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
2013 has been a milestone year for those lobbying on behalf of expanded rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Americans. With 12 states and the District of Columbia now formally recognizing same sex marriages and two highly anticipated rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court expected shortly, the momentum is currently on the side of those seeking greater recognition and support of LGBT-related issues. The speed with which public attitudes have shifted towards greater acceptance of LGBT individuals and their causes has left many marketers scrambling to devise plans that are not only inclusive of LGBT consumers, but in many instances, designed to overtly and publically court this influential and growing consumer segment. The 2013 LGBT consumer report out from Experian Marketing Services delivers insights marketers need to better understand the market that is on everyone’s radar. In this first of a series of blog posts, we’ll highlight key data from the report. Readers can download the full report at any time here. Living out Loud In 2006, when Experian Marketing Services first began measuring sexual orientation among respondents to our Simmons® National Consumer Study, we found that 3.4% of all non-Hispanic adults self-identified as either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered (LGBT), a figure consistent with what leading LGBT researchers predicted at the time. However today, 4.3% of the non-Hispanic adult population self-identifies as LGBT, a figure that has risen slowly but steadily year-after-year. Younger adults have consistently been more likely to identify as LGBT, and in fact today, 5.8 percent of 18 to 34 year olds say they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. As a result, the adult LGBT population predictably skews towards the younger age cohorts. Specifically, 36% of LGBT adults today are aged 18 to 34 versus 26% of the heterosexual population in that age range. Likewise, while 20% of heterosexual adults are age 65 and older, just 16% of LGBT adults are in this age range, though our data shows that the share of adults age 65 and older identifying as LGBT has also risen. Home and Family As a growing number of U.S. states pass laws recognizing same-sex marriages and civil unions, we see an increasing percentage of gay and lesbian Americans reporting that they are married. In 2007, for example, when only Massachusetts allowed same-sex marriage, 8% of gay men and 14% of lesbian women said they were married. Today, 17% of gay men and 16% of lesbian women are married. Marriage rates among lesbian and gay adults still lag well behind those of heterosexuals, but the gap is closing from both sides. In fact, while marriage rates are rising among lesbians and gays, they’re falling among heterosexuals. Today, 58% of heterosexual men and 53% of heterosexual women are married, compared to 60% of heterosexual men and 55% of heterosexual women who were married in 2007. The Pink Dollar Income levels are important to consider when targeting consumers, but more important is determining the amount of money left over for non-essentials after the other bills are paid. Despite earning nearly identical salaries, gay men have lower annual household discretionary expenditures than heterosexual men. Likewise, lesbian households have fewer dollars than those of heterosexual women to spend on non-essentials. This is mostly likely due to the fact that both lesbian and gay adults tend to reside in larger cities where the cost of living can be considerably higher than average. Interestingly, when household size is brought into the equation, we see that gay males actually have higher discretionary spending per capita than heterosexual men. In fact, gay men live in households that devote $6,794 per capita annually to non-essentials, which is $753 more than what heterosexual men spend. Forthcoming posts from this series will include insights into the automotive and food vertical markets; the mobile habits of LGBT consumers; and an examination of online visitors to LGBT content sites. Don’t want to wait? Download the full report now. Also, learn more about the Simmons LGBT Consumer Study, the only syndicated, national probability sample survey that measures the lifestyles, attitudes, media habits and brand preferences of the LGBT population giving marketers actionable insights into this powerful consumer segment that can be directly compared with those of heterosexuals.
The importance of affiliate marketing as a marketing channel is evident; it ranks as one of the most effective marketing channels for retailers, along with paid search and e-mail. While effective affiliate marketing relies on two groups, the publishers (affiliates) who display advertisements online and the advertisers (merchants) who aim to increase sales for their online shop, incorporating insights from Experian Marketing Services’ Hitwise can strengthen affiliate programs. I recently worked with Rakuten LinkShare on a webinar which highlights how their affiliate marketing services partnered with Hitwise create a proven package for success by providing valuable and actionable insights to affiliate marketers in understanding and targeting key consumer segments. Identify sites sending traffic to your category For our case study, we examined a custom category of Rakuten LinkShare department store clients and compared them with a category of department store non-clients. Using Hitwise, we examined which publisher sites sent traffic to each of the categories in order to identify the best affiliates to partner with. Among the top 20 publisher websites, a number of fashion and style content websites were sources of traffic to LinkShare Department store clients. Fashion and trend focused affiliate sites, namely ShopStyle and Polyvore, pointed to clear fashion editorial interest amongst those who visited LinkShare department store clients. Consider search terms used to capture consumer interest and intent Next, we looked at generic terms that sent traffic to affiliate site ShopStyle. Terms included searches for products sold in department stores such as variations of “heels” and “dresses”. The data indicates that ShopStyle is a good candidate to partner with because it attracted visits from those who are interested in fashion, looking for a deal, and who are likely in-market for specific products. Monitor effectiveness of affiliate programs and make timely decisions Hitwise can also be used by marketers to evaluate the effectiveness of their affiliate partnerships. For this example, we were able to show that Rakuten LinkShare affiliates sent a larger share of traffic to department store clients versus non-clients, pointing to a clear benefit from affiliate partnerships. As affiliate marketing is an increasingly critical channel for marketers, the importance of selecting the best and most relevant publishers is clear. When used in conjunction with affiliate marketing programs, Hitwise enables marketers to understand competitors’ online distribution and sources of traffic, select the best affiliates to partner with, and quantify the return on investment from partnerships.
New data from Experian Marketing Services’ Simmons® ConnectSM mobile and digital panel sheds light on the way smartphone users spend time using their phone, with the average adult clocking 58 minutes daily on their device. On average, smartphone owners devote 26% of the time they spend on their phone talking and another 20% texting. Social networking eats up 16% of smartphone time while browsing the mobile web accounts for 14% of time spent. Emailing and playing games account for roughly 9% and 8% of daily smartphone time, respectively, while use of the phone’s camera and GPS each take up another 2% of our smartphone day. *Activities include use of a smartphone’s native features dedicated to each activity as well as downloaded apps whose primary function falls under the given activity. For instance, “watch video” includes the act of watching video on the smartphone’s native video player as well as use of video apps such as YouTube, Netflix, etc. iPhone versus Android users Smartphone users may constantly debate which operating system is supreme, but we see clear differences between the ways consumers use their phone depending on the operating system that runs it. For starters, iPhone users spend an hour and fifteen minutes using their phones per day, a full 26 minutes more than the typical Android phone owner. Additionally, iPhone and Android smartphone owners use their phones in markedly different ways. For instance, 28% of the time that Android users spend using their phones is dedicated to talking, whereas iPhone users spend only 22% of their smartphone time talking on the device. Android owners also devote a greater share of time visiting websites on their phone than iPhone owners. On the other hand, iPhone owners spend a disproportionately greater share of smartphone time than Android owners texting, emailing, using the camera and social networking. Note on time spent It may surprise some to read that an activity like watching video accounts for such a small share (less than 1%) of the typical adult’s daily smartphone use. However, for the charts above to sum to a single daily total it was necessary to calculate individual activity contribution using a base of all smartphone owners, including those who don’t spend any time engaging in a given activity during a typical day. The chart below provides additional insights into the time spent engaging in the major smartphone activities examining only those individuals who engaged in each activity during a 24-hour period. I’ve also added into the chart a reach and frequency metric to indicate the popularity of each activity and the number of times per day that individuals engage in them. In the chart, the activities with the largest bubbles are those in which the greatest share of smartphone owners engage during a typical day and include the usual suspects: talking (79%), texting (76%), visiting websites (62%), emailing (61%) and social networking (52%). Activities with the fewest daily participants are: watching video, which 2.3% of smartphone owners do during a typical day, and reading, which just 0.5% of smartphone owners do daily. Given that nearly 98% of smartphone users don’t watch videos on their phone during a typical day, it’s easier to understand why video comprises such a low share of the average adult’s daily smartphone use. However, the chart above reveals that those who do watch video on their phone spend, on average, 5 minutes a day watching videos spread out over 4.2 different viewing sessions. For more information on consumers’ usage of smartphones, digital tablets, computers and other traditional and digital media platforms, check out Simmons Connect.