Home On TV & Video Fill Rates And Other Issues With Video Header Bidding

Fill Rates And Other Issues With Video Header Bidding

SHARE:

On TV And Video” is a column exploring opportunities and challenges in advanced TV and video.

Today’s column is written by Ed Shannon, chief revenue officer at SpringServe.

The “I won the lottery” element of display header bidding is not the same with video.

As others have noted, there is no actual header in video, making the tech even more of a hack, which hurts customer experience on a publisher’s most important content asset. Video inventory is a scarce and valuable product to be held close to the vest, some have warned, and video header bidding latency and data leakage may occur.

Despite these risks, publishers eagerly ask me about it all the time. But aside from latency and data leakage, there are a few different, but equally important, arguments why video header bidding is more myth than truth.

Fill Rates Are Big Trouble For Publishers

Publishers gain advantage with display header bidding, which pits bidders against each other in a more direct manner. But this is where video header bidding doesn’t come through.

With the current VPAID technology, buyers have an unbelievable advantage from the data they can collect before the bid, and they get even more data right after they bid. They can use this data to pull back and not show any ad at all without paying the publisher for that lost impression. With this tactic, often called “opportunity abandonment,” there is no money changing hands. Advertisers only pay for ads shown.

Fill rates are often 50% at best as a result of opportunity abandonment. This means that publishers contend with unsold inventory for their most valuable content. What’s more, it takes away publisher control. Rather than creating a package of inventory to sell to a buyer, buyers can cherry-pick inventory with no ability for the seller to know how or why, leaving them unable to negotiate or optimize.

Publishers Gain More Control With Deal ID

An intermediary that offers a video header bidding solution may be more focused on increasing the amount of video it can offer to its demand partners, rather than purely increasing demand for publishers. This conflict may place a publisher’s most valuable content assets in the hands of partners who are less concerned with quality and control.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

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

Sellers using video header bidding can’t tell if there is bias toward certain demand sources based on internal needs to please media buyer clients. This can hurt buyers and sellers alike, who are not able to interact with one another, which may benefit each other less than if they were working together directly.

Deal ID solves this problem, ensuring that buyers can automatically target audiences on video content while publishers preserve data, latency and the advertiser relationship. And for publishers that want to rely less on direct sales, it can act as a scalable, automated channel that is still safe and profitable.

Video Quality Control

Like on other programmatic channels, video header bidding opens the door for foul play above and beyond spoofing and data leakage that can occur on display. And since the audience consuming video content may be composed of the most engaged people on the site, the data is even more valuable.

Fraudsters can spoof good sites if a publisher puts its name on the list of five, 10 or 20 different intermediary header bidding “partner lists,” or even if they don’t. Only a publisher can police spoofers, as the Financial Times recently did. It’s important to be clear with partners about where inventory can go and perform regular checks across the industry.

Video fraud is already twice as prevalent as display fraud [PDF]. A lot of programmatic display has become a joke, hurting good publishers, and video will go the same way unless publishers start protecting themselves from having their customer base and data compromised and their inventory value diluted. Publishers should be wary of the potential pitfalls associated with video header bidding and be prepared to guard the quality of their inventory on all programmatic channels.

Follow SpringServe (@springserve) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Editor’s note: This is a modified version of a column that first appeared in Wednesday’s On TV & Video newsletter.

Must Read

A comic depicting Judge Leonie Brinkema's view of the her courtroom where the DOJ vs. Google ad tech antitrust trial is about to begin. (Comic: Court Is In Session)

Your Day One Recap: DOJ vs. Google Goes Deep Into The Ad Tech Weeds

It’s not often one gets to hear sworn witnesses in federal court explain the intricacies of header bidding under oath. But that’s what happened during the first day of the Google ad tech-focused antitrust case in Virginia on Monday.

Comic: What Else? (Google, Jedi Blue, Project Bernanke)

Project Cheat Sheet: A Rundown On All Of Google’s Secret Internal Projects, As Revealed By The DOJ

What do Hercule Poirot, Ben Bernanke, Star Wars and C.S. Lewis have in common? If you’re an ad tech nerd, you’ll know the answer immediately.

shopping cart

The Wonderful Brand Discusses Testing OOH And Online Snack Competition

Wonderful hadn’t done an out-of-home (OOH) marketing push in more than 15 years. That is, until a week ago, when it began a campaign across six major markets to promote its new no-shell pistachio packs.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony of any government witnesses who aren’t economists or antitrust experts during the upcoming ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Execs Off the Stand In Its Upcoming Antitrust Trial

Google doesn’t want AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley – you know, the godfather of programmatic – to testify during its ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

How HUMAN Uncovered A Scam Serving 2.5 Billion Ads Per Day To Piracy Sites

Publishers trafficking in pirated movies, TV shows and games sold programmatic ads alongside this stolen content, while using domain cloaking to obscure the “cashout sites” where the ads actually ran.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Thanks To The DOJ, We Now Know What Google Really Thought About Header Bidding

Starting last week and into this week, hundreds of court-filed documents have been unsealed in the lead-up to the Google ad tech antitrust trial – and it’s a bonanza.