The controversy regarding ID bridging in the bidstream can only be one of two things: confusion over how the ecosystem has evolved or overvigilance at the expense of publishers who are under attack like never before.
The concept of ID bridging has long been the foundation of programmatic advertising. What is cookie matching but an early iteration of ID bridging?
And isn’t it time our industry gets an updated iteration?
Back to basics of ID bridging
The SSP sets a cookie when a user visits a site. The SSP synchronizes this cookie with a DSP cookie during the cookie sync. Later, an impression comes into the SSP, which identifies its cookie and does a lookup against its match table to see if it has a matched DSP cookie.
If so, the SSP bridges its cookie to the DSP cookie and puts it in the buyerID field of the bid response for the DSP. Because the SSP’s match table is static and can only be updated when a cookie sync is performed, mismatches occur frequently.
ID bridging in the bidstream (important distinction) has had a moment recently because well-meaning publishers and advertisers have had trouble digesting ecosystem complexity. Remember, people have multiple cookies over time for the same browser and often use more than one browser. Additionally, cookies are constantly being refreshed, and sync tables built from ID bridging are only as good as the cookie matching frequency.
Cookie match tables are the simplest form of ID bridging, but that doesn’t mean it is perfect. Let’s take the use case of conversion measurement and attribution: If attributing an impression from the web tied to a cookie – or from an APP tied to a MAID or an email – to a conversion that is offline or cross-browser, channel or device, a more complex ID bridge is required. That can be: cookie-to-email, cookie-to-phone, MAID-to-email, MAID-to-phone, email-to-phone or email-to-MAID.
A user sees an email ad for pizza delivery, and then calls to order. The impression occurred in email so an ID bridge is necessary to measure/attribute the impression. The email must be matched to the phone number used to purchase the pizza. Without the ID bridge, the conversion cannot be measured/attributed to the email ad impression.
ID bridging comes to the bidstream
ID bridging in the bidstream is a solution that’s simple to implement. It’s tied to first-party data that’s earned by brands who get loyal customers to opt in, essentially handing them back control.
Transparently doing ID bridging within the bidstream with publisher consent is a step forward for the industry. It works today because it’s at the core of ad tech and marketing technology. Every DSP, SSP, CDP, DMP, clean room and identity graph is built on ID bridging. DealIDs and curated audiences, a rare bright spot for publishers struggling for their futures, also require ID bridging.
In digital advertising, IDs need to be bridged from the supply side to the demand side. Without a stable ID that’s interoperable and tied to offline data, you can’t match conversions to impressions with the accuracy of walled gardens.
The open web needs this parity to compete for ad budgets. After all, cookies, MAIDS and statistical IDs never walk into stores, pick up the phone or use an app. Why are we denying publishers the same advantage Meta gets? It’s ridiculous.
ID bridging in the bidstream is new and rapidly being adopted because it works. ID bridging in the bidstream gives buyers better fidelity and controls when targeting. When you buy a deal ID, you buy a blend of customers. But on an ID, you are buying a person or a device. This allows buyers to right-price their bids and not bid the same for the entire audience, creating substantial incremental advertising revenue for publishers and better performance for advertisers. ID bridging in the bidstream implementation costs are de minimis compared to alternatives. The biggest beneficiaries are publishers with loyal customers, logins and CRM programs.
The IAB recognizes ID bridging and is working on standards that will provide even more value to buyers and publishers. Soon, buyers will be able to differentiate when buying an ID bridged using a statistical method as opposed to buying an ID bridged using deterministic data.
The graph provider that does the bridging will also be transparent, giving buyers what they need to optimize performance and reach and measure online and offline sales. ID bridging in the bidstream makes what was opaque to DSPs and buyers transparent, down to the identity provider and match linkage method used.
With this fidelity, buyers can choose how they target an audience to achieve their goal. An airline may choose to target using statistical IDs with the intention of reaching an entire household because trips are often family decisions. Alternatively, a pharma advertiser may choose to only target deterministic linkages because medication is not a family decision.
Consider a performance campaign with unlimited budget at goal: The buyer could test multiple types of linkages to determine which perform for their campaign, maximizing conversions.
A simple solution
ID bridging in the bidstream is not a new phenomenon. It’s just an evolution of what’s empowered the ecosystem to thrive in the past. This is why many of the largest publishers, SSPs and DSPs are embracing transparent ID bridging.
Without a working alternative to third-party cookies, brands are not able to reach their customers efficiently, publisher CPMs suffer, and the consumer experience is less engaging. Putting publishers in control and letting them use their first-party data with IDs the buy side wants is an alternative to the Privacy Sandbox. And it will work after Chrome deprecates third-party cookies.
As is often the case, the simplest, most straightforward solution is the best solution.
“Data-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.
Follow LiveIntent and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.
For more articles featuring Matt Keiser, click here.
