Liquid Death seeks an identity-graph alternative over competitive data concerns
Liquid Death has stopped using LiveRamp’s identity graph and is looking for another provider, with Chief Media Officer Benoit Vatere citing concern that the beverage brand’s advertising intelligence could benefit competitors served by the same corporate owner. The decision puts a spotlight on a growing tension for marketers: how to use cross-channel identity tools while retaining confidence in who can access the resulting insights.
The brand ended its use of the graph in early August after about 18 months. The move came weeks after Publicis Groupe’s plan to acquire LiveRamp became public. Vatere said the issue was not primarily the exposure of names or email addresses. Rather, he worries about information revealed by patterns in advertising and purchasing behavior.
LiveRamp’s identity graph is designed to help recognize people across screens and sites, making it possible, for example, to connect an ad viewed on a smart TV with later activity on a phone or retailer website. Vatere said the accumulated information could help explain which advertising is associated with purchases. Publicis also works with brands that compete with Liquid Death, including Evian and PepsiCo, which makes the potential use of those insights particularly sensitive to him.
Concern centers on competitive neutrality
Vatere’s objection is not an allegation that Publicis has violated safeguards. The acquisition terms include restrictions on the use of customer information, and Forrester analyst Nikhil Lai described the Federal Trade Commission’s guardrails around the deal as strong. Lai said marketers may nevertheless distinguish between privacy protection and structural neutrality: a provider can protect personal information while still raising questions about whether its ownership creates competing commercial incentives.
Vatere is also wary that contract terms could change over time. He said the FTC’s oversight of the deal lasts five years, and argued that a brand’s accumulated customer intelligence is valuable beyond the direct revenue a data business earns. He has said he does not want a holding company that advises his competitors to own the identity infrastructure used by Liquid Death.
That position extends beyond Publicis. Vatere said he does not want to hand the data to any holding company that also works with rivals. He cited Havas, WPP and Omnicom as examples of firms he would rule out, and said Omnicom’s Acxiom had approached Liquid Death without success. WPP and Omnicom have also stopped working with LiveRamp, according to the report.
For independent providers, ownership change is another issue. Vatere said any alternative Liquid Death selects would need a contractual provision allowing the brand to end the relationship and have its data deleted if control of the provider changes. The requirement reflects his concern that an independent company might eventually be acquired by a firm with different commercial relationships.
Alternatives, but limited room to build in-house
Liquid Death’s LiveRamp contract runs through the end of 2026, giving the company a near-term decision to make. Vatere said the brand is not large enough to build its own identity graph and cannot currently operate without one. He has received approaches from potential replacements, but had not identified a new provider in the account.
Options discussed include independent providers as well as technologies such as Snowflake and Databricks. Those platforms could appeal to marketers weighing bespoke or off-the-shelf approaches to data management, but the account does not say Liquid Death has selected either. In recent years, advertisers have invested in cloud infrastructure, customer data platforms and first-party data systems as ways to retain more control over customer information used in media activation.
Ebiquity CEO Ruben Schreurs said competitive advantage matters in advertising, where brands are trying to outperform one another. But he questioned whether using LiveRamp alongside competing advertisers necessarily puts a brand at a disadvantage, arguing that conflicts can be managed. Lai’s view was that firms with valuable identity and customer intelligence should consider whether a provider’s business model creates the appearance of conflicting incentives.
The broader choice may be constrained. Schreurs said marketers have fewer options as the market has consolidated, and may have to work with providers that also serve competitors. LiveRamp’s non-Publicis and competitor business represents roughly 5% of its $800 million in annual revenue, according to the account, suggesting that a limited number of departures may not materially affect the company. Whether more advertisers follow Vatere remains uncertain.
For marketers evaluating identity and measurement partners, Liquid Death’s decision illustrates that privacy controls are only one part of vendor review. Ownership, client overlap, contractual exit rights and deletion obligations can also influence whether a provider is viewed as a neutral intermediary. The immediate test for alternatives will be whether they can offer the cross-channel capabilities brands need while meeting those governance expectations.
