{"id":1601,"date":"2025-06-06T10:42:00","date_gmt":"2025-06-06T10:42:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.audiencescience.com\/?p=1601"},"modified":"2025-06-07T05:40:36","modified_gmt":"2025-06-07T05:40:36","slug":"more-is-less-multiplatform-problems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.audiencescience.com\/more-is-less-multiplatform-problems\/","title":{"rendered":"When More Is Not More: The Case Against \u201cMultiplatform\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"multiplatform<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not sure what it is that predisposes marketers towards creating complexity. But while peers in operations, supply chain, and product development strive daily to simplify the complex, marketers sure seem immensely prone to creating absolutely epic Rube Goldberg machines<\/a> in response to even the simplest problems. For evidence of this, look no further than a recent article<\/a> seeking to persuade marketers that \u201cmultiplatform\u201d buying works \u2013 that is, running multiple DSPs and programmatic buying platforms on a single campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, it\u2019s true that each DSP has its own methodology, optimization approach, and technology. But this simply means each DSP has a different way of showing the same customers the same ad creative (and deciding on the right combination of the two). Some DSPs may be more reliable and efficient, manage frequency more consistently or be better at differentiating between real humans and web bots. These things matter \u2013 a lot \u2013 but they don\u2019t improve as you add more platforms. Ultimately, the author\u2019s assertion of multiplatform superiority rests on the \u201cmore is more,\u201d \u201cthese ones go to eleven\u201d logic that costs marketers millions in tech fees and wasted impressions while creating no incremental value. So what\u2019s the reality when it comes to running multiple DSPs?<\/p>\n\n\n\n