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 our upcoming 2011 Digital Marketer Report, we will cover what influences purchase decisions. While you'll have to wait to read the report to see the entire list, when ranking influencers to purchase decisions: 54% of U.S. adults identified old-fashioned Word of Mouth (WOM), while information from webpages (47%) ranked second and online consumer reviews (31%) ranked as the third most important. It's nearly impossible to measure old-fashioned WOM, and “Information from a website” is a very broad category. Gauging the uptake in online consumer reviews is another story, however. Visits to online review pure-play Yelp.com is a good proxy for the uptake in online reviews in the service sector (restaurants, dry cleaners and dentists to name a few). Over the past two years, visits to Yelp.com have increased over 136%. Given such impressive and steady growth since 2009, you might assume that Yelp and other sites like it have become ubiquitous. Your assumption, however, would be incorrect. While age demographics of visitors to the site show that use of the online consumer reviews has reached maturity (Internet users over the age of 55 make up the largest age bin at 25%), geo-demographics, or visits by DMA, tell a completely different story. The top five cities by representation; San Francisco, San Diego, Monterey, Los Angeles and Sacramento reveal the first skew, that Yelp.com visitors favor the West Coast, where the company was founded. So it seems that, by percentage, the largest U.S. cities also figure significant. When looking at visitors to the site by Mosaic™ segments, Americas Wealthiest, Young Cosmopolitans and other affluent types figure heavily in the site's traffic. Taken all together, the numbers reveal that while Yelp.com continues to grow, its participants continue to be a very distinct subset of U.S. Internet users. This niche set of users might explain why traditional WOM continues to show more significance in influencing purchase decisions. Want to learn more about other purchase decision influencers? Click here to request a copy of Experian Marketing Services highly-anticipated 2011 Digital Marketer Report, launching in late March. The report features an editorial by Bill Tancer as well as unreleased data spanning email, social, mobile, search and more.
College basketball mania is here. First round NCAA tournament action tips off this week leading up to the Final Four in Houston and Indianapolis for the men and women respectively. With March Madness just around the corner, Experian Marketing Services' data team started to wonder — how do TV viewers of the men's tournament differ from viewers of the women's tournament? The women's game has come a long way since the first women's collegiate basketball championship in 1972. This will be the ninth year that all 63 games of the tournament are televised nationally. Looking back to 1982 when the finals were contested in Norfolk, Virginia, only 37 media credentials were issued. This has increased 14 fold when compared to the 530 media credentials issued in San Antonio last year. The men's game is as popular as ever drawing impressive TV ratings, especially during tournament time. Remember Butler's drive to the Final Four last year and their near upset of Duke? CBS reported that 48 million viewers watched at least some of the championship game. According to viewership data from Experian Simmons, men's tournament viewers outnumbered women's tournament viewers by a ratio of 3.7 to 1. That's nearly four men's tournament viewers for every viewer of the women's tournament. So who might be watching this year? Using Experian's Mosaic consumer lifestyle segmentation system combined with last year's tournament viewership data from Experian Simmons, we took a closer look. Men's Tournament Viewers Rise Above The Rim On Affluence The men's tournament draws a significant share of viewers from affluent households. Nearly half of viewers have household income of $75,000 or over. The ten most affluent Mosaic segments have an over-representation of men's tournament viewers compared to their corresponding share of U.S. adults. This includes Dream Weavers (well-off families with school age children, living an affluent suburban version of the American Dream), Enterprising Couples (married couples with children and childless duos living in upper-middle-class commuter communities), and New Suburbia Families (young, affluent working couples with pre-school children concentrated in fast-growing, metro fringe communities). Nearly half of the men's tournament TV viewers have household income of $75,000 or over. True to its name, the Dream Weavers segment is a college basketball advertiser's dream for home electronics, home furnishings, home improvement and home office supplies. All of these home-centered categories are near and dear to Dream Weaver householders many of whom will be following the men's tournament very closely in a variety of media formats including online, in HDTV, and on their smart phones. Brands and retail stores that have particular appeal to Dream Weavers include Nordstrom, Ralph Lauren, Nike, Eddie Bauer, Sephora, Dick's Sporting Goods and Banana Republic. But that's not to say that only affluent consumers are watching the men's tournament. Other segments with an above average concentration of men's tournament viewers include African-American Neighborhoods, Minority Metro Communities, America's Farmlands, and Young Cosmopolitans. Men's tournament viewers participate in a wide range of leisure and sport's activities (most notably golfing, football, softball, racquet sports, and weight training), have a preference for driving Cadillac, Acura, and Lexus automobiles, and have a high concentration of readers of such magazine titles as Golf Digest, Sports Illustrated, ESPN The Magazine, Barron's, and Black Enterprise. Women's Tournament Delivers Younger, More Ethnically Diverse Audience The audience for the women's tournament is decidedly different from the men's. About six out of every ten viewers have household income below $75,000. Mosaic segments with the greatest over-representation of women's tournament viewers include Struggling City Centers (young, single and single-parent minority renters living in low-income city neighborhoods throughout the South) and Minority Metro Communities (married couples and single-parent minorities with above-average incomes working in a mix of service industry and white-collar jobs). These two segments alone account for nearly 20% of the women's tournament viewing audience and contain about 2.5 times the concentration of viewers relative to their corresponding share of U.S. adults. Women's college basketball advertisers should note that the tournament delivers a less affluent audience compared to the men. Using Minority Metro Communities as an example, brands and retail stores that have particular appeal to this group and to the broader women's tournament audience overall include 7-Eleven, Ace Hardware, Hallmark, Sam's Club, Kmart, Dollar General, Big Lots, and Marshall's. Women's college basketball advertisers should note that the tournament delivers a less affluent audience compared to the men. Only four of the ten most affluent Mosaic segments have an over-representation of women's tournament viewers. When comparing a segment's share of the overall women's tournament viewing audience to its corresponding share of the men's tournament viewing audience, three of these four segments account for a higher share of women's viewers. These are America's Wealthiest, White Collar Suburbia, and Affluent Urban Professionals. Advertisers will be pleased to know that interest in the tournament from these segments helps lift the viewing audience into a higher income demographic. Using White Collar Suburbia as an example, retail stores that have particular appeal to this segment of the population include Brooks Brothers, Costco, Gap, J. Crew, Kohl's, Lord & Taylor, and Victoria's Secret. Other segments that contain a significantly higher share of women's viewers compared to men include Small-city Endeavors (a mix of lower income singles, families, and single parents living in older homes and small apartments in working class towns) and Professional Urbanites (upper-middle-class empty nesting couples and older singles in metropolitan areas). Men’s Tournament Viewers Compared to Women’s Tournament Viewers Men’s Tournament Top Ten Most Affluent Mosaic Segments Women’s Tournament America’s Wealthiest Dream Weavers White Collar Suburbia Upscale Suburbanites Enterprising Couples Small-town Success New Suburbia Families Status-conscious Consumers Affluent Urban Professionals Urban Commuter Families = Index of 100 to 125 = Index of 126 to 150 = Index above 150 The index shows the concentration of viewers for the men's and women's tournament for a segment compared to the segment's share of U.S. adults. For example, an index above 150 means that adults from the segment are 50% more likely to watch the tournament compared to U.S. adults overall.
Along with death and taxes, the third certainty as an online marketer is change. When we combine the rapid rate of online innovation with consumers' relentless pursuit of finding the best possible price, a pursuit that kicks into overdrive with economic uncertainty, it's critical to anticipate changes in consumer behavior and the adoption of new buying modalities. Here are three things that you should know about the group coupon phenomenon. By now, most of us are aware of Groupon, the privately held Chicago group couponing-company that rejected Google's $6 billion dollar acquisition offer in late 2010. Since it's founding in 2009, Groupon has grown to over 5 million visits per week to take the #25 spot in the Experian Hitwise Shopping & Classifieds category1 for the week ending January 29, 2011. But is Groupon, or more generally the category of online group buying, a fad or a significant change in the way we buy online? Here are three things that you should know about the group coupon phenomenon. Group Buying Has Reached Mainstream Adoption If you think that this new social buying trend is fueled by early adopters of technology, the young and hip technocrats, you may have been correct in January 2010. Today, you would be completely off the mark. According to Experian Hitwise for the four weeks ending January 29, 2011, the largest age-bin for visitors to Groupon.com are those Internet users over the age of 55 (37.5%). There is Applicability to Local and National Retailers While group coupons were heralded as the perfect solution for local online commerce, successful deals with national retailers (both bricks-and-mortar such as GAP and online pure-plays like Amazon.com) indicate that this movement will take its place alongside email and search as a key channel for marketers to consider. On January 19, 2011, LivingSocial.com, a Groupon competitor, offered a $20 Amazon credit for $10 (it should be noted that Amazon invested $175 million in LivingSocial.com). According to PC Magazine, over 1.3 million certificates were sold at a rate of over 100,000 per hour. The Race to Dominate the Space is Heating Up LivingSocial's Amazon play did more than just put up impressive numbers; it was a clear sign that the site is a viable threat to category leader, Groupon. According to Groupon CEO Andrew Mason, Groupon has over 500 competitors in the marketplace and growing. Have you considered group buying for your business? Along with anticipating this trend, with the growing number of competitors and offers you should think one step ahead – will consumers succumb to daily deal fatigue? Want to learn more about digital marketing in 2011? Click here to request a copy of Experian Marketing Services highly-anticipated 2011 Digital Marketer Report, launching in late March. The report features an editorial by Bill Tancer as well as unreleased data spanning email, social, mobile, search and more. ——— 1 Shopping and Classifieds Category: 28,586 top sites that specialize in online shopping, auctions and classifieds