Home The Sell Sider Two Ways Publishers Can Improve Programmatic Supply Efficiency

Two Ways Publishers Can Improve Programmatic Supply Efficiency

SHARE:
Emry DowningHall, SVP of Programmatic Revenue and Strategy at Unwind Media

The challenges facing publishers are formidable.

For all the advancements in ad tech, publishers are still more rewarded for squeezing another ad on a page or lighting up a duplicate supply path than creating a monetization experience that extends a user session. 

While no legitimate publisher aspires to work with myriad partners or overwhelm their pages with ad placements, if the economic realities and outcomes of our industry continue to reward these practices, it raises the question:

What would a catalyst for meaningful change look like? Judging by the standing-room-only crowd at Sharethrough’s recent Green Media Summit, sustainability in ad tech may be a formidable candidate.

Though I remain a climate neophyte, it doesn’t require seasoned expertise to understand that decisions I make about ad layout, SSP partnerships and bidstream efficiency make a difference on my carbon footprint as a publisher.

Conceptually, this makes sense, but it can be a divisive conversation for publishers that reasonably equate removal or reduction as detrimental to business outcomes. Whether packaged as an environmental benefit or demand path optimization, elimination may be the purest form of supply-path optimization. But, unfortunately, it’s not always the most realistic.

What about improvements that come at no cost to revenue? Is it possible to improve your efficiency as a publisher while also reducing your carbon footprint?

Focusing on requests

Ad requests begin the ad-serving process. They are publisher signals sent to enabled SSPs that define a user and ask for an ad. SSPs take those signals and send “bid requests” to enabled DSPs. This happens per user, per ad unit across every active exchange and supply path that a publisher runs. As a result, the compounding effects can be dramatic, especially in instances of multihop reselling.

While SSPs and DSPs are built to handle large volumes of “queries per second,” there is a financial and environmental cost associated with being inefficient – one that will be increasingly important to optimize as advertisers, DSPs and SSPs fight against increased supply-chain costs and output.

With the goal of reducing total ad requests to SSPs, we’ve been running tests over the last 10 months. So far, two results stand out as having significant impact. These features are integrated via Prebid and require a small amount of code to monitor and manage bid requests and auctions. They have significantly reduced requests while showing no measurable impact to monetization.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

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

Test 1: No ads if idle 

Like most publishers, we refresh ad placements only when in view. We wondered what would happen if we added an additional requirement that the user also must be actively engaged for an ad to qualify for refresh.

To test this, we implemented a change on page that started counting defined events like click, scroll or touchstart. If the counter extends beyond 60 seconds, the user is deemed idle, and we stop requesting ads. 

Prior to testing, I was confident we would reduce requests with this change. What gave me pause was that the potential reduction of total monetized impressions could lead to a negative impact on revenue.

The actual results were encouraging. Desktop bid requests were reduced by 20%, while average desktop viewability improved by 14%. Without any changes to variables like flooring, unpaid impressions per game (impressions with bids that failed to clear our price floors) decreased by 11%, while paid impressions increased by 5%. 

Test 2: Smarter request 

For this test, we wanted to understand what would happen if we used SSP participation signals to throttle our ad requests.

The concept was simple. By ad unit, if Prebid SSPs fail to respond with a bid above our dynamic price floor on three consecutive auctions, we stop requesting that SSP partner. We check again a few minutes later – if they return a qualifying bid, they resume ad serving.

Since this initiative applies to all sessions, we saw an even greater increase in efficiency. Total ad requests decreased by 30% while SSP fill rates (note, this is not the same as win rate) improved by over 50%.

A step toward greater efficiency

In aggregate, these features reduced total ad requests to our SSP partners by more than 50% without any measurable revenue impact. Although that headline lacks the punchiness of a case study touting an immediate revenue increase, these changes have made our inventory more compelling due to our increased efficiency.

As publishers, we tend to prioritize changes that show immediate revenue lift. But it seems reasonable that the benefit of increased efficiency wouldn’t immediately appear in the top line, even if it could have positive impacts down the road. 

PubMatic, for example, cites publisher supply efficiency as one of their evaluation criteria for inclusion in curated marketplace deals.

And Rocky Moss, CEO of ad quality firm DeepSee.io, points out that DSP SPO efforts would benefit from a function that removes inefficient supply paths, “and publishers can also benefit from policies that reduce bid volumes via inefficient supply paths.” 

There’s also a case for user-facing benefits. With fewer ad requests being made, a website is more responsive, especially deep in a session.

Obviously these changes are not a panacea to ad tech’s carbon emission challenges. But they can represent a step forward and are worth exploring for publishers looking to improve overall ad serving efficiency. 

Whether you consider these features the development of more conscious supply or demand path optimization under the veil of sustainability, the label matters far less than the impact their adoption represents.

The Sell Sider” is a column written by the sell side of the digital media community.

Follow Emry Downinghall and AdExchanger on LinkedIn.

For more articles featuring Emry Downinghall, click here.

Must Read

Comic: Off-Platform Media

How RMNs Use MFA And Cheap Inventory To Game Attribution Rules

Retail media is built on its attribution quality, but real purchases can be gamed by programmatic metrics and create perverse incentives for RMNs to serve ads across low-quality inventory.

There’s A Lot Wrong With Google’s And Meta’s Non-Transparent ‘Refund’ Practices

Google and Meta are playing with fire. Their opaque refund practices have already exposed them to customer blowback – and could lead to class-action lawsuits by disgruntled advertisers.

Comic: The Great Online Privacy Battle

How US Intelligence Agencies Buy And Use Programmatic Data For Surveillance

Mike Yeagley, an independent contractor who has scouted and acquired commercial data and technology on behalf of intelligence agencies, is one of the earliest evangelists of using ad tech tracking information to identify and surveil government targets.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Comic: The MFA Cafe

Adalytics Report Torches Ad Tech For Touting MFA Prevention While Scarfing MFA Supply

Practically every ad tech vendor has put out a press release in recent months full of bluster about cutting out made for advertising sites – and yet supply sources remain oversaturated with garbage inventory.

Cloud-Based Collaboration Is Ad Tech’s Post-Cookie Lifeline – But Will It Last?

Cross-cloud data collaboration technology is the best bet for a post-cookie solution. But it’s vulnerable to similar privacy concerns.

Topsort Raises $20 Million To Seize The Post-Cookie Market Opportunity This Year

Topsort raised $20 million, with plans to seize the 2024 opportunity for post-cookie ad tech.