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
Two storied franchises will collide in this year’s Super Bowl, the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers. Sports fans from both markets are huge supporters of their football teams, but a look into their behavior and attitudes reveals passions beyond a one-dimensional Cheesehead or Towel Twirler. Considering the vast preferences, marketers recognize the need to define characteristics that truly distinguish their target audience. To provide those insights, we conducted a detailed market analysis using a wide variety of data sources including research information from Experian Simmons, Hitwise, and the Mosaic Consumer Lifestyle segmentation solution, which defines the predominant household types for each area (as featured in yesterday’s post: Cheeseheads vs. Terrible Towels). Today, we delve further into the hearts and houses of Green Bay and Pittsburgh area residents. GREEN BAY FANS PACK THEM IN FOR TAILGATING Green Bay area residents are more passionate about tailgating compared to their rivals in Pittsburgh. Among those who identify themselves as NFL football fans, Green Bay fans are 1.45 times more likely than Pittsburgh fans to have participated in a tailgate party within the past 12 months. They are also better equipped to tailgate due to a higher ownership rate for midsize SUVs, and both light duty and full size pickups (Road & Track magazine top-rated picks for tailgating), compared to Pittsburgh fans. STELLA AND STEELERS GO TOGETHER With every tailgate comes a beverage of choice, and in today’s analysis we’ve found that Bud Light and Budweiser are the light/low calorie and regular domestic brands of beer favored the most by both Green Bay and Pittsburgh fans. However, Pittsburgh fans are 1.56 times more likely than Green Bay fans to down a few of premium brand, Stella Artois. Notably, along with its best selling brands, Anheuser-Busch plans to devote a portion of its multi-million dollar ad spend to this Belgian import. FANTASIZING ABOUT FOOTBALL While all that tailgating is going on, Green Bay fans might also be boasting about their latest fantasy sports selections. They are 1.34 times more likely to say that they participate in a fantasy sports league compared to Pittsburgh fans. That’s not to say that Pittsburgh fans don’t enjoy their fantasy sports, indexing above the national average for visiting fantasy sports and football websites. PLAYING IN THE GREAT OUTDOORS Packers and Steelers fans enjoy being out in the elements, so chances are you’ll probably never see a dome over either Lambeau or Heinz Field. The most popular Green Bay football fan activities, with a higher participation rate compared to Pittsburgh fans, are: golfing, camping, state fairs, hunting, power boating and motorcycling. In the Pittsburgh area, with its impressive network of recreational trails, residents are 1.23 times more likely to in-line/roller skate and are 1.36 times more likely to play hockey, compared to Green Bay. Off land analysis shows that despite Green Bay residents’ close proximity to Lake Michigan and a multitude of water sport opportunities, Pittsburgh fans are more likely to spend time on the water, namely: canoeing, kayaking, sailing, and fly fishing. THROWING DEEP VERSUS HANDING OFF Each year Super Bowl advertisers try to reach their audiences across broadly defined demographics with little ability to measure the direct impact of their super-sized investments. It’s the equivalent of throwing a “Hail Mary” and hoping the receiver will leap above the clutter of defenders and catch the ball. Direct marketers, however, are using the behavioral and attitudinal data we’ve shared here to deliver their messages to a precisely targeted sub-audience. For marketers who want to be relevant and target accurately, this capability is the playmaker that scores a game winning touchdown every time. Click here for the full article Blog post author: Bill Schneider, VP, Experian Marketing Services. We’d love to hear your stories and how you’ve used lifestyle data. Please leave your comments or feedback below.
According to weekly trend data from Experian Simmons DataStreamSM, the number of U.S. adults paying a monthly visit to microblogging site Twitter.com has fallen during the past year by 14%. As of November 29, 2010, 8.25 million adults had made at least one visit to Twitter.com during the previous 30 days, down from 9.54 million adults who had visited the site in the 30 days prior to November 30, 2009. Does this mean the ultimate “fail whale” is lurking just over the horizon for Twitter? Not just yet. Among those who visit Twitter.com, Simmons DataStream shows that the average number of visits per month rose a relative 37% in the last year. Twitter.com visits in late November 2010, in fact, reached an average of 10.0 visits per month, up from just 7.3 visits per month the year prior. As visit frequency increased, however, the duration of the average Twitter.com session declined, suggesting visitors today are seeking more frequent quick hits, rather than spending longer periods of time reading through posts. According to Experian Hitwise, the average amount of time Twitter.com visitors spend on the site during a typical session fell to 13 minutes, 12 seconds on November 27, 2010, down from an average of 15 minutes, 12 seconds spent on the site each session on November 28, 2009. That said, Americans are still spending more time on Twitter.com than ever before. According to Experian Simmons estimates, Americans spent an estimated 2 hours and 12 minutes tweeting and reading tweets on Twitter.com in November 2010, up from 1 hour and 51 minutes spent on the site during November 2009. Swim on, fail whale, swim on. To tweet this blog post, click on the green “retweet” button at the top of this item. For more information on Simmons DataStream weekly reporting of nearly 40,000 consumer variables, visit our website.
As we ring in the New Year this week, Americans will be tossing back a few adult beverages in celebration. While alcohol consumption certainly increases around holidays and other times of celebration, many Americans imbibe year-round. So where across this great land of ours are you most likely to find adults willing and able to raise a glass (or two) and where are you most likely to be surrounded by teetotalers? Experian Simmons has the answer. Leveraging data from our SimmonsLOCAL study, we examined the drinking patterns of adults of legal drinking age in the 106 Designated Market Areas (DMAs) with populations of at least 500,000 adults age 21 and older. We then ranked those markets by the number of alcoholic beverages consumed by the average adult during a typical month. The chart below lists the DMAs that consume the most alcoholic beverages per capita in a typical month. First place goes to Boston, where the average adult of legal drinking age regularly kicks back 14.4 drinks a month. (Celebrations in Beantown are probably already underway.) Rank DMA Average drinks per month 1 Boston 14.4 2 Austin 13.8 3 Providence-New Bedford 13.4 4 Madison 13.2 4 Hartford & New Haven 13.2 6 Philadelphia 13.1 7 Chicago 13 8 Denver 12.9 9 Tallahassee-Thomasville 12.8 9 Milwaukee 12.8 11 Minneapolis-St. Paul 12.6 11 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce 12.6 11 Seattle-Tacoma 12.6 11 Tucson (Sierra Vista) 12.6 15 Green Bay-Appleton 12.5 16 San Diego 12.4 16 Baltimore 12.4 16 Washington, DC 12.4 16 Albany-Schenectady-Troy 12.4 20 New Orleans 12.3 20 St. Louis 12.3 20 Colorado Springs-Pueblo 12.3 23 Burlington-Plattsburgh 12.2 23 Syracuse 12.2 23 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News 12.2 23 Spokane 12.2 23 Portland-Auburn 12.2 Source: Experian Simmons Adult residents of the markets listed below surely know how to have a good time-it's just unlikely to include a cocktail. The chart below lists the DMAs that consume the fewest alcoholic beverages per capita in a typical month. Residents of Chattanooga consume only 6 alcoholic beverages per month, on average, making it the least imbibing market-and probably the one that feels the best the morning after a big gathering. Rank DMA Average drinks per month 106 Chattanooga 6 105 Salt Lake City 7.2 105 Florence-Myrtle Beach 7.2 105 Charleston-Huntington 7.2 105 Tri-Cities, TN-VA 7.2 101 Knoxville 7.4 100 Lexington 7.9 99 Birmingham 8 98 Huntsville-Decatur 8.5 97 Nashville 8.9 97 Evansville 8.9 95 Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg-Mt Vernon 9.1 94 Springfield, MO 9.2 94 Tulsa 9.2 94 Greenville-New Bern-Washington 9.2 91 Memphis 9.3 90 Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville-Anderson 9.4 90 Jackson, MS 9.4 90 Wichita-Hutchinson Plus 9.4 86 Little Rock-Pine Bluff 9.5 86 Louisville 9.5 86 Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers 9.5 83 Fresno-Visalia 9.6 82 Greensboro-High Point-Winston Salem 9.7 82 Roanoke-Lynchburg 9.7 Source: Experian Simmons For more information on SimmonsLOCAL's vivid reporting of consumer behaviors, attitudes, lifestyles and media consumption in 209 Designated Market Areas down to the ZIP code level, visit our website.