Skip to content

Channel segmentation playbook

Core rule: Husky brand goes where we have control + procurement value (AWS DX, Snowflake Marketplace, direct). Husky brand stays SILENT where Eyeota's brand earns the revenue today (TTD, DV360/Google, major DSPs reachable via Eyeota syndication). Don't dilute the goose laying the golden unbranded-pipeline eggs.

Based on Positioning & ICP Review Q4 answer: US branded coverage IS on roadmap, BUT not all channels should see the Husky brand — some channels must stay Eyeota-branded to preserve the Eyeota relationship that generates 100% of current Net Earnings.

The decision matrix

Channel Brand used Catalog scope Reason
Eyeota marketplace (direct buyers on Eyeota) Husky-branded (Partner-branded) + signal goes to Eyeota-branded pool 300 APAC branded segments (Husky-branded surface) · Full signal pipeline (Eyeota-branded surface) Eyeota markets the branded-partner program — we honor it. Unbranded contribution continues in parallel.
AWS Data Exchange Husky-branded Broader catalog — start with Travel vertical pilot, expand to full Husky-branded catalog (including US-branded) over time Our own marketplace listing, our brand. No Eyeota involvement in the distribution.
Snowflake Marketplace Husky-branded Same as AWS DX — start focused, expand Same logic — our channel, our brand.
The Trade Desk (TTD) Eyeota-branded only. Husky silent. Full Eyeota-branded catalog (via unbranded contribution) TTD buyers today purchase via Eyeota listings. Launching competing Husky-branded on TTD would cannibalize Eyeota revenue we rely on.
Google / DV360 Eyeota-branded only. Husky silent. Same Same rationale. Google/DV360 is a major Eyeota discovery channel. Don't pollute.
Other DSPs reached via Eyeota syndication (Xandr, Adform, InMobi, StackAdapt, Amazon Ads, etc.) Eyeota-branded. Husky silent at these endpoints. Same 40+ platforms reachable via Eyeota. All stay Eyeota-branded at the activation endpoint.
Direct sales (enterprise, agency-direct) Husky-branded Full catalog discussed under NDA; custom builds on request Direct relationships = full brand, full catalog, including broader-than-APAC scope with pricing flexibility.
Husky website (huskydata.io) Husky-branded only Public: 13 APAC branded catalog. Under NDA: broader catalog referenced by capability, not enumerated. Public site is a pure Husky brand surface.

Why the split matters (for the next 12 months)

The commercial math

From Revenue Reality doc — Feb 2026 snapshot:

  • 100% of current net revenue (~$70k / month) comes through Eyeota-branded segments, which rely on Husky's unbranded signal contribution
  • 0% of current net revenue comes from Husky-branded segments (Partner-branded sheet empty)
  • If we launch Husky-branded on TTD / Google / Adform where Eyeota's brand currently dominates, we risk:
  • Eyeota buyers shifting to Husky-branded → net-zero sum game for Husky (same buyer, less margin after AWS revenue share vs. Eyeota's)
  • Eyeota relationship souring → jeopardizes the $70k baseline
  • Channel partners (TTD, Google) receiving duplicate brand signals → confusion, lost efficiency

The procurement math

On new channels (AWS DX, Snowflake): - These are data-engineering-led buying channels — different buyer persona from TTD/Google ad-ops - Husky-branded on these channels creates a new product surface that doesn't compete with Eyeota - Margin improves (no Eyeota 55% revenue share on direct AWS/Snowflake deals) - Procurement teams get Husky in their vendor directory, improving future direct-deal discoverability

Practical rules for the next 12 months

  1. Never submit Husky-branded segments to TTD, DV360/Google, Xandr, Adform, InMobi, or Amazon Ads directly. These reach via Eyeota. If a direct submission channel exists with those platforms, do not use it under Husky brand.
  2. AWS DX and Snowflake Marketplace applications and listings use the Husky brand unambiguously — no mention of Eyeota in the listing, no "powered by Eyeota" framing. Separate product surface.
  3. Custom / direct deals with enterprise buyers — full Husky brand, full flexibility. If the buyer can reach us via Eyeota, let them choose channel. If they want direct, welcome them.
  4. Revenue reporting — track Husky-branded vs unbranded-via-Eyeota separately. Don't conflate in board decks. Different growth curves, different strategic signals.
  5. If Eyeota changes their branded-partner program to allow non-APAC Husky-branded segments on Eyeota — revisit this whole playbook. Currently APAC-only is their scope.

Escalation triggers

Revisit this playbook if any of these happen:

  • Eyeota launches a competing APAC-native audience product (displaces Husky-branded)
  • Eyeota offers to list Husky-branded segments beyond APAC (unlocks unified channel strategy)
  • An AWS DX or Snowflake listing becomes a meaningful revenue source (>10% of monthly total) — might justify more aggressive Husky-brand expansion on previously-Eyeota-only channels
  • A new marketplace emerges (e.g., Databricks Marketplace, Snowflake's competitors, regional APAC exchanges) — apply the same framework: is this Husky's channel or Eyeota's?
  • Regulatory change in HK or SG forces contracting-entity restructure (see ADR-0004 when drafted)

Commercial boundaries to confirm with Eyeota

[Action item for CEO] — flag to legal / Eyeota account manager:

  1. Confirm explicit OK for Husky-branded catalog on AWS DX + Snowflake (no exclusivity concerns)
  2. Confirm the scope of "branded-partner" program — APAC-only as of now, any plans to expand?
  3. Confirm unbranded-contribution revenue share continues unchanged through the rebrand transition (NB Media → Husky Technology Pte Limited)

If any of these answers shift, update this playbook.