Adapting to the New Cookieless reality: An Expert Update for Publishers
Welcome to a new piece in Yieldbird’s series, drawing from our own research into the significant shifts in the programmatic…
In the dynamic programmatic advertising environment, publishers are struggling with the challenge of maximizing ad revenue while complying with privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA. These regulations have heightened user awareness and control over their personal data, leading to a significant impact on programmatic advertising models. The introduction of the Transparency & Consent Framework (TCF) by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Europe represents a significant step towards respecting user privacy with programmatic advertising needs in mind.
User Consent and Ad Blocking Challenges
Privacy Regulations and User Consent: The enforcement of GDPR, CCPA, and other privacy regulations has transformed the digital advertising ecosystem, placing user consent at the forefront. Publishers now face the intricate task of monetizing their digital content without infringing upon user privacy rights.
The Ad Blocking Phenomenon: The widespread use of ad blockers and the increasing preference for non-personalized advertising further complicate the revenue generation model for publishers. This scenario necessitates innovative solutions that respect user privacy while ensuring sustainable ad revenue for publishers.
Prebid Stack offers a promising solution by enabling publishers to display ads even in the presence of ad blockers or when users opt out of certain data processing activities. It allows to implement an anti-ad-block feature, allowing publishers to reclaim potential lost revenues and serve ads that respect user consent preferences.
While some users may provide full consent for all data gathering and usage purposes, others use their right to selectively choose which purposes they are comfortable with. This selection process raises an important question for publishers: How is it possible to serve ads to users who do not give full consent for all the TCF-listed purposes?
The answer lies in the flexibility of header bidding solutions like Prebid Stack, which enable the serving of ads even when users decline consent for certain purposes. The TCF outlines various purposes for data processing, and not all are equally critical for the ad serving process. For instance, Google Ad Manager (GAM) and certain Supply-Side Platforms (SSPs) might require consent for specific purposes to serve ads effectively.
However, when users specifically deny consent for purposes such as 2 (Use limited data to select advertising), 7 (Measure advertising performance), 9 (Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources), and 10 (Develop and improve services), serving ads through GAM can become challenging. Despite this, the situation is not entirely bleak. There exists a subset of bidders within the header bidding ecosystem willing to accept ad requests and engage in the bidding process without consent for these particular purposes.
This capability underscores the importance for publishers to understand which SSPs can accommodate such requests. Certain SSPs have clarified in their terms and conditions, or through direct communication, that they do not require consent for these specific purposes to place a bid. This knowledge is crucial for publishers looking to navigate the consent landscape efficiently, ensuring that opportunities for ad serving and revenue generation are maximized even when full consent is not granted by the user.
How does the non-consent traffic monetization feature work?
Upon a user’s arrival on a website, Prebid Stack determines the user’s TCF consent status, categorizing them into one of two groups:
1.Users who give their consent for all the purposes 2, 7, 9, and 10.
2.Users who withhold their consent for any of the purposes 2, 7, 9, and 10.
For the first group, Prebid Stack proceeds as usual, conducting the ad auction and communicating the necessary information to Google Ad Manager (GAM) and the SSPs.
However, for the second group, Prebid Stack adopts a customized strategy. It specifically targets ad requests to bidders that have been pre-identified for their willingness to participate in
such cases – it bypasses GAM.
Automatic and Manual Bidder Selection:
For demand originating from Yieldbird (Yieldbird bidders), this bidder selection process is automated. We have pre-identified bidders agreeable to bidding under these consent restrictions, thereby eliminating the need for publishers to manually adjust settings within the interface.
On the other hand, publishers utilizing their own SSP accounts (Own bidders) will need to undertake this selection process themselves. It’s important for those publishers to review the SSP’s terms and conditions or reach out to them directly to ascertain their stance on bidding without consent.
Conclusion: Balancing Privacy and Profitability with Prebid Stack
In summary, Prebid Stack offers a strategic solution for publishers facing the complexities of user consent under the TCF. By differentiating between users based on their consent for specific purposes and adapting ad requests accordingly, it allows publishers to bypass the constraints of Google Ad Manager (GAM) in scenarios of partial consent. This not only aligns with privacy regulations but also ensures publishers can sustain their ad revenue, highlighting Yieldbird’s innovative approach to overcoming digital advertising challenges.
