ellipsis flag icon-blogicon-check icon-comments icon-email icon-error icon-facebook icon-follow-comment icon-googleicon-hamburger icon-imedia-blog icon-imediaicon-instagramicon-left-arrow icon-linked-in icon-linked icon-linkedin icon-multi-page-view icon-person icon-print icon-right-arrow icon-save icon-searchicon-share-arrow icon-single-page-view icon-tag icon-twitter icon-unfollow icon-upload icon-valid icon-video-play icon-views icon-website icon-youtubelogo-imedia-white logo-imedia logo-mediaWhite review-star thumbs_down thumbs_up

Why publishers are afraid of real-time bidding

Why publishers are afraid of real-time bidding Eric Picard

Real-time bidding (RTB) is a hot topic in the online ad industry these days. (Personally I wish the industry would talk about real-time buying and real-time selling -- because bidding is not really a requirement to get the benefits. But that's perhaps the topic of another article.)

There are a lot of misunderstandings about the issues in the RTB space, particularly from publishers. Many publishers are jumping in with both feet, but a large number are still in wait-and-see mode, and have big concerns that they want addressed before they enter the fray. Some of these concerns are not areas that should cause concern, and there are other issues that they should probably care about -- but that aren't even on their radars.

Stay informed. For more insights into the latest trends in online marketing technology, attend the iMedia Breakthrough Summit, March 20-23. Request your invitation today.

Years ago, publishers were very concerned about sales channel conflict with ad networks. This concern ultimately was addressed by publishers only allowing resale of their inventory by networks if it was sold blind, meaning that the network could not identify the publisher as the inventory source. Over time, ad networks have become deeply ingrained in the industry ecosystem, and for the most part, the channel conflict issues have been addressed through this blind resale mechanism.

When RTB companies first entered the market, publishers treated them just as if they were ad networks (some of the RTB companies are ad networks, by the way), and they limited the inventory relationship to remnant inventory that was sold blind to match the way it had worked in the ad network case. Most publishers at this point are over focused on the issue of channel conflict here, because the drivers of RTB are different than many in the industry realize.

The RTB space has two faces -- one that is focused on acquiring good inventory at a steep discount, and another that is focused on enabling programmatic media buying and selling. The latter focuses on removing the human negotiation process in order to increase efficiency in the purchase and sales processes. While the first group of buyers is discount focused, the second is focused on more efficient and effective media buying. And publishers should not only enable them -- they should encourage them.

When publishers sell inventory using RTB, they not only reduce their cost of sales, but they also remove a huge amount of their ad operations costs. The buyer only picks up the inventory if it matches the buyer's goals, and there is no guarantee involved. No manual hunting for placements that have enough traffic to cover the campaign goals. No fire drills to handle at the end of the month.

While publishers should be concerned about advertisers trying to get media discounts by playing the human and automated sales channels against each other, that's easily overcome. Almost any mechanism publishers would use to expose their inventory to RTB -- such as an exchange or a supply-side platform -- would also enable them to set floor pricing. This means that the inventory would be protected from RTB prices undercutting their sales force.

I actually suggest that publishers expose their entire premium portfolio to RTB, and that they should not sell it blind. They should think of the RTB channel as part of their sales forces -- a non-human sales team that lets the buyer achieve its goals more efficiently and reduces the costs of sales.

One issue that many publishers (rightfully) fear with RTB is data leakage. But this is an endemic problem that has been floating in the industry for years. Let me start with a more fundamental description of the issue:

Let's say an advertiser makes a premium buy from a publisher for 50,000 impressions of a behavioral targeting segment called "auto shoppers," starting on Jan. 1. The buy is frequency capped at a frequency of one, and the advertiser is paying a $45 CPM for the privilege. The ad is being served using third-party ad serving, and the advertiser also drops a tracking code from its demand-side platform into the creative -- which they don't to disclose to the publisher.

Now that the campaign has gone live, the advertiser is reaching an average of about 1,500 unique web browsers per day, setting a cookie on those browsers. Immediately, the advertiser pulls the trigger on a RTB campaign that looks for those same cookies on the various ad exchanges, and it pays a $1.50 CPM to reach them. To make matters worse (from the publisher's perspective), if that publisher is exposing remnant to RTB in an exchange, the same advertiser might well deliver ads during the run of its $45 CPM campaign on that same publisher for $1.50 CPM to users it has already reached.

This is a real issue -- something that happens every day. From the publishers' perspective, these are data that they have worked hard to collect, and they believe they are their proprietary data. And they feel strongly that nobody should be able to steal those data from them.

The reality is that every ad network out there has been doing this since the beginning of the industry. If ad networks buy targeted inventory, they can cookie users quite easily, and then resell them as part of their targeted network sales.

But ultimately, there is a bigger conversation to have about the value of publisher targeting data:

  • Publishers only know what a specific browser is exposed to when on that publisher's site, which can be a very slim aperture of activity viewing.

  • Most data that advertisers want access to are pretty much a commodity. How many times does an advertiser need to know what kind of car someone drives, and who has access to that data? A lot of parties know this information, and many have the right to sell it. Only data that are either fairly unique (people who follow their finances on Yahoo Finance probably aren't going to MSN Money) or that are processed and matched with other activity data (search engine results or shopping activity) have proprietary value that a publisher should protect.

  • Given the industry discussions about privacy, it's very possible that third-party tracking of data for targeting could run into some issues over the next few years. This will set publishers up with many more unique data opportunities than they currently have.

Ultimately publishers need to grapple with the issue of RTB through the lens of their own business challenges. However, the two biggest issues that I usually hear about from publishers -- channel conflict and data leakage -- are ones that shouldn't stop a publisher from participating in RTB. In fact, these issues should probably bring a new view to the conversation.

RTB ultimately has an opportunity to change the game for the better for all ecosystem participants -- but only if enough valuable inventory is made available to the channel.

Eric Picard is chief product officer at TRAFFIQ.

On Twitter? Follow Picard at @ericpicard. Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet.

Eric Picard is Vice President, Strategic Partnerships, at MediaMath. He was previously the Founder and CEO of MediaMath-acquired Rare Crowds, an open source ad technology company that provides a completely open advertising technology stack for...

View full biography


to leave comments.

Commenter: Eric Picard

2011, January 20


Sorry I missed this until now. I think we're in agreement overall. The key point is that if publishers don't expose their 'premium' inventory in a non-blind fashion, TechCrunch (in your example below) won't get the benefit of the advertiser's knowledge of the venue. If TechCrunch let's the data about content association be part of the bidding rules, then they will get higher bids. They also should set a floor price on this inventory so that they're not getting channel conflict with their sales force.

I think we do need to be careful about the term 'yield' in this space. "Certain advertisers and products experience no incremental yield improvement by associating their advertising with a particular content category." Advertisers don't typically think in terms of yield unless they're old-school DR (offline) background buyers. Yield typically refers in online display to the revenue that a publisher gets from selling the inventory - higher being better for them. Advertisers think in terms of ROI typically - and how they define it is broadly misunderstood. Many brands are looking at 'cost to reach' their desired audience as their ROI metric. Many online DR folks are looking at CPA.

Ultimately we as an industry need to be enabling large brands to spend money efficiently in order to reach their desired audience. This efficiency is critically important to our industry - it's not cost effective to buy targeted reach in our industry today for a big brand. Offline is much more efficient for them to buy. We need to get better at this.


Commenter: John Shomaker

2011, January 13

Good thoughts here, Eric.

At AdJuggler, we'd agree that RTB will ultimately mature as an intelligent media buying protocol, and less as the current media arbitrage play. Like the overused Nasdaq metaphor, RTB should develop as the industry's back-office.

For now, however, the debate is fundamentally about the role of content in advertiser yield and the discipline of publishers to manage inventory for optimal pricing. The content issue is straight-forward. Certain advertisers and products experience no incremental yield improvement by associating their advertising with a particular content category. It's more cost effective for Pepsi to obtain reach through RTB-based inventory than pay CNN home page premiums. HP, on the other, sees benefit in associating with, say, TechCrunch, where the blog's readers are likely in the midst of evaluating various technology purchases.

Inventory management is an equally significant challenge for RTB. Let's say an auto publisher today is routinely selling 50% share-of-voice (5M impressions) to a national advertiser at a $30 CPM. If, instead, the guaranteed inventory is exposed to RTB exchanges, where advertiser can sub-target to auto intenders only (say, just 15% of SOV), will the publisher achieve an adequate CPM premium above $30 to rationalize the drop in traffic fill? Will buy-side demand make up for the gap? On the remnant/ROS side, we see less conflict, given that audience-based impressions are yielding higher than basic network channel tags – another nail in the coffin of second-tier network brokers with no unique audience segmentation.

John Shomaker
CEO, AdJuggler, Inc.