Home Data-Driven Thinking Bid Collision Is Dead, Long Live Smart Retargeting

Bid Collision Is Dead, Long Live Smart Retargeting

SHARE:
By Jaysen Gillespie, VP, Product Marketing and Analytics, RTB House

Bid collision is a song of the past. Go ahead, use multiple retargeting partners. Just make sure they’re different in kind.

In performance marketing, practices that were once best-in-class can quietly create blind spots. Not because marketers get complacent but because the mechanics underneath strategies invisibly evolve, and the mental models often lag behind.

Almost a decade ago, I wrote a paper warning the industry to beware of bid collision. It made the rounds. And at the time, it was true. Running multiple retargeters across the same user base was a recipe for inefficiency. You were, in theory, bidding against yourself.

But here’s the thing: The landscape shifted. What once was true is not anymore. And the data makes that clear.

The auction model flip that changed everything

So what changed?

Since 2019, the digital ad ecosystem has been playing by new rules. That’s the year first-price auctions became the default, starting with Big Tech and quietly rippling through the rest of the industry.

In this first-price model, the highest bid wins and pays exactly what the bidder offered to pay. No second-price padding. No phantom inflation. No more penalty for running multiple campaigns.

In the old “second-price” world, using a multiple partner strategy was risky. Two bidders working on behalf of the same brand could end up competing against each other, driving up costs without adding value. But in the first-price world, that fear disappears. Having other bidders in the auction doesn’t change what the winner pays.

Bid collision? No longer a factor. Today, independent strategies don’t cannibalize each other. They scale together. And for marketers willing to embrace this new reality, the performance upside is real. But while the downside is removed universally, the upside comes from meeting one critical condition: The targeting mechanisms your partners use must be different in kind.

So what makes partners “different in kind”? 

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Technology differences matter

Gas vs. electric. Paper or plastic. Debit or credit. Most problems have at least two types of solutions. And each of those solutions has its place because they are different in kind. 

The same is true for performance marketing. Let’s look at how it’s evolved over the last two decades. First came business rules: static, manual instructions to define how campaigns should run. You may remember (fondly?) setting a $4 CPM with a frequency cap of five impressions for all users. That’s so 2008! 

Next, the current market standard – machine learning – emerged, introducing automation and pattern recognition, but still requiring humans to organize data and periodically retrain models. Finally, deep learning was put to work, a next-generation AI that processes massive volumes of raw and chaotic data in real time, self-learns and self-optimizes toward performance goals.

Deep learning, unlike machine learning, excels at detecting nonobvious converters, addressing complex paths to purchase over time and recommending products a user hasn’t seen but is likely to buy. In fact, 61% of purchases driven by deep learning come from products the user has never viewed before.

When paired with a more conventional partner, deep-learning-powered campaigns compound performance results. They focus on different signals, identify different users that are likely to buy, spot different buying patterns and surface different products. That’s not overlap; that’s layered performance.

You’ve hit the plateau. Now what?

Suppose you’re running a performance campaign focused on conversions. You’re already using dynamic retargeting, arguably the most resilient tactic out there across social, Big Tech platforms and your DSP. You’re hitting your ROAS targets. Everyone’s happy.

Until you’re asked to drive growth.

You have the budget, but efficiency can’t drop, and yet the current campaign has plateaued. It feels like you’ve hit the ceiling. Every attempt to scale up comes with diminishing returns.

In the past, the answer would’ve been: tough luck. But, today, that’s no longer the case.

When advertisers add an independent partner powered by deep learning to their existing performance marketing stack, they see an average 57% increase in retargeting scale at the same ROAS. That means 57% more revenue from retargeting without sacrificing budget efficiency.

The right partner delivers incremental value.

Connect. Combine. Accelerate.

The old logic around bid collision doesn’t apply anymore. In a first-price auction world, retargeting isn’t a zero-sum game; it’s a systems design challenge and an opportunity.

If your partners are different in kind, they won’t compete. They’ll compound. And when one of them brings next-gen tech like deep learning to the table, the result is smarter spend, greater reach and real performance lift.

The growth you’re looking for is still there, just hiding behind an outdated assumption.

Data-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Follow RTB House and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.

Must Read

The Arena Group's Stephanie Mazzamaro (left) chats with ad tech consultant Addy Atienza at AdMonsters' Sell Side Summit Austin.

For Publishers, AI Gives Monetizable Data Insight But Takes Away Traffic

Traffic-starved publishers are hopeful that their long-undervalued audience data will fuel advertising’s automated future – if only they can finally wrest control of the industry narrative away from ad tech middlemen.

Q3: The Trade Desk Delivers On Financials, But Is Its Vision Fact Or Fantasy?

The Trade Desk posted solid Q3 results on Thursday, with $739 million in revenue, up 18% year over year. But the main narrative for TTD this year is less about the numbers and more about optics and competitive dynamics.

Comic: He Sees You When You're Streaming

IP Address Match Rates Are a Joke – And It’s No Laughing Matter

According to a new report, IP-to-email matches are accurate just 16% of the time on average, while IP-to-postal matches are accurate only 13% of the time. (Oof.)

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Comic: Gamechanger (Google lost the DOJ's search antitrust case)

The DOJ And Google Sharpen Their Remedy Proposals As The Two Sides Prepare For Closing Arguments

The phrase “caution is key” has become a totem of the new age in US antitrust regulation. It was cited this week by both the DOJ and Google in support of opposing views on a possible divestiture of Google’s sell-side ad exchange.

create a network of points with nodes and connections, plain white background; use variations of green and grey for the dots and the connctions; 85% empty space

Alt Identity Provider ID5 Buys TrueData, Marking Its First-Ever Acquisition

ID5 bought TrueData mainly to tackle what ID5 CEO Mathieu Roche calls the “massive fragmentation” of digital identity, which is a problem on the user side and the provider side.

CTV Manufacturers Have A New Tool For Catching Spoofed Devices

The IAB Tech Lab’s new device attestation feature for its Open Measurement SDK provides a scaled way for original device manufacturers to confirm that ad impressions are associated with real devices.