- Tension: The adtech industry promised revolutionary democratization through emerging technologies, yet eight years later reveals a landscape of concentrated power and broken promises.
- Noise: Enthusiastic 2018 predictions obscured the structural challenges that would doom most innovations while making a handful of platforms dominant.
- Direct Message: Technology adoption follows power dynamics, not merit. Understanding which forces survived reveals what actually drives digital advertising evolution.
To learn more about our editorial approach, explore The Direct Message methodology.
In 2018, the digital advertising industry stood at what seemed like an inflection point.
Header bidding promised to liberate publishers from Google’s grip. Disappearing ads would revolutionize consumer engagement. Twitter’s secretive developments would reshape social advertising. Purchase intelligence platforms would fundamentally alter how brands reached customers.
Eight years later, the verdict is in. Some predictions materialized into billion-dollar markets. Others collapsed under their own complexity.
Most revealing are the patterns that explain why certain innovations thrived while others withered, patterns that have little to do with technology itself.
The consolidation everyone saw coming
The 2018 article noted that only 12 percent of top websites used header bidding despite its obvious advantages. That number seemed poised for exponential growth.
The technology worked exactly as promised: publishers could simultaneously auction inventory to multiple demand sources, driving up CPMs through genuine competition rather than Google’s sequential waterfall approach.
The growth did materialize. The header bidding platform market expanded to $1.62 billion in 2024, projected to reach $4.56 billion by 2033, with implementation concentrated among sites with sufficient technical resources.
But here’s what the 2018 predictions missed: adoption didn’t democratize digital advertising. It created new gatekeepers.
The technology’s complexity meant that only publishers with sophisticated technical teams or expensive managed services could implement it effectively. Small publishers remained locked into traditional waterfalls.
Meanwhile, Amazon and Prebid emerged as dominant frameworks, simply shifting dependence from one set of platforms to another.
The real story isn’t about technological success. It’s about how innovation requiring significant implementation resources inevitably favors those who already possess market power.
The ephemeral advertising paradox
Disappearing ads looked like the future in 2018. Snapchat pioneered the format in 2011, and by 2018, brands like McDonald’s and Taco Bell were experimenting with flash deals and temporary content that created urgency.
The logic seemed airtight: mobile-first consumers making quick decisions would respond to content that disappeared after 24 hours.
The prediction proved accurate in unexpected ways. Over 500 million users engage with Instagram Stories daily, and brands achieve engagement rates that far surpass traditional posts. The psychology worked exactly as theorized: FOMO drives immediate action.
Yet the promised revolution in advertising effectiveness never arrived. Ephemeral content became another channel requiring constant feeding. The lower production standards that made it cost-effective also made it forgettable.
Brands discovered they were running faster to stay in place: more content, more engagement metrics, but questionable ROI when measured against actual sales lift.
The disappearing ad trend succeeded as a user engagement mechanic while failing as an advertising innovation. It gave platforms new inventory to monetize while giving brands another obligation in their already complex content calendars.
When platform politics matter more than performance
The 2018 article positioned Twitter as the next major innovation in social advertising, with company officials hinting at “big developments in the works.” Eight years later, Twitter (now X) offers a case study in how platform stability matters more than advertising technology.
Twitter’s 2022 advertising revenue stood at $4.5 billion. By 2024, that number had collapsed to approximately $2 billion. The platform’s advertising technology didn’t fail. Its ownership did.
After Elon Musk’s acquisition, major advertisers fled, concerned about brand safety and content moderation policies. The platform lost 33 million monthly active users.
Ironically, 2025 projections suggest X’s advertising revenue will grow 16.5 percent to reach $2.26 billion, marking the first increase since the acquisition.
But this recovery remains far below pre-acquisition levels and is driven partly by what analysts describe as “fear-based advertising,” with brands spending to avoid potential repercussions rather than pursuing genuine marketing opportunities.
The lesson: advertising platforms live or die on trust and stability, not technological sophistication. All the adtech innovation in the world cannot compensate for advertiser uncertainty about where their brand will appear.
The hidden truth about purchase intelligence
Of all the 2018 predictions, purchase intelligence seemed most certain to succeed. Cardlytics partnered with major banks including Bank of America, PNC, and Lloyds, processing data from approximately 2,000 financial institutions.
The value proposition was bulletproof: deterministic measurement connecting advertising directly to verified purchases.
The technology worked. Brands achieved measurable ROAS through cash-back offers delivered within banking apps.
Cardlytics helped drive over $46 billion in measurable sales for marketers. The closed-loop measurement that the industry desperately needed finally existed.
Yet by 2025, Cardlytics faced financial distress, announcing 30% workforce reductions after Bank of America declined to renew its partnership. Revenue declined 13 percent. The stock plummeted 86 percent.
The market capitalization that once seemed unstoppable contracted to $89 million.
What happened? Banks realized they didn’t need intermediaries. Once Cardlytics proved the model worked, financial institutions recognized they could run their own card-linked programs, keeping both the data and the revenue.
Chase launched Chase Offers. Wells Fargo developed its own capabilities. The technology that seemed like Cardlytics’ competitive moat became the blueprint for its displacement.
The adtech trends that survived weren’t necessarily the most innovative. They were the ones that aligned with existing power structures or created dependencies that couldn’t be easily replicated.
This pattern repeats throughout digital advertising history. Successful adtech innovations either serve platform interests or become platforms themselves. Those that sit between established players offering services that can be internalized face an inevitable squeeze.
The technology proves the concept. The platforms appropriate it.
What eight years taught us about innovation
Looking back at 2018’s predictions reveals uncomfortable truths about technological adoption in digital advertising.
Header bidding succeeded by creating new intermediaries rather than eliminating them. Ephemeral content won by giving platforms more inventory to monetize. Twitter proved that platform trust matters more than technological capability. Purchase intelligence demonstrated that proving a concept can mean signing your own displacement papers.
The common thread: market position determines technological fate more than technological merit.
Innovations that require significant resources favor incumbent powers. Features that platforms can replicate get absorbed. Technologies that threaten revenue streams get marginalized regardless of effectiveness.
For marketers evaluating the next wave of adtech promises, the 2018 predictions offer a framework: ask not whether the technology works, but whether it aligns with or threatens existing power structures.
The answer predicts adoption far more accurately than any measure of innovation or effectiveness.
