The story. Converging linear TV and CTV operations doesn’t mean replacing either system — it means building an interoperability layer that connects the two while keeping each one’s domain-specific capabilities intact. That’s the case German ad tech firm Virtual Minds is taking into DMEXCO this week, and it lands after a Cannes Lions cycle full of convergence talk that stayed mostly panel-level. Max Deyerl, Virtual Minds’ manager of business development, put the operational reality plainly: “Many broadcasters, content providers, and inventory holders are still operating in different silos” — despite presenting a single, unified viewing experience to audiences.
01What happened
- The silo problem is operational, not strategic. Broadcasters run linear and CTV/streaming through separate systems even where the viewer-facing product looks unified, which means campaigns spanning both channels get duplicated work, manual handovers between systems, and avoidable cost. (VideoWeek, “From Cannes to DMEXCO: Why Total TV Needs a New Operating Model,” 16 September 2026)
- The friction locks out digital-first buyers. Deyerl’s argument is that the handover cost between linear and CTV systems doesn’t just slow existing campaigns — it actively excludes buyers who plan digital-first from linear inventory they’d otherwise use.
- Austria already ran this experiment. The country’s broadcasters collectively moved linear TV to digital buying and selling using real-time HbbTV signals and CPM-based currency. The recalculated standard behind it, Teletest 2.0, eliminated the “zero ratings” problem of measuring linear TV the old way in a converged market.
- AI doesn’t fix a silo problem. Deyerl’s warning is specific: “AI only creates operational excellence if you have the right data, and if you already have the silos combined” — meaning AI layered on top of unconnected linear and CTV systems inherits the same fractured data, not a shortcut around it.
02What it means inside a GAM network
The interoperability argument matters more to an MCM/AdX CTV operator than a “unify everything” pitch would, because unifying everything is rarely what a broadcaster or publisher can actually execute — legacy linear systems and programmatic CTV stacks have different operational owners, different measurement, and different sales motions, and neither side wants to be absorbed into the other’s tooling. A connective layer that preserves domain-specific capability while standardizing the handoff is the version of convergence that survives contact with an actual ad-ops org chart. For CTV operators specifically, the Austrian CPM/HbbTV example is the concrete precedent worth studying: it shows a market-level move to common currency and real-time measurement solving the cross-channel comparison problem without forcing linear inventory through a CTV-native system, or vice versa.
03What publishers should do about it
04Offer tie-in
Publishers running CTV inventory alongside a separate linear sales motion are the exact case where an interoperability-first approach — rather than a system replacement — tends to protect existing revenue while closing the digital-buyer gap; that’s the audit APH runs as part of CTV monetization engagements.
05The bottom line
The Cannes-to-DMEXCO framing is really an argument against the two versions of convergence publishers keep being sold: full replacement of one system by the other, or an AI layer that’s supposed to paper over the operational seams. Virtual Minds’ case, backed by Austria’s actual market-level shift to common CPM currency and real-time measurement, points at a narrower and more buildable target — an interoperability layer that lets linear and CTV keep their own tooling while closing the handoff gap that currently costs both duplicated work and locked-out digital-first demand.