJ public archive
September 10, 2012
Public domain
View the primary source →