Filippo Gramigna, Onetag, on the limits of programmatic
by Filippo Gramigna, co-CEO, Onetag
Onetag is an Italian-headquartered advertising technology company, with full teams in the UK and US, that helps advertisers and publishers manage how ads are delivered across the open web. Its platform filters and curates digital inventory before it reaches media buyers, aiming to improve quality, reduce waste and support more sustainable media outcomes
Filippo Gramigna was appointed co-CEO in 2023. He previously held senior commercial roles at Adform and Lenovo, working across programmatic advertising, data partnerships and digital media strategy. In this interview, he discusses the disconnect between journalism and advertising, how programmatic systems often overlook quality, and what might help shift the balance.
You come from a long line of journalists. How has that background shaped the way you think about publishing today?
Journalism was always part of the world I grew up in. My great-grandfather was editor-in-chief of Il Corriere della Sera during the Second World War, and both my parents worked in national newspapers and magazines in Italy. News wasn’t something abstract or distant. It was present, and it carried weight.
I also began my own career as a journalist, working at an independent radio station in Milan. Reading the nightly news live on air leaves an impression. You’re aware that people are listening quietly, often at the end of a long day, and trusting you to get it right. That sense of responsibility stays with you.
Even after moving into advertising and digital technology, I’ve never fully let go of that perspective. I still tend to start from the content and the people behind it. When the system surrounding them doesn’t support their work properly, the cracks appear quite quickly.
From your perspective, why does the future of journalism depend so heavily on the advertising model evolving?
For most publishers, advertising still plays a central role in keeping journalism viable on the open web. Subscriptions and reader revenue are important, but they rarely cover everything, particularly for smaller and independent titles.
The challenge is that the advertising model hasn’t evolved at the same pace as the media landscape itself. Platforms and walled gardens have become very effective at capturing attention at scale, while measuring their own success themselves.
Independent publishers, meanwhile, often operate in environments where very different types of content are valued in similar ways. Programmatic partnerships bring a level of predictability, which helps, but predictability alone doesn’t resolve how value is assigned.
When quality journalism is treated as interchangeable inventory, pressure builds in subtle ways. Over time, that pressure affects editorial decisions. A more sustainable future depends on an advertising model that can recognise quality, trust, and performance together, rather than forcing difficult trade-offs between them.
What do you think is missing when it comes to recognising and rewarding quality journalism programmatically?
A lot of it comes down to how decisions are simplified. In many cases, the tools being used just aren’t designed to understand context.
Keyword blocking and rigid brand safety rules were introduced to reduce risk, and that intention makes sense. In practice, they often struggle to distinguish between responsible reporting and genuinely problematic content. High-quality journalism can end up excluded without much scrutiny of what it actually represents.
When advertisers have a clearer view of impact, the dynamic starts to shift. Seeing how placement, context, and engagement relate to outcomes makes quality easier to recognise and quantify in performance.
How can better curation and placement insight shift that dynamic for publishers?
Curation has changed quite a lot over time. It used to be focused mainly on cleaning things up.
Now it’s increasingly about learning. When a deeper understanding of content is combined with live performance data, campaigns can adapt as they run. Patterns around attention and engagement start to emerge, and those patterns influence where investment flows.
For publishers, this is significant. Strong editorial environments become easier to identify, and demand is more likely to follow when results are visible. Over time, that helps bring commercial value closer to the quality of the journalism itself.
Where does transparency fit into strengthening the economics of journalism?
Transparency is one of those things that sounds straightforward but is often uneven in reality.
Publishers don’t always have a clear picture of the value of their specific inventory and how to protect and grow yield. Advertisers, on the other side, may not fully understand why certain environments consistently perform better. When that visibility is missing, inefficiencies build up and trust erodes.
Clearer data helps reconnect effort with outcome. Advertisers gain confidence in how budgets are allocated, and publishers see their work reflected more accurately in revenue. Over time, that alignment supports stronger economics for journalism.
You’ve spoken before about following the money as a way to understand complex systems. How does that apply to publishing today?
Publishing can feel overwhelming, particularly given the number of technologies and intermediaries involved. It’s easy to lose sight of where value is created and where it ends up.
Looking at the economics brings focus back. Quality, independent journalism takes time, skilled people, and investment. When the revenue generated by that work falls short of its value, publishers face difficult choices. Resources are reduced, output shifts toward volume, and some stories become harder to justify.
The intention isn’t to simplify journalism itself, but to make the value exchange more visible, so complexity doesn’t hide imbalance.
Is there a risk that the industry focuses too much on crisis narratives around publishing?
There is a risk, yes. The challenges are real, but constant emphasis on decline doesn’t tell the whole story.
Across the industry, publishers are experimenting with formats, revenue approaches, and partnerships. There’s a lot of resilience and creativity, often under significant pressure. What’s missing in many cases is a framework that consistently supports those efforts economically.
The curation technology capabilities of leading exchanges are also constantly improving, ensuring that high-quality, more performant publisher inventory is effectively monetised in the programmatic marketplace.
People still want trusted information from publishers. That hasn’t changed. The opportunity lies in making sure the advertising ecosystem reflects that reality.
Looking ahead, what gives you confidence about the future of the open web and independent publishing?
I’m encouraged by how conversations are shifting. Advertisers are spending more time asking where their messages appear and why certain environments deliver better results, with more engaged audiences. That kind of curiosity leads to better decisions.
Publishers are also becoming more direct about the value they create. Calls for fairer economics are becoming hard to ignore. Those discussions aren’t always comfortable, but they’re necessary.
When trust, performance, and quality are allowed to support one another over time, journalism becomes more sustainable, and advertising works more effectively for everyone involved.
Thank you.
Originally Published on: What’s New In Publishing
