Yardstick Research tear-sheet / ad-sales publisher cohort
Adelaide
Identity
- Founded: 2015 [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/about/]
- HQ: New York, NY [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/about/]
- Legal entity: Adelaide Metrics, Inc.
- Funding: Series B; total raised approximately $15M-$25M [THIRD-PARTY - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/adelaide-metrics] [Note: exact post-Series B total is [UNKNOWN]; Crunchbase shows Series B closed 2023.]
- Headcount: ~60-100 employees [ESTIMATED]
- Founder: Marc Guldimann (CEO); formerly founder of Parsec Media, one of the first time-based advertising platforms [THIRD-PARTY - https://www.linkedin.com/in/guldimann/]
- Recent news (last 12 months):
- 2025 - Adelaide expanded AU (Attention Unit) licensing to additional programmatic buying platforms, broadening the supply of attention-scored inventory available to buyers through DSP integrations. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/blog/]
- 2025 - Published research on attention as a post-cookie audience-quality signal, including comparison data on AU predictive validity for brand recall and sales outcomes versus viewability-only metrics. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/research/]
- 2024 - Named a finalist or winner in multiple ad-tech awards categories for measurement innovation. [THIRD-PARTY - https://www.adexchanger.com/]
- 2024 - Expanded publisher partnerships; media companies including Condé Nast, The Washington Post, and others adopted Adelaide's AU measurement as part of their inventory quality positioning. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/]
- Ongoing - Active in industry bodies including the MRC (Media Rating Council) measurement standards work and IAB attention task forces. [THIRD-PARTY - https://mediaratingcouncil.org/]
- Archetype: Attention measurement platform - provides per-impression AU (Attention Unit) scores at scale using behavioral and contextual signals (no eye-tracking), enabling publishers to position quality inventory and buyers to optimize toward attention rather than viewability.
Total score: 66.9 / 100
- Stage fit:
- Foundation (<40 readiness): no - Adelaide is a data-license and measurement platform requiring programmatic infrastructure to activate; standalone value without an SSP or DSP workflow is limited.
- Pilot (40-59): conditional - Publishers running a proof-of-concept AU measurement program can start with a limited inventory segment; meaningful output requires sufficient impression volume to generate statistically valid AU distributions.
- Scale (60-79): yes - The primary market. Publishers monetizing programmatic inventory at scale benefit from using AU as a premium positioning signal; buyers paying attention-based CPM premiums justify the data-licensing spend.
- Optimization (80+): yes - Large publishers with sophisticated yield teams can use AU scoring to build tiered inventory packages, A/B test AU-optimized placements, and report attention efficiency to agencies moving beyond viewability KPIs.
- One-line verdict: An independent post-cookie attention measurement layer with AU scoring that is privacy-native, programmatically distributable through major SSPs, and gaining buyer traction; workflow integration depth and pricing opacity are the constraints.
Headline numbers
| Metric | Value | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| AU score basis | Behavioral signals (scroll, interaction, viewport share, time-in-view) - no eye-tracking panel required | [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/methodology/] |
| Privacy compliance | No PII required; cookie-free; GDPR/CCPA compatible | [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/privacy/] |
| Scale | Per-impression scoring across billions of impressions | [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/] |
| SSP integrations | Magnite, Index Exchange, OpenX, Pubmatic (from D1) | [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/] |
| Pricing transparency penalty | Soft | [ESTIMATED - no published per-impression or licensing rate card] |
| AI-native score | 75/100 | [ESTIMATED - ML is core to AU model; attention prediction is the product, not a feature add-on] |
| Funding (approx.) | $15M-$25M total raised | [THIRD-PARTY - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/adelaide-metrics] |
| Named publisher partners | Condé Nast, The Washington Post, and other premium publishers | [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/] |
Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI capability depth | 3.5/4 | 20 | 17.6 | AU scoring is ML-at-core: the model predicts attention from behavioral signals without biometric panel input. Continuous model retraining on new signal data. Adelaide publishes attention-to-outcomes correlation studies as validation. Not a generative AI product; ML is foundational. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/methodology/] |
| Workflow integration depth | 2.5/4 | 20 | 12.4 | AU scores are distributable via DSP and SSP bid-stream integrations (Magnite, Index Exchange, OpenX, Pubmatic). Activation depth varies by SSP; some integrations are score-delivery only (reporting) rather than real-time bid optimization. Direct publisher workflow integration (ad server, header bidding floor rules) requires custom implementation. An integration gap remains between AU measurement and publisher yield workflow. [ESTIMATED + VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/] |
| Vertical specialization | 3.5/4 | 15 | 13.2 | Focus on premium publisher ad quality. The AU metric was designed for editorial environments (long-form content, high attention dwell). Relevant for publishers in news, B2B media, entertainment, and lifestyle categories where attention dwell is above ad-network average. Less differentiated for e-commerce, UGC, or social inventory where attention patterns differ structurally. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/research/] |
| Implementation TTV | 2/4 | 10 | 5.0 | Initial measurement deployment (tagging, AU score ingestion) is achievable in 2-4 weeks for publishers with existing programmatic infrastructure. Operational activation - publisher-side packaging, buyer-facing AU guarantees, floor optimization against AU - adds 30-60 days. Full workflow integration with yield stack is a multi-quarter initiative. [ESTIMATED] |
| Data compliance posture | 2/4 | 5 | 2.5 | Privacy-native by architecture (no PII, no cookie dependency). GDPR/CCPA compatible. However, the compliance documentation is not fully detailed on the public website; SOC 2 status is [UNKNOWN]; publisher-side data processing agreements require direct engagement. The methodology is privacy-forward but the compliance paperwork infrastructure is thinner than larger vendors. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/privacy/] |
| Pricing scalability | 1.5/4 | 10 | 3.8 | Data-license model; per-impression AU score pricing. No published rate card. Pricing scales with impression volume but negotiated bilaterally. Soft pricing transparency penalty applied. For large publishers, the ROI case (AU-based CPM premium capture) is easier to model than for mid-size publishers where the licensing cost relative to yield uplift is harder to pre-validate. [ESTIMATED] |
| Vendor strength evidence | 3.5/4 | 20 | 17.6 | Named publisher clients include Condé Nast and The Washington Post. SSP integrations with Magnite, Index Exchange, OpenX, and Pubmatic cover a significant share of premium programmatic supply. Founder Marc Guldimann is a recognized industry voice on attention; Adelaide papers are cited in MRC and IAB working groups. Series B funding documents a venture-backed growth trajectory. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/; THIRD-PARTY - https://www.adexchanger.com/] |
| Total | 100 | 66.9 | Headline score after soft pricing transparency penalty. |
Pricing detail
Adelaide operates on a data-licensing model - publishers (and buyers) license access to per-impression AU scores, with pricing structured around impression volume and deployment scope.
- Rate structure: [UNKNOWN] - No published rate card. Pricing is negotiated bilaterally based on publisher impression volume, integration depth (reporting-only vs. real-time bid-stream activation), and the scope of DSP/SSP channels included.
- Publisher-side vs. buyer-side: Publishers license AU to position inventory quality; buyers (through DSP integrations) license AU to optimize bids toward attention. These can be independent commercial relationships.
- Soft pricing transparency penalty applied: Adelaide's website describes the AU metric and its value proposition in depth but does not publish pricing tiers, per-CPM rates, or minimum spend thresholds. Buyers must engage a sales team for commercial terms.
- ROI framing: Adelaide's documented value hypothesis is that AU-optimized inventory commands higher CPMs - publishers that can demonstrate above-average AU on premium placements can capture a pricing premium from attention-buying advertisers. Third-party case studies show CPM lift potential, but the published figures are vendor-provided. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/case-studies/]
Publishers evaluating Adelaide should build a business case on: (a) estimated AU distribution across their inventory, (b) buyer willingness to pay an AU-based premium in their vertical, and (c) integration engineering cost relative to yield uplift. The ROI is category-dependent.
Integrations
Source: https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/ (vendor-claimed) + D1 cohort data.
SSP integrations (AU scores flow into sell-side auction decisioning): - Magnite [VENDOR-CLAIMED] - Index Exchange [VENDOR-CLAIMED] - OpenX [VENDOR-CLAIMED] - Pubmatic [VENDOR-CLAIMED]
DSP integrations (AU scores available for buyer-side bid optimization): - The Trade Desk (AU accessible as a data segment for bid optimization) [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/] - DV360, Amazon DSP [ESTIMATED - common DSP partners for attention measurement vendors at this scale]
Publisher-side: - Direct tagging for AU measurement via JavaScript (no third-party cookie dependency). Compatible with header bidding environments. Custom integration for ad server floor rules and packaging. [VENDOR-CLAIMED - https://adelaidemetrics.com/methodology/]
Standards bodies: - MRC (Media Rating Council) - Adelaide participates in attention measurement standards development. [THIRD-PARTY - https://mediaratingcouncil.org/] - IAB attention task forces. [THIRD-PARTY - https://www.iab.com/]
No CRM, email, or non-ad-tech integrations. Adelaide is a pure ad-tech measurement platform; the integration surface is entirely within the programmatic buying and selling stack.
Editorial assessment
Adelaide sits in the post-cookie publisher measurement layer as an independent attention-scoring vendor. Attention is the metric premium publishers increasingly use to differentiate their inventory from algorithmic feed inventory that viewability alone cannot distinguish. Adelaide's thesis - that an attention unit (AU) score derived from behavioral signals without biometric-panel overhead can predict brand outcomes better than viewability at scale - is supported by Adelaide's published research and is gaining traction in agency planning circles that have grown skeptical of time-in-view as a proxy for effectiveness.
The AI capability depth score (3.5/4) reflects that AU scoring is ML-at-core rather than a rules-based metric with an AI feature added. The model continuously updates on new behavioral data. Founder Marc Guldimann's background in time-based advertising (Parsec Media) predates attention as a mainstream category. The MRC and IAB participation indicate Adelaide is shaping the measurement standard, not only selling a metric.
The workflow integration depth score (2.5/4) is the binding constraint. AU scores are distributable into DSP and SSP bid streams, but most current integrations are score-delivery (reporting) rather than native optimization levers embedded in publisher yield management systems. A publisher that wants to dynamically set floor prices on AU, build attention-certified packages, and report AU efficiency back to agencies as a guaranteed metric is doing custom integration work to wire those workflows. That gap limits near-term activation for publishers without programmatic engineering resources.
The vendor strength evidence score (3.5/4) is supported by named publisher clients (Condé Nast, The Washington Post) and SSP presence (Magnite, Index Exchange, OpenX, Pubmatic) covering a substantial portion of premium programmatic supply. The risk at this stage is mid-size-SaaS commercial scale relative to the DSP / SSP incumbents that control the dominant distribution channels. Buyers evaluating Adelaide should validate that their primary demand sources (DSPs or agency trading desks) are actively using AU in bid optimization, not only technically capable of ingesting the score.
Best for
- Stage: Scale and Optimization. Conditional for Pilot with sufficient impression volume to validate AU distributions.
- Company profile: Premium digital publishers at $25M-$2.5B revenue with programmatic as a significant revenue channel, an existing SSP stack (Magnite, Index Exchange, OpenX, or Pubmatic), and an ad ops or yield team that can manage a measurement-to-packaging workflow.
- Industry fit: News, B2B media, lifestyle, entertainment, and any premium editorial environment where dwell time is above ad-network baseline. Less suited for UGC, social, or app-inventory publishers where attention patterns are structurally different.
- Demand-side prerequisite: Value is limited if the publisher's primary buyers are not operationally buying on attention signals; validate DSP-side AU activation with key agency partners before investing in publisher-side integration.
- Skip if: (a) Primary monetization is Google Ad Manager / AdSense without SSP diversity, (b) publisher does not have an ad ops or programmatic manager, (c) buyers are not yet operationally using attention metrics (the ROI case collapses if demand side is not paying AU premiums), or (d) full pricing transparency before signing is a requirement.
Right-of-reply
Adelaide received this tear-sheet seven calendar days before publication of the Yardstick Research 2026 Yardstick Report, including all measured numbers, sample outputs, and editorial assessment. Adelaide was given the opportunity to flag factual errors - incorrect product descriptions, misquoted integration capabilities, outdated partner listings, factual misstatements in the editorial assessment. Adelaide was not given the opportunity to request a score revision, dispute the rubric or its weights, withdraw from inclusion, negotiate ranking placement, or suggest changes to the editorial assessment beyond factual correction. Where a vendor flagged a factual correction, the correction was applied if verified and noted here; where a vendor disputed scoring, the dispute is recorded in the appendix but the score stands. Silence from the vendor during the right-of-reply window was treated as no objection.
Sources
Adelaide first-party: - https://adelaidemetrics.com/about/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/methodology/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/partners/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/research/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/case-studies/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/privacy/ - https://adelaidemetrics.com/blog/
Investor / funding: - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/adelaide-metrics
Founder: - https://www.linkedin.com/in/guldimann/
Industry / third-party: - https://www.adexchanger.com/ (Adelaide coverage) - https://mediaratingcouncil.org/ - https://www.iab.com/