2024 marked a significant year. AI became integral to our workflows, commerce and retail media networks soared, and Google did not deprecate cookies. Amidst these changes, ID bridging emerged as a hot topic, raising questions around identity reliability and transparency, which necessitated industry-wide standards. We believe the latest IAB OpenRTB specifications, produced in conjunction with supply and demand-side partners, set up the advertising industry for more transparent and effective practices.
So, what exactly is ID bridging?
As signals, like third-party cookies, fade, ID bridging emerged as a way for the supply-side to offer addressability to the demand-side. ID bridging is the supply-side practice of connecting the dots between available signals, that were generated in a way that is not the expected default behavior, to understand a user’s identity and communicate it to prospective buyers. It enables the supply-side to extend user identification beyond the scope of one browser or device.
Imagine you visit a popular sports website on your laptop using Chrome. Later, you use the same device to visit the same sports website, but this time, on Safari. By using identity resolution tools, a supply-side partner can infer that both visits are likely from the same user and communicate with them as such.
ID bridging is not inherently a bad thing. However, the practice has sparked debate, as buyers want full transparency into the use of a deterministic identifier versus an inferred one. This complicates measurement and frequency capping for the demand-side. Before OpenRTB 2.6, ID bridging led to misattribution as the demand-side could not attribute ad exposures, which had been served to a bridged ID, to a conversion, which had an ID different from the ad exposure.
OpenRTB 2.6 sets us up for a more transparent future
In 2010, the IAB, along with supply and demand-side partners, formed a consortium known as the Real-Time Bidding Project for companies interested in an open protocol for the automated trading of digital media. The OpenRTB specifications they produced became that protocol, adapting with the evolution of the industry.
The latest evolution, OpenRTB 2.6, sets out standards that strive to ensure transparency in real-time bidding, mandating how the supply-side should use certain fields to more transparently provide data when inferring users’ identities.
What’s new in OpenRTB 2.6?
Here are the technical specifications for the industry to be more transparent when inferring users’ identities:
- Primary ID field: This existing field now can only contain the “buyeruid,” an identifier mutually recognized and agreed upon by both buyer and seller for a given environment. For web environments, the default is a cookie ID, while for app activity, it is a mobile advertising ID (MAID), passed directly from an application downloaded on a device. This approach ensures demand-side partners understand the ID’s source.
- Enhanced identifier (EID) field: The EID field, designated for alternative IDs, now accommodates all other IDs. The EID field now has additional parameters that provide buyers transparency into how the ID was created and sourced, which you can see in the visual below:
Using the above framework, a publisher who wants to send a cross-environment identifier that likely belongs to the same user would declare the ID as “mm=5,” while listing the potential third-party identity resolution partner under the “matcher” field, which the visual below depicts. This additional metadata gives the demand-side the insights they need to evaluate the reliability of each ID.
“These updates to OpenRTB add essential clarity about where user and device IDs come from, helping buyers see exactly how an ID was created and who put it into the bidstream. It’s a big step toward greater transparency and trust in the ecosystem. We’re excited to see companies already adopting these updates and can’t wait to see the industry fully embrace them by 2025.”
Hillary Slattery, Sr. Director, Programmatic, Product Management, IAB Tech Lab
Experian will continue supporting transparency
As authenticated signals decrease due to cookie deprecation and other consumer privacy measures, we will continue to see a rise in inferred identifiers. Experian’s industry-leading Digital Graph has long supported both authenticated and inferred identifiers, providing the ecosystem with connections that are accurate, scalable, and addressable. Experian will continue to support the industry with its identity resolution products and is supportive of the IAB’s efforts to bring transparency to the industry around the usage of identity signals.
Supply and demand-side benefits of adopting the new parameters in OpenRTB 2.6
- Partner collaboration: Clarity between what can be in the Primary ID field versus the EID field provides clear standards and transparency between buyers and sellers.
- Identity resolution: The supply side has an industry-approved way to bring in inferred IDs while the demand side can evaluate these IDs, expanding addressability.
- Reducing risk: With accurate metadata available in the EID field, demand-side partners can evaluate who is doing the match and make informed decisions on whether they want to act on that ID.
Next steps for the supply and demand-sides to consider
For supply-side and demand-side partners looking to utilize OpenRTB 2.6 to its full potential, here are some recommended steps:
For the supply-side:
- Follow IAB Specs and provide feedback: Ensure you understand and are following transparent practices. Ask questions on how to correctly implement the specifications.
- Vet identity partners: Choose partners who deliver the most trusted and accurate identifiers in the market.
- Be proactive: Have conversations with your partners to discuss how you plan to follow the latest specs, which identity partners you work with, and explain how you plan to provide additional signals to help buyers make better decisions.
We are beginning to see SSPs adopt this new protocol, including Sonobi and Yieldmo.
“The OpenRTB 2.6 specifications are a critical step forward in ensuring transparency and trust in programmatic advertising. By aligning with these standards, we empower our partners with the tools needed to navigate a cookieless future and drive measurable results.”
Michael Connolly, CEO, Sonobi
These additions to the OpenRTB protocol further imbue bidding transactions with transparency which will foster greater trust between partners. Moreover, the data now available is not only actionable, but auditable should a problem arise. Buyers can choose, or not, to trust an identifier based on the inserter, the provider and the method used to derive the ID. While debates within the IAB Tech Lab were spirited at times, they ultimately drove a collaborative process that shaped a solution designed to work effectively across the ecosystem.”
Mark McEachran, SVP of Product Management, Yieldmo
For the demand side:
- Evaluation: Use the EID metadata to assess all the IDs in the EID field, looking closely at the identity vendors’ reliability. Select partners who meet high standards of data clarity and accuracy.
- Collaboration: Establish open communication with supply-side partners and tech partners to ensure they follow the best practices in line with OpenRTB 2.6 guidelines and that there’s a shared understanding of the mutually agreed upon identifiers.
- Provide feedback: As OpenRTB 2.6 adoption grows, consistent feedback from demand-side partners will help the IAB refine these standards.
Moving forward with reliable data and data transparency
As the AdTech industry moves toward a cookieless reality, OpenRTB 2.6 signifies a substantial step toward a sustainable, transparent programmatic ecosystem. With proactive adoption by supply- and demand-side partners, the future of programmatic advertising will be driven by trust and transparency.
Experian, our partners, and our clients know the benefits of our Digital Graph and its support of both authenticated and inferred signals. We believe that if the supply-side abides by the OpenRTB 2.6 specifications and the demand-side uses and analyzes this data, the programmatic exchange will operate more fairly and deliver more reach.
Latest posts
In the digital age, print coupons are dinosaurs, right? Not one bit. In fact, according to Experian Simmons, users of printed coupons — those obtained from newspapers, magazines, mail, etc.—outnumber users of digital coupons by a margin of almost 3-to-1. As of February 14, 2011 (the latest date for which data was available at the time of this post), 68% of all U.S. adults said their household uses print coupons, a number that has remained relatively unchanged during the past five years. 68% of all U.S. adults said their household uses print coupons, a number that has remained relatively unchanged during the past five years. By comparison, Experian Simmons also reports that 22% of all U.S. adults say their household uses digital coupons obtained from email or the Internet. That figure may be lower than the usage reported for any measured type of print coupon, including those handed out in or near stores, but adoption of digital coupons is growing: in 2005, just 12% of American adults used digital coupons. Smartphones adoption will continue to propel digital coupon use to historic highs in the months and years to come. According to an analysis featured in the 2010 U.S. Household Consumer Trend and Benchmark Report, 34% of U.S. iPhone owners use digital coupons compared with just 21% of non-iPhone owners. Interestingly, use of print coupons among iPhone owners doesn’t suffer a bit. In fact, as of February 14, 2011, 68% of iPhone owners reported that their household used print coupons versus 64% of non-iPhone owners, making it obvious that merchants should give their customers an option of using both print and digital coupons. For further consumer insights, download the 2010 U.S. Household Consumer Trend and Benchmark Report, which includes trends on economic outlook by household income, charitable contributions and planned automobile purchases.
Spiders, Rams, Seminoles, Golden Eagles, and Bulldogs. This is one way to describe the diverse collection of Cinderella teams that have advanced to the Sweet 16 in this year's NCAA men's basketball tournament. Four of these teams, the University of Richmond, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Florida State, and Marquette, take their double-digit seeds to the next round in hopes of reaching the Elite 8. Butler, last year's Cinderella story, is seeking a visit to the Final Four for the second straight year. Interestingly, Richmond, VA is the home market for two of the Sweet 16 teams. These are the University of Richmond and VCU. Even more interesting is the fact that these two teams are on a collision course. With wins in the next round they would meet in the Elite 8 for a prized spot in the Final Four. With their surprise victories in the tournament so far, what these teams have in common is being labeled “bracket busters.” A more extensive market analysis uncovers other similarities, plus some notable differences. Here are highlights from profiles of the home market areas for this year's Cinderella teams using data from Experian's Mosaic consumer lifestyle segmentation system and Experian Simmons market research. The following statistics are based on the home markets of the five Cinderella teams. All four Cinderella teams hail from markets with above average interest in college basketball. Milwaukee, home of 11th seeded Marquette, has the highest concentration of adults who are interested in college basketball (28.1%). This is 11 percent relatively higher than percentage for the total U.S. Milwaukee also has the highest percentage of adults who said they watched last year's men's NCAA Division I tournament (17.3%). This is a relative six percent higher than the total U.S. The 10th seeded Florida State Seminoles hail from Tallahassee, which has the second highest percentage of adults with an interest in college basketball (26.9%). Richmond, where both 11th seeded VCU and 12th seeded Richmond are based, is just behind Tallahassee when it comes to the percentage of adults who are interested in college basketball (26.7%). Indianapolis has the lowest percent of residents who are interested in college basketball (26.3%), but that's still a relative four percent higher than the U.S. as a whole. Although interest should be very high this year, Richmond and Indianapolis (15.8% each) have the lowest percentage of adults who watched last year's tournament. Cinderella Team Market Snapshots Richmond, VA Home market of: Richmond Spiders, VCU Rams Sweet 16 opponents: Kansas, Florida State The top two segments in Richmond representing 30% of the market's households are: Metro Minority Communities (18.1%) comprised of married couples and single-parent minorities earning above average incomes from a mix of service industry and white-collar jobs in transportation, health care, education, and public administration. Urban Commuter Families (11.5%) comprised of upscale, college educated Baby Boomer families and couples living in single detached homes in city neighborhoods on the metropolitan fringe. Other interesting facts: Most over-represented segment is Metro Minority Communities (3.8 times the national average) Percent of adults with interest in college basketball is 26.7% Percent of adults who watched last year's men's college basketball tournament is 15.8% Tallahassee, FL Home market of: Florida State Seminoles Sweet 16 opponent: VCU Rams Similar to Richmond, the top two segments in Tallahassee are Metro Minority Communities (14.8%) and Urban Commuter Families (6.9%). The two segments that account for the next highest share of households are: Struggling City Centers (6.7%) comprised of young, single and single-parent minority renters living in low-income city neighborhoods. Rural Southern Living (6.5%) comprised of lower-income blue-collar couples and families living in sparsely settled mobile home communities. Other interesting facts: Most over-represented market segment is College Town Communities (6.2 times the national average) Percent of adults with interest in college basketball is 26.9% Percent of adults who watched last year's men's college basketball tournament is 16.8% Milwaukee, WI Home market of: Marquette Golden Eagles Sweet 16 opponent: North Carolina Tarheels The top segment in Milwaukee representing 11.2% of households is Urban Commuter Families (as described above). The two segments that account for the next highest share of households are: Small-town Success (10.5%) comprised of white collar, college educated, middle-aged working couples living in newly developed subdivisions outside the nation's beltways. Steadfast Conservative (9.3%) comprised of high-school educated mature singles and couples living in middle-class urban blue-collar neighborhoods. Other interesting facts: Most over-represented market segment is Successful Suburbia (3.6 times the national average) Percent of adults with interest in college basketball is 28.1% Percent of adults who watched last year's men's college basketball tournament is 17.3% Indianapolis, IN Home market of: Butler Bulldogs Sweet 16 opponent: Wisconsin Badgers There are four equal size segments that account for just over 30% of Indianapolis households. These include Steadfast Conservative (8.9%), Urban Commuter Families (7.8%), and Small-town Success (7.1%). All three of these segments are also among the top five in Richmond, Tallahassee, and Milwaukee. What makes Indianapolis unique from the other three markets is a higher percentage of New Suburbia Families (7.2%). These are young, affluent working couples with pre-school children concentrated in fast-growing, metro fringe communities. Other interesting facts: Most over-represented market segment is Successful Suburbia (2.8 times the national average) Percent of adults with interest in college basketball is 26.3% Percent of adults who watched last year's men's college basketball tournament is 15.8%
Tournament play begins this week in the 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, which means office productivity is likely to take a hit as fans jump online to watch live streams of games being played during working hours. With online viewing options expanded to mobile and other digital platforms this year, fans have more avenues than ever to get their March Madness fix. In fact, according to a recent estimate by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, total online tournament viewership during work hours is likely to reach 8.4 million hours during this year's tournament. In this latest installment of Experian Marketing Services' continuing March Madness consumer coverage, we'll profile the work life of online game streamers. Is there one down the hall or in the next cube? The answer is almost certainly “yes,” but the “who” may surprise you. According to Experian Simmons, just over 5% of all U.S. adults and nearly a quarter of adult NCAA men's tournament viewers (24%) qualify as likely online game streamers. For the purpose of this analysis, likely online game streamers is defined as those U.S. adults who watched the last NCAA men's basketball tournament who also sought out sports information online or watched online video in the last 30 days. These likely online game streamers must have also visited either cbssports.com or espn.com in the last 30 days. Fully 79% of likely online game streamers are employed either full-or or part-time, with 59% working 40 or more hours a week. Department managers and IT staff-have reason to be concerned about a loss in productivity during March Madness: fully 79% of likely online game streamers are employed either full-or or part-time, with 59% working 40 or more hours a week. Don't be so quick to suspect that colleague who always shows up late and goes home early as a game streamer. A safer bet would be the guy who's always at his desk when you get in and still there when you head out. In fact, one-in-ten adults who work more than 40 hours a week (11%) are likely online game streamers, meaning they're more than twice as likely as the average adult to be checking out the game online. Remote employees who work at home often get a bad rap with office “suits” sometimes assuming their pajama-clad colleagues fall prey to distractions. Actually though, Americans who work from home are no more or less likely to be likely online streamers than those who don't work from home. Likewise, the self-employed are no more or less likely to be online game streamers than laborers who work for “the man.” Interestingly, Experian Simmons found a direct correlation between company size and a worker's chance of being a likely online game streamer. Specifically: Those who work in companies with fewer than 100 employees are 17% less likely than the average American worker to be likely online game streamers. Those who work in companies with between 100 and 499 employees are just two percent less likely than average to be likely streamers while those employed by companies with between 500 and 999 employees are eight percent more likely to be online game streamers. Employees of companies with 1,000 or more employees are the most likely culprits with the group on average being 17% more likely to be likely online game streamers. As such, it's no surprise that Fortune 500 companies are the most at risk of having offices full of online streamers during March Madness. Employees of Fortune 500 companies are fully 66% more likely to be online game streamers than those who Americans employed by a non-Fortune 500 company. Finally, the best insight into whether your office mates are streaming basketball games online instead of working is by looking at their paycheck (not that we encourage that of course). Specifically, as income rises, so does one's chance of being an online game streamer: Employed Americans who personally earn less than $25,000 annually are the least likely to be online game streamers, scoring 50% below average on this metric. Those who earn between $25,000 and $49,999 are only 15% less likely to be game streamers. If you know or suspect that your colleague earns upwards of $50,000 a year, it's a good idea to keep an eye on them for the rest of the month; workers with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 are 33% more likely than average to be likely game streamers and those who earn between $75,000 and $99,999 are 75% more likely to be likely game streamers. Your colleagues earning $100,000 or more annually are the most likely to be streaming online, with those personally taking home between $100,000 and $149,000 being a whopping 164% more likely than the average employee to be streaming games online. And those earning $150,000 or more annually being fully 176% more likely to be online game streamers. Moreover, one-in-five adults who earn $150,000 a year or more fall into our likely online game streamers segment compared with just 5% of all U.S. adults. The first match-up to be played during the traditional workday tips off at 12:15 EDT on Thursday March 17th when West Virginia takes on the winner of the second round-one play-in game. Armed with this information, you should be able to catch-or join-your office's online game streamers in the act.