In 2022, Google began changing the availability of the information available in User-Agent strings across their Chromium browsers. The change is to use the set of HTTP request header fields called Client Hints. Through this process, a server can request, and if approved by the client, receive information that would have been previously freely available in the User-Agent string. This change is likely to have an impact on publishers across the open web that may use User-Agent information today.
To explain what this change means, how it will impact the AdTech industry, and what you can do to prepare, we spoke with Nate West, our Director of Product.
What is the difference between User-Agents and Client Hints?
A User-Agent (UA) is a string, or line of text, that identifies information about a web server’s browser and operating system. For example, it can indicate if a device is on Safari on a Mac or Chrome on Windows.
Here is an example UA string from a Mac laptop running Chrome:

To limit the passive fingerprinting of users, Google is reducing components of the UA strings in their Chromium browsers and introducing Client Hints. When there is a trusted relationship between first-party domain owners and third-party servers, Client Hints can be used to share the same data.
This transition began in early 2022 with bigger expected changes beginning in February 2023. You can see in the above example, Chrome/109.0.0.0, where browser version information is already no longer available from the UA string on this desktop Chrome browser.
How can you use User-Agent device attributes today?
UA string information can be used for a variety of reasons. It is a component in web servers that has been available for decades. In the AdTech space, it can be used in various ad targeting use cases. It can be used by publishers to better understand their audience. The shift to limit access and information shared is to prevent nefarious usage of the data.
What are the benefits of Client Hints?
By using Client Hints, a domain owner, or publisher, can manage access to data activity that occurs on their web properties. Having that control may be advantageous. The format of the information shared is also cleaner than parsing a string from User-Agents. Although, given that Client Hints are not the norm across all browsers, a long-term solution may be needed to manage UA strings and Client Hints.
An advantage of capturing and sharing Client Hint information is to be prepared and understand if there is any impact to your systems and processes. This will help with the currently planned transition by Google, but also should the full UA string become further restricted.
Who will be impacted by this change?
Publishers across the open web should lean in to understand this change and any potential impact to them. The programmatic ecosystem supporting real-time bidding (RTB) needs to continue pushing for adoption of OpenRTB 2.6, which supports the passing of client hint information in place of data from UA strings.
What is Google’s timeline for implementing Client Hints?

Do businesses have to implement Client Hints? What happens if they don’t?
Not capturing and sharing with trusted partners can impact capabilities in place today. Given Chromium browsers account for a sizable portion of web traffic, the impact will vary for each publisher and tech company in the ecosystem. I would assess how UA strings are in use today, where you may have security concerns or not, and look to get more information on how to maintain data sharing with trusted partners.
We can help you adopt Client Hints
Reach out to our Customer Success team at tapadcustomersuccess@experian.com to explore the best options to handle the User-Agent changes and implement Client Hints. As leaders in the AdTech space, we’re here to help you successfully make this transition. Together we can review the options available to put you and your team on the best path forward.
About our expert

Nate West, Director of Product
Nate West joined Experian in 2022 as the Director of Product for our identity graph. Nate focuses on making sure our partners maintain and grow identity resolution solutions today in an ever-changing future state. He has over a decade of experience working for media organizations and AdTech platforms.
Latest posts

Published in MediaPost With the explosion of smartphones and digital tablets and the steady rise of Internet-connected televisions, gaming consoles, and more, consumers are increasingly watching online video when and where they want. New research from Experian Marketing Services on cross-device video found that as of October 2013, 48% of all U.S. adults and 67% of those under the age of 35 watched online video during a typical week, up from 45% and 64%, respectively, just six months earlier. At the same time, the share of households considered “cord-cutters” — those with high speed Internet but no cable or satellite TV — is on the rise, and that has a real impact on marketers and on the medium of television, the recipient of the largest share of advertising dollars. While the growing trend in cord-cutting is understandably disturbing to cable and satellite companies and disruptive to the television advertising revenue model overall, the growth in online viewing creates opportunities for marketers. Online video viewers can be more easily targeted and served up advertising that is more relevant, responsive and measureable. Marketers can also be more confident that their online ad was actually seen given that viewers are typically unable to skip ads. And while CPMs for online video ads may generally be lower than those of TV, marketers can use that savings to negotiate costs based on clicks or transactions rather than impressions, giving them a better picture into audience interest and insights to inform their budget allocation. Expect “Cutting the cord” to continue Today, over 7.6 million U.S. homes or 6.5% of households are cord-cutters, up from 5.1 million in 2010 or 4.5% of households. One thing enabling consumers to cut the cord is the rise in Internet-connected TVs, which allows viewing of Internet video on demand without sacrificing screen size. In fact, a third of adults (34%) now have at least one TV in the home that is connected to the Internet either directly or through a separate device like an Apple TV or Roku, up from 25% in 2012. With the launch of devices like Google’s Chromecast and the Amazon Fire TV, those numbers are sure to rise even more in the months and years ahead. Cord-cutters like the bigger screen Our analysis found that the act of watching streaming or downloaded video on any device is connected to higher rates of cord-cutting but the act of watching on a television is the most highly correlated. In fact, adults who watch online video on a television are 3.2 times more likely than average to be cord-cutters. Those who watch video on their phone (the device identified in the analysis as that most commonly used for watching online video) are just 50% more likely to be cord-cutters. Millennials are more likely to be cord-cutters We found that households with an adult under the age of 35 are almost twice as likely to be cord-cutters. Throw a Netflix or Hulu account into the mix and the rate of cord-cutting among young adult households jumps to nearly one-in-four. Given these surprising stats, many Millennials may be cord-cutters without ever having “cut” a cord. And that’s an important trend to watch since it means a significant portion of this generation will never pay for TV. Millennials are also the most device-agnostic, with over a third saying they don’t mind watching video on a portable device even if it means a smaller screen. That’s more than double the rate of those ages 35 and older. This decentralized viewing can create headaches for marketers who need to start a relationship with Millennials during this stage of their lives when they’re most open to trying out new brands and have yet to settle down. On the plus side, marketers who do manage to reach this audience will find them much more open to advertising than average. In fact, Millennials are more than four times more likely to say that video ads that they view on their cell phone are useful. So while the challenge is big, so is the potential reward.

Published in AdExchanger. “Data-Driven Thinking" is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media. Today’s column is written by Tom Manvydas, vice president of advertising strategy and solutions at Experian Marketing Services. The proliferation of connected electronics has spurred new interest in device-recognition technologies even though they have been in use since the 1990s. As we enter the “Internet of Things” era, device recognition will significantly impact the ad tech ecosystem. Many network advertising technologies are becoming obsolete as cookie blocking grows and the Internet becomes more mobile and device-centric. Device recognition will be yet another technology challenge for marketers but has the potential to overcome many key tracking, measurement and privacy issues with which data-driven marketers have struggled. By leveraging device recognition technologies, marketers can protect their investments in Web 2.0 ad tech, like multitouch attribution, and improve their overall digital marketing programs. Device Recognition Vs. Cookies Device recognition attempts to assign uniqueness to connected devices. By focusing on the device, you are able to “bridge” between browsers and apps, desktop to mobile and across OS platforms like iOS and Android. Device-recognition IDs function like desktop cookies for devices but with four important differences: 1. Coverage: Device-recognition methods are largely immune from cookie limitations. About half of mobile engagements on the Web do not involve cookies, while third-party blocking impacts up to 40% of desktop engagements. 2. Persistency: Device-recognition IDs can be more persistent and less fragmented than most desktop cookies. For example, Apple’s UDID or Android ID are permanent, and network node IDs like MAC addresses are near-permanent. Proxy IDs such as IDFA are persistent but can be updated by the device owner or ID provider. 3. Uniqueness: Devices are unique and cookies are fragmented. The digital media industry incurs substantial overhead cost and loss of efficiency when dealing with fragmented profiles and obsolete data caused by cookie churn. However, device-recognition methods are limited in their ability to recognize multiple profiles on shared devices. 4. Universality: Device-recognition technologies are universal and generally work across devices and networks. However, interoperability issues across device operating systems, such as iOS and Android, can limit the universal concept. There are many types of device-recognition technologies but two basic approaches to device recognition: deterministic and probabilistic, each with their pros and cons. Deterministic Approach: Accurate And Persistent But Complicated Deterministic device recognition primarily uses the collection of various IDs. While the mobile developer is familiar with the variety of IDs, it’s important that marketers become better-versed in this area. Examples include hardware IDs (including serial numbers), software-based device IDs (such as Apple’s UDID or the Android ID), digital data packet postal codes or proxy IDs (such as MAC addresses for WiFi or Bluetooth, IDFA for both iOS and Android and open-source IDs). Deterministic methods improve the accuracy of tracking, targeting and measurement over current cookie-based methods. They can improve the ability to more persistently manage consumer opt-outs. But the proliferation of device types limits the universality of deterministic device recognition. Without uniform standards across platforms, marketers need to account for multiple ID types. Also, deterministic device-recognition methods are not well developed for desktop marketing applications. The lack of interoperability across deterministic device IDs makes execution too complicated. Deterministic device IDs were meant for well-intentioned uses, such as tracking the carrier billing for a device. However, they present privacy and data rights challenges, leading to blocking or limited access by companies that control IDs. Probabilistic Device Recognition: A ‘Goldilocks’ Solution Probabilistic device recognition may be the ideal solution for a connected world that does not rely on cookies nor wants to use overly intrusive deterministic device recognition. Probabilistic device recognition is not a replacement for deterministic IDs. Instead, it complements their function and provides coverage when they are not available. The probabilistic approach is based on a statistical probability of uniqueness for any single device profile. This approach creates a unique profile based on a large number of common parameters, such as screen resolution, device type and operating system. This process can uniquely identify a device profile with 60% to 90% accuracy, compared to 20% to 85% accuracy for cookie-based identification methods. Probabilistic IDs are more persistent than cookies with better coverage, but less persistent than deterministic device IDs. The natural evolution of the device takes place over time and prevents persistent identification. Probabilistic device recognition can be universal and is not impacted by interoperability issues across platforms — the technology used to generate a probabilistic ID on one network can be the same technology on another network. Unlike some deterministic device recognition approaches, there is no device fingerprinting. Probabilistic device recognition accurately identifies profiles in aggregate, rather than a single device. That’s the inherent beauty of probabilistic device recognition: It can generate more accurate targeting results than cookie-based methods without explicitly identifying single devices. This is more than good enough for most marketers and significantly better than what’s available today. Another benefit is the absence of any residue on the device — no cookie files, flash files or hidden markers. Probabilistic methods can work on devices that block third-party cookies or connect to the Web without using any cookies. For example, you might have a hard-to-reach but valuable audience segment. Probabilistic device recognition could effectively increase your reach on this segment by 40% to 50% and increase the overall targeting accuracy by two times. Let’s say the actual population for this segment is 100,000 members. The typical cookie-based approach might reach 28,000 members but the typical probabilistic device-recognition approach could reach 65,000 members. A Decline In Hardware Entropy If you take a close look at the emitted data from today’s devices, it is not easy to analyze it for device identification. That’s because the data footprint of one device looks a lot like another. Device recognition augmentation methods can address this, such as device usage profiles, geo location clustering, cross-device/screen analytics or ID linkage for first-party data owners. In the short term, device-recognition technologies, particularly probabilistic methods, can greatly improve today’s digital marketing programs. Marketers should become fluent in their use cases and benefits. If 2013 was the year of mobile, I think we’ll see a surge in marketing applications based on device-recognition technologies in 2014. Follow Experian Marketing Services (@ExperianMkt) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

According to Experian Marketing Services’ 2014 Digital Marketer: Benchmark and Trend Report, social media Websites are playing an increasingly important role in driving traffic to other Websites, including retail sites and even other social networking sites, at the expense of search engines and portal pages. For instance, as of March 2014, social media sites account for 7.72 percent of all traffic to retail Websites, up from 6.59 percent in March 2013. Further, Pinterest, more than Facebook or YouTube, is supplying the greatest percentage of downstream traffic to retail sites. According to the Digital Marketer Report, more retailers are directing their customers to social media within their email campaigns. In fact, 96 percent of marketers now promote social media in their emails, and it shows. In 2013, for instance, email Websites generated 18 percent more clicks to social networking pages than the year prior. Social drives more traffic to other social Websites Social media Websites are driving more and more traffic to other social sites. In 2013, 15.1 percent of clicks to social networking and forum sites came from other social networking sites, up from a 12.5 percent click share reported in 2012. Despite driving the greatest share of traffic to social networking sites with 39.1 percent of clicks, search engines’ share of upstream traffic to social declined a relative 13 percent year-over-year. Among the other top referring industries to social, only the portal front pages industry — which includes sites like Yahoo!, MSN and AOL and is closely affiliated with search engines — showed a drop in upstream click share providing further evidence that increasingly all (or most) roads lead to social. To learn more about key trends in social media traffic, including downstream traffic from social sites and the share of consumers accessing social media across multiple channels, download the free 2014 Digital Marketer: Benchmark and Trend Report.