If you read the latest analyst forecasts or industry headlines, a clear narrative emerges: programmatic is taking over connected TV. The reality is more complex. While automated deliveries are indeed growing, programmatic’s role in CTV remains widely misunderstood – and sometimes overstated.
This matters for media owners. Confusion around definitions and measurement can distort investment decisions, complicate yield strategies, and cloud how some publishers position their ad inventory in a rapidly evolving market. Understanding where programmatic fits, and where it doesn’t, is essential for anyone making decisions about CTV monetization.
The latest FreeWheel Video Marketplace Report (VMR) found that over 70% of streaming ad views are still delivered directly, outside of programmatic channels. At the same time, some industry forecasts suggest that over 80% of CTV spend is already programmatic. The gap between these figures highlights a deeper problem: the industry still lacks a shared way of defining and measuring programmatic in CTV.
Why the disconnect exists
Programmatic, at its simplest, is about automation. Yet in everyday use, the term has stretched so far that it now covers almost everything. This can include everything from open exchange bidding and private marketplaces to programmatic guaranteed deals, and even digitized versions of old-style insertion orders.
This broad application muddies the waters. For example, guaranteed CTV buys executed through programmatic channels may be classified as programmatic, even though they behave more like direct transactions. At the same time, some forecasts group together very different formats, such as in-stream, outstream, and social video. all under the CTV umbrella. The result is an inflated picture of programmatic’s footprint in premium CTV environments, which has resulted in a narrative that does not always reflect the actual transactions taking place.
For media owners, the problem isn’t just about definitions. It directly affects how buyers perceive value, how inventory is packaged, and how technology investments are prioritised. When “programmatic” can have four or five different meanings, publishers risk being evaluated against expectations that do not align with the real economics of their supply.
CTV is not display, and not linear
Part of the challenge is that CTV doesn’t fit neatly into existing categories. It isn’t digital display, and it isn’t traditional TV. Instead, it combines TV living-room style viewing with digital-style automation.
That in-between status has consequences. Budgets often get split between TV and digital teams, leading to competing KPIs and conflicting expectations. Agencies with more established brand clients may prioritize guaranteed premium placements, while performance-led advertisers may lean towards real-time optimization. Both want automation, but they mean very different things when they use the word “programmatic.”
And then there are publisher realities. Premium inventory is finite. Direct deals remain the backbone when it comes to revenue and they allow tighter control over both supply and the viewing experience. Adding programmatic layers can introduce extra costs and unnecessary operational complexity. Not to mention ongoing issues with signal loss, fraud, lack of transparency, and inventory duplication which all make it harder to trust the open exchange. The idea of pushing all CTV into this model simply doesn’t reflect how premium video is bought and sold today.
The impact of language and alignment
A serious stumbling block for the industry is not the technology but the terminology. “programmatic” is being used to describe multiple, fundamentally different transaction models. Without clearer definitions, buyers and sellers risk building toward different futures. That leaves publishers in a difficult position. Do they double down on auction-based infrastructure, channel resources into tools that support direct guarantees, or try to straddle both? Without greater industry alignment, even the most carefully designed strategies can end up misfiring.
Buyers, too, grow wary when CTV is labelled as “programmatic” but still depends on direct negotiation. The result is a disconnect between expectation and reality. That, in turn, can hold back spend, despite CTV’s growing share of consumer attention. The confusion makes it harder for publishers to position their inventory correctly, and for buyers to evaluate its true value.
A more grounded future
A large share of premium CTV deals still happen within closed publisher ecosystems, using formats and configurations that escape conventional measurement tools. The real challenge isn’t just automation – with the risk of mirroring the display advertising model – it’s figuring out how to make programmatic truly fit CTV without reinforcing the fragmentation that already limits transparency and scale.
This will mean new models that reflect the economics of television, rather than forcing CTV into frameworks designed for other channels. It will also mean new tools that allow publishers to maintain supply control while offering buyers efficiency, better transparency, and the ability to tailor how they transact.
For media owners, progress requires pressing for greater alignment on terminology, more transparency in measurement, and continued investment in infrastructure that supports both efficiency and control. The challenges are real. But so are the opportunities.
