In panels and discourse across the industry, one word crops up perhaps more than any other: fragmentation. But while the theme is usually discussed in negative terms, Callum Guthrie, VP, Product Management at Innovid, argues that when comparing CTV to the centralised power seen in display and social advertising, fragmentation might not be such a bad thing.
Fragmentation is often framed as one of the core challenges in advertising, which it is. Discontinuity between channels, methods and signals makes planning more complex, measurement less consistent, and performance harder to reconcile into a single view. Fragmentation imposes real operational costs, from the cost of media execution itself, to the tools, teams, and infrastructure needed to manage disconnected systems.
Despite these challenges, fragmentation is not always a negative force. In some markets, it reflects a healthy level of competition. And in CTV, where the major players are already established around vertically integrated tech and inventory, fragmentation may actually be serving a valuable structural purpose. It keeps the market competitive, open to negotiation and interoperability, and less likely to give rise to the perversions of monopoly power.
How CTV avoided the fate of the open web
The contrast between CTV and earlier digital channels explains much of the difference. In display and social advertising, inventory was spread across millions of websites, feeds, and apps. Most had limited scale and little technical capability. This created an opening for aggregators to command outsized control. Platforms that could centralise access, standardise reporting, and streamline buying quickly gained disproportionate leverage. That dynamic gave rise to Google and Meta. As their scale grew, so did their influence. Eventually, they were able to set terms for nearly the entire ecosystem.
CTV has evolved under different conditions. Premium video content carries high production costs, and supply is limited by both financial and licensing constraints. Only a small number of companies have the resources to produce or control content at scale. Over the past decade, firms like Amazon, Disney, Comcast, Roku, Netflix, Paramount, and Warner Bros. Discovery have built their own vertically integrated platforms. These businesses combine content ownership with proprietary ad tech, audience data, and monetisation strategies. Some built their systems in-house, whereas others bought or licensed their way into the space.
The result is a market defined by a handful of large, self-contained ecosystems. Each platform is functionally independent, with its own tech stack and inventory. But they are also competing for the same ad budgets, which means they are subject to buyer pressure and marketplace dynamics not entirely within their control. This is a good thing.
Why this kind of fragmentation helps buyers
In CTV, no single company controls a commanding majority of the inventory. That balance of power gives buyers options. They can compare offerings, negotiate terms, and shift spend if performance or transparency falls short. Fragmentation at this level functions as a safeguard. It prevents any one player from unilaterally raising prices or limiting access. Buyers remain in a position to demand accountability.
This is fundamentally different from the kind of fragmentation seen in the open web. There, fragmentation created the conditions for monopoly power. In CTV, fragmentation helps prevent it. The market power of the leading players is real, but it is distributed. That distribution incentivises interoperability and keeps the door open for competition.
Building across fragmentation
Of course, fragmentation still creates friction. Cross-platform measurement, frequency management, audience deduplication, and performance optimisation all require investment in connective infrastructure. Buyers and vendors still need to stitch together identity systems, reporting frameworks, and clean room integrations in order to operate effectively across platforms.
The difference is that this version of fragmentation is solvable. Most major CTV publishers number in the dozens, not the millions. Building integrations across this landscape is challenging but achievable. The technical problem is significant, but it does not require solving for a long tail of anonymous supply. With the right partnerships and platform investments, buyers can bring interoperability to an otherwise closed environment.
A healthier, more durable ecosystem
The CTV landscape is unlikely to collapse into a single dominant platform. The top players are well capitalised, highly strategic, and too far along to be acquired or displaced easily. That may frustrate buyers looking for simplicity, but it also creates stability. No one entity can dictate the terms of trade for the entire ecosystem.
Advertisers should continue investing in tools that improve consistency, transparency, and interoperability. But they should also recognise that fragmentation in CTV is structurally different from what came before. It reflects strength, not weakness. When multiple strong platforms compete, buyers benefit from the market that results.
There is still complexity to manage. But in CTV, fragmentation is a challenge that can be worked through. The alternative is concentration of power in the hands of a single gatekeeper, and as we’ve seen recently, that would be much harder to fix.
Follow VideoWeek on LinkedIn.
