Asterisk: Issue 001

Stay on top of industry shifts and how they may impact your business with rapid-fire recaps and POVs*.

*As we learn more we will continue to update this space!

Mitigating Misrepresentation: Is There A Proper Approach To ID Bridging?

According to a recent AdExchanger Article, some sellers leveraging ID bridging are misrepresenting a non-cookie based ID as a cookie-based ID without notifying the buyer in bid requests. This practice can lead to targeting errors, frequency capping issues, measurement inaccuracies, and fraud. 

How does this affect my agency or brand?

Buyers are concerned about the lack of transparency and potential for fraud associated with ID bridging. Advertisers should request added transparency and disclosure from their sources to ensure that bridged IDs are transparent. The IAB Tech Lab is currently developing specs to facilitate clear standards across the industry. For instance, the “buyeruid” field should only be used for cookie IDs from cookie syncs, and the “ifa” field should be reserved only for device-IDs from applications downloaded to that device.

When authentication falls short: Myths and realities in advertising ID solutions

ID5’s VP of Marketing & Communications, Valbona Gjini, shared five myths and realities on the ID landscape on The Drum. Here’s the quick and short of it:

1. Authentication-based advertising IDs are not a comprehensive solution, especially with limited authenticated data.
2. There is a need to blend various data sources to build a more robust advertising ecosystem.
3. Misconceptions exist around the effectiveness of current ID solutions; they are often overestimated.
4. Privacy concerns necessitate careful handling of data, requiring more diverse approaches.
5. A balanced, multi-faceted approach is essential for reliable audience targeting and measurement.

In summary, privacy compliance is rooted in the idea that logging into a website implies consent. Authentication and consent are separate notions. One does not imply the other. The reality is that while deterministic signals are valuable, the volume of authenticated traffic is low. Buyers can’t rely on authenticated signals alone to run effective top-of-funnel campaigns, which require a larger audience pool..

The Trade Desk is building its own smart TV OS

What does it mean when one of the biggest trading desks in our industry decides to build its own smart TV OS? LowPass explores its implications.

By venturing into the advanced TV space (CTV/OTT) The Trade Desk can:

• Eliminate reliance on external ACR partners by building its own proprietary first-party data footprint at no additional cost, which they can unify and leverage with its UID structure.
• Gain direct access into differentiated Ad inventory (first screen, sponsored ads, etc.).
• Diversify its portfolio and revenue stream.
• Remain competitive as other players in the space like Samsung, Roku, and Vizio begin to own portions of the ecosystem.

However, all that glitters isn’t gold, and The Trade Desk (TTD) may face potential obstacles in their journey, such as:

• Stiff competition. Samsung, LG, Roku, Vizio, Google are just a few of the major players that TTD will face in gaining a foothold in the market. Furthermore, TTD will need to get creative in finding TV manufacturers for hardware adoption. 
• Conflicts in market positioning. TTD’s move to launch its own smart TV OS degrades its stance that they are a neutral party between supply and demand which can fuel potential conflicts of interest in its market. 
• Long-term privacy compliance. TTD may come under scrutiny in how it ensures appropriate privacy compliant collection, storage, and use of its ACR data. 

Check back in next week for more rapid-fire insights from Digilant.