audience selling for publishers: part 1

8/7/2019 Audience Selling for Publishers: Part 1

1/60

PART ONE OF A TWO PART SERIES:

REAL-TIME BIDDING & THE

INDIRECT SALES CHANNEL


2/60

Advertising aintwhat it used to be,Anonymous Andy.

Advertisers and agencies are evolving theirstrategies to reach their target audience based on their

interests, because in a world where ads are everywhere,

individually tailored ones are the most effective.


3/60

True that.

Audiences are comprised of individuals with a uniqueset of interests, and online publishers have the greatest

advantage of any advertising medium to deliver individually

tailored, interest-based advertising.


4/60

86% of agencies intend toleverage audience targeting

in 2011.Better targeting of ads is the#1 incentive for advertisers toincrease online ad spending.

If agencies and advertisers areinterested in audience buying,publishers should be thinkingabout audience selling.

AUDIENCE SELLING FOR PUBLISHERS Part 1: RTB & The Indirect Sales Channel

PubMatic + Digiday Study 2010, Forrester


5/60

Audience Selling Augments thePublisher's Existing Selling Strategy

The Holistic Publisher Selling Strategy

DIRECT[ With Sell-Side

Platform Support ]

RTB Sold by the Publisher

Audience Packagingwith 3rd Party Data

INDIRECT[ With Sell-Side

Platform Support ]

RTB Sold byDSPs and Ad Nets

20

DIRECT[ Independent ]

Premium Sponsorships

Custom Campaigns

Non-Standard Ad Units

Guaranteed Placement


6/60

Two Sales Channels, Two WhitePapers, One Holistic Publisher

Selling Strategy

Q1 2011

THE INDIRECT SALES CHANNEL

Q2 2011

THE DIRECT SALES CHANNEL

These white papers can be downloaded at PubMatic.com/AudienceSelling.

Hard copies can be requested by contacting us directly at [email protected].


7/60


8/60

User Opinions onAudience-Based

Advertising

5


9/60

Privacy issues have been part of the discussion at nearly every conference in the

online advertising space for the better part of two years. Most of us that work in online

advertising have our own personal opinions about how audience data is collected for the

purpose of advertising. And while every person that works in the online advertising space

is also an Internet user, it is fair to say no matter where you fall on the user privacy

advocacy scale that individual opinions from people that work in online advertising do

not represent the majority of the population. Clearly, if you work in online advertising, you

know more about how online advertising works than the general population.

User privacy is paramount, no doubt, but despite all the discussion about privacy in our

industry, at universities and now on Capitol Hill, little public data currently exists about

what the U.S. general population actually understands about how online advertising

works and how users feel about it.

To be sure, studies do exist, but until now, there havent been any studies that ask

Internet users what they know about online tracking and how they feel about it across

three critical stages: Before they know how it works, after they know how it works, and

after they know how it works and with an understanding of the value-trade offs.


10/60

7


Audience Selling is the act of publishers leveraging advanced audience targeting data, either

directly through their sales forces or indirectly via intermediaries such as ad networks and Demand

Side Platforms (DSPs), in order to sell and deliver relevant advertising based on individual interests.

Traditionally, publishers have sold advertising largely based on contextual relevance and limited

information about their audience by way of surveys and sparse registration information. With

superior audience insights that combine contextual data with anonymous demographic and

behavioral data from 3rd parties, publishers can exponentially expand the number of ways their

audience can be targeted, which in turn, increases the number of advertisers to sell to.

Just because a member of a publishers audience is reading about sports, doesnt mean that

audience members only interest is sports. That audience member may very well be in the market

for a new car, computer, or perhaps looking to make home improvements. That audience member

is valuable to a wide variety of advertisers, and advertisers will pay a premium to reach them if they

know it is their target audience.

Leveraging robust anonymous audience data, publishers can see their audience in new ways,

have a better understanding of their interests, and deliver advertising that is more relevant to their

audience.

The result is a better user experience for the audience, better performing campaigns for the

advertiser, and new monetization opportunities with greater ad revenue for the publisher.

Audience-Based Advertising isInterest-BasedAdvertising

DEMOGRAPHIC + +CONTEXTUAL BEHAVIORAL

[ 3RD PARTY ANONYMOUS DATA ]


11/60


12/60

Q: How do users feel about havinganonymous data collected aboutthem in order to deliver interest-based, relevant advertising?

A: It depends on how muchinformation they have.

Semantics matter, especially when every word is a keyword. If someone asked you if youd rather be

tracked or have anonymous data collected about your browsing behavior, what do you think youd

choose? Perhaps one sounds better to than the other, but one thing is clear - it is impossible to make an

informed decision about either one without having a clear understanding of what tracked and anonymous

data collected about your browsing behavior means.

As an industry, we make a lot of assumptions about how Internet users feel about anonymous online

behavioral tracking without anybody really asking them how they feel. During the course of creating this

white paper, we were unable to fi nd even one study that asked Internet users how they felt about havingsome of their anonymous online behavior collected for the purpose of advertising, while also asking if they

understood what that same tracking meant.

9



13/60

Understanding of TwoTypes of Data

INFERRED DECLARED

+ No PII (Personally Identifi ableInformation) such as ones name,address, etc.

+ Based on anonymous onlinebrowsing behavior

+ The user actively and knowinglydeclares information about oneself

+ This data is NOT passed forthe purpose of interest-basedadvertising

With the limited number of studies that exist on user

opinions about interest-based advertising

It isnt clear that users understand different types of data and

how it is collected

It isnt clear that users understand that behavioral tracking is

based on inferred (anonymous) data

It isnt clear that users understand the benefi ts of inferred

(anonymous) data collection.

20


14/60

Survey of U.S. Internet UsersThe Internet user, the online publisher audience, is the center of our data-driven advertising

ecosystem and their privacy is paramount. Whether through self-regulation or Congressional

legislation, Internet users should be able to choose what data collected about them can be

used for the purpose of online advertising. The outstanding question is, when Internet users arepresented with the option of deciding what type of data collection they support or do not support,

do they have enough information to make a decision that is best for them? And will their opinion

change depending on the amount of information they have?

In order to fi nd out the answer to those questions, PubMatic commissioned an independent online

research fi rm, Knowledge Networks, to conduct a survey of 500 U.S. Internet users.

The study was conducted in early 2011 and included a representative, random sample of

individuals that categorized themselves as Internet users.

User Opinions on

Audience-BasedAdvertising

+

11



15/60

20

Key Takeaway #1

Users don't understand that the 3rd party data used forinterest-based advertising is anonymous.

When the survey participants were asked if they knew that some

of their online behavior might be tracked about them for the

purpose of advertising, 71% ACKNOWLEDGED THEY KNEW.

When the survey participants were asked if they knew the online

data collected about them for the purpose of advertising was

anonymous, ONLY 40% UNDERSTOOD IT WAS ANONYMOUS.


16/60

Key Takeaway #2

Users are far more accepting of interest-basedadvertising when they understand that the 3rd party data

used is anonymous.

When asked without an understanding that only anonymous

data is used for interest-based advertising,64% DISAPPROVED.

When asked after understanding that only anonymous data

is used for interest-based advertising, 40% OF THOSE WHO HAD

DISAPPROVED CHANGED THEIR MIND AND APPROVED.

13



17/60

Key Takeaway #3

The more users understand the benefi ts associated withinterest-based advertising, the more they are supportive of it.

When the survey participants were asked how they felt about

having online data collected about them - without understanding

it is anonymous data - for interest-based advertising,

When the survey participants understood that the data collection

was anonymous and they understood that one of the benefi ts

was more relevant advertising,40% CHANGED THEIR MINDS

AND APPROVED.

When the survey participants understood that the data collection

was anonymous and they understood the benefi ts included

more relevant advertising AND that it helped subsidize free

content, 53% CHANGED THEIR MINDS AND APPROVED.

20

64% DISAPPROVED.


18/60

Knowing the "How" and"Why" Changes Everything

15

The majority of Internet userssay they dont like having theirbrowsing behavior tracked

until they understand the datacollected is anonymous and thebenefi ts are explained.


Privacy is paramount for Internet users. And it is fair to say that sentiment is echoed by the vast majority

of companies that work within our ecosystem including advertisers, data providers, DSPs / ad networks,

SSPs, and publishers because at the end of the day, the people that make up our industry are Internet

users too. The vast majority of companies in the online advertising ecosystem, including PubMatic, adhere

to strict policies that our industry has proactively created to protect the rights of the user.

The PubMatic / Knowledge Networks study was not about whether or not legislation should be passed

about tracking browsing behavior, because Internet users deserve to choose what information about them

is tracked, regardless of whether or not the data collected is anonymous. Internet users should have the

ability to easily activate a do not track solution. However, the question that has not been adequately

answered in previous studies is that when Internet users are given a choice about whether or not they

support anonymous online behavioral tracking, will the users be given enough information for them to make

a well-informed decision?

U.S. Internet users, at present time, do not understand the difference between inferred (anonymous)

data and declared (actively given) data, and how those different types of data are used for

interest-based advertising.


19/60

Conclusion

The PubMatic / Knowledge Networks study concluded that the overwhelming majority of Internet users do

not understand how online advertising works, specifi cally interest-based advertising. U.S. Internet users do

not clearly understand the difference between inferred data and declared data and how that data is used

for advertising. While 71% of the respondents understood that information about them might be tracked

online for advertising purposes, 40% did not understand that online browsing behavior used for online

advertising targeting is anonymous.

U.S Internet users do not consider the benefi ts they receive from having anonymous data collected,

including more relevant advertising and access to free content, when simply asked how they feel about

anonymous tracking.

Content doesnt pay for itself, advertising does. And even in the minority of cases where there is a fee toaccess content, it doesnt guarantee the advertising goes away. If online content gets to a point where

most publishers have to charge a fee to access it, that doesnt mean ads will disappear. There would

likely be content pricing wars where publishers have to charge the minimum amount possible to stay

competitive, and they will still have to subsidize lower content fees with irrelevant advertising.

According to the PubMatic / Knowledge Networks study, when U.S. Internet users understand the value

trade-offs for anonymous browsing behavior tracking specifi cally more relevant advertising and access to

free content - they are much more supportive of it Not all Internet users are opposed to anonymous data

collection, and during the course of the study, more than half of Internet users that understood the value

trade-offs changed their minds and were, in fact, supportive of anonymous data collection.

It all comes down to understanding

Whether it is through self-regulation or legislation, when given a choice about anonymous tracking, Internet

users deserve to have all the facts about how it works and the benefi ts they derive from it before making

a decision. Once they are appropriately armed with this information, they should have the means at their

disposal to easily implement a do-not-track option if they prefer, or not to.

20


20/60

The Publisher

Audience Selling

Opportunity

17


21/60


22/60

Meet Anonymous Andy

He represents a member of your Websites audience. Hisreal name probably isnt Andy. You dont know his real name

or any personally identifi able information (PII) and you dont

want to unless he has actively chosen to give it to you.

The icons represent

Anonymous Andy's

inferred interests

based on 3rd party

anonymous data.

Hundreds of brands

that may want to reach

Anonymous Andy based

on his inferred interests,

if they knew what those

interests were.

19



23/60

Unlock Your Audience Selling Potential

Publishers that previously only sold to advertisers thatmatched their content can now exponentially expand

their advertiser prospects.

20

Illustrat

iveSam

pleof

Brands

20


24/60

Different Advertiser Categories Want to Reach Anonymous

Andy Based on His Different Inferred Interests

A travel company or airline may want to show Anonymous

Andy the latest travel deals because he travels frequently.

RETAIL

FOOD &DINING

AIRLINE

HEALTH &FITNESS

EDUCATION

GAMING

HOME &GARDEN

AUTO

PETS

PARENTING &FAMILY

SHOPPING

MUSIC

ELECTRONICS

GREENLIFESTYLE

SPORTS

TRAVEL

REAL ESTATE

WOMEN'SINTERESTS

INSURANCE

FINANCE

21




25/60

Because Anonymous Andy appears to be interested in

purchasing electronics and MP3s, some electronics companies,

watch brands, music labels, and shoe companies are interested

in reaching him.


20

RETAIL

FOOD &DINING

AIRLINE

HEALTH &FITNESS

EDUCATION

GAMING

HOME &GARDEN

AUTO

PETS

PARENTING &FAMILY

SHOPPING

MUSIC

ELECTRONICS

GREENLIFESTYLE

SPORTS

TRAVEL

REAL ESTATE

WOMEN'SINTERESTS

INSURANCE

FINANCE


26/60

Auto and insurance companies want to

reach Anonymous Andy because he has been

looking into purchasing a new automobile.

23



RETAIL

FOOD &DINING

AIRLINE

HEALTH &FITNESS

EDUCATION

GAMING

HOME &GARDEN

AUTO

PETS

PARENTING &FAMILY

SHOPPING

MUSIC

ELECTRONICS

GREENLIFESTYLE

SPORTS

TRAVEL

REAL ESTATE

WOMEN'SINTERESTS

INSURANCE

FINANCE


27/60

Insight Into Inferred Interests Expands the Number

of Advertiser Categories that Want to Reach Your

Anonymous Audience


20

RETAIL

FOOD &DINING

AIRLINE

HEALTH &FITNESS

GAMING

HOME &GARDEN

AUTO

PETS

PARENTING &FAMILY

SHOPPING

MUSIC

ELECTRONICS

GREENLIFESTYLE

SPORTS

TRAVEL

REAL ESTATE

INSURANCE

FINANCEEDUCATION

WOMEN'SINTERESTS


28/60


29/60

CONTEXTUAL

ONLY

Similar to demographic data, contextual data is a

core part of interest-based advertising. Publishers

often use 3rd party companies to improve the

accuracy of their contextual targeting, but as a

stand alone method, contextual targeting does not

take into consideration an audiences demographics

or interests. As a result, contextual targeting only

can provide advertisers with the ability to target

relevant content but without knowing anything

about the user. In this graphic, the user is on a

sports-related website, and the advertiser has no

insight into his interests, other than sports.

20


30/60


31/60

Determining the Value of Data

Recency and Frequency are important indicators for purchase intent.

Below are two anonymous users that have inferred interest in travel. The one on the left has visited

two travel Websites in the past three months. The one on the right has visited four in the past week.

Advertisers are willing to pay more to reach the anonymous user on the right as the anonymous user

on the right is more likely to purchase travel tickets sooner.

Anonymous behavioral information helps advertisers

determine where the user is in the purchase funnel

THE FURTHERDOWN THE FUNNEL,

THE HIGHER THE

PRICE PAID TO

REACH THEM

$

$ $ $

TRAVEL

PURCHASE INTENTTRAVEL

INTEREST

AWARENESS

INTEREST

INTENT

20


32/60

RTB for Publisher

Audience Selling

29


33/60

Audience-based advertising using 3rd party anonymous data can be sold without

leveraging Real-Time Bidding (RTB), but RTB is more effi cient and provides publisherswith signifi cantly greater revenue than non-RTB audience-based campaigns.

Unlike non-RTB audience-based campaigns, RTB offers impression-level optimization

with unique bidding precision for every ad impression. RTB can also include real-time

creative optimization, which is a major contributor to improved campaign performance.

The improved targeting capabilities that RTB provides allows advertisers to pay exactly

what they believe the combination of media and audience is worth, resulting in greater

ROI for the advertiser. In September 2010, PubMatic conducted a multi-party case

study with four leading DSPs that revealed advertiser ROI for RTB campaigns was 101%

improved on average, as compared to the non-RTB campaigns that were monitored

during the course of the study.

The most commonly recognized publisher benefi t of RTB is signifi cantly increased revenue

for unsold ad inventory. Very simply, RTB campaigns perform better and provide a clear

and measurably higher return on investment for advertisers than non-RTB campaigns due

to their greater effi ciency and more precise targeting capabilities.

RTB has leapfrogged what was previously considered remnant inventory on the CPM

value chain PubMatic's data shows that over 10% of RTB bids are over $10 CPM. As

a result, RTB is becoming a major part of premium publishers overall revenue strategy.

Even some publishers that were vocal critics of ad networks in the past are showing

interest and enthusiasm for an RTB-only solution.

While the benefi ts of RTB are clear, it is not a perfect solution. Publisher concerns about

RTB are generally formed around the possible negative impact that RTB will have on

their direct sales efforts over the long-term including channel confl ict and data leakage.With technology advancement and improved processes, the risk for publishers using RTB

is rapidly shrinking.


34/60

Unique bidding/pricing precision

Audience attributes

Ad impression attributes(ad tag type, atf/btf, etc.)

Site awareness/context relevance

Real-time creative optimization

X

X

X

RTB vs. Non-RTB

AUDIENCE TARGETING WITH RTB

AUDIENCE TARGETING (NON-RTB)

SITE BASED TARGETING (CONTEXTUAL)

AUDIENCEEXPERIENCE

Based on More

Relevant Advertising

PUBLISHERREVENUE

Based on Higher

Priced Campaigns

ADVERTISERSATISFACTION

Based on Improved

Campaign Performance


Audience attributes




X

X

X

XX


Audience attributes




X

X

31



35/60

20

RTB Growth is Unprecedented

0%

50%

20%

5%

1.5%

Key Drivers:

Effective: RTB signifi cancy improves revenue for publishersand campaign performance

Effi cient: Programmatic ad buying is more automated

than manual and reduces media waste

In Demand: Agencies have organized Trading Desks toleverage it, RTB will move into the direct sales channel

*Based on industry market projections and PubMatic internal growth data

*$5B+

2008 2009 2010 20112015

% of Non-

Guaranteed

Ad Spend

(via RTB)


36/60

eCPMIndex

PubMatic (with RTB)

PubMatic (without RTB)

eCPMIndex

PubMatic (with RTB)


RTB Increases Publisher RevenueAcross All Verticals

PubMatics Ad Revenue Report from October 2010 included the fi rst ever case study that revealed solid

evidence that RTB performs better for advertisers than non-RTB campaigns across several advertising

verticals. Similarly, the study results concluded that RTB provides consistently higher CPMs for publishers

than non-RTB campaigns, across multiple publisher verticals. During the course of four different ad

campaigns run by four different DSPs, PubMatic publishers saw aggregate revenue lift of 64% over

non-RTB inventory purchased for the same campaigns.

The charts below provide further evidence that RTB consistently delivers higher CPMs for publishers

across multiple verticals. The data in the charts represent aggregate RTB vs. Non-RTB eCPM byPubMatic publisher vertical during the months of June through December 2010.

Two Week Intervals: June - December 2010

NEWS &REFERENCE

WOMEN'S

INTERESTS

33



37/60

eCPMIndex

PubMatic (with RTB)


eCPMIndex

PubMatic (with RTB)


eCPMIndex

PubMatic (with RTB)


Two Week Intervals: June - December 2010

GAMING

TRAVEL

ECOMMERCE

20


38/60

2011 RTB

vs. Non-RTB

2015 RTB

vs. Non-RTB (Projected)

2011 Rich Media RTB

vs. Standard Display RTB

2012 Rich Media RTB

vs. Standard Display RTB

(Projected)

RTB Trends

Sources: PubMatic proprietary data, PubMatic + Digiday Study 2010, Google, ComScore, Mobclix

Percentage of Online

Inventory Purchased

via RTB

Percentage of

Online Inventory

Purchased via RTB

that is Rich Media

35



39/60

RTB Trends

Percentage of

PubMatic Publishers

Opted in for RTB

Campaigns

Percentage of Publisher

Revenue Flowing

Through PubMatic's

Sell-Side Platform

2011 Mobile RTB

vs. Mobile Non-RTB

Percentage of

Mobile Inventory

Purchasedvia RTB

Standards for RTB

A growing group of companies are working together to

improve standardization under the auspices of the OpenRTB

group. OpenRTB was founded in 2010 and has a mission

of providing open industry standards for communication

between buyers of RTB advertising and sellers of publisher

inventory. Initial publisher focused objectives include creating

a method for automatically retrieving a list of publisher

restrictions for each advertiser and RTB request standards

for publisher creative restrictions. To learn more about Open

RTB, visit http://www.OpenRTB.info.

20


40/60


41/60

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

+ Facilitates RTB transaction

+ Ensures highest payer gets

ad space

+ Ensures against channel

confl ict

+ Ensures data safety

+ Ensures brand protection

+ Gets relevant advertising

+ Has better user experience

+ Receives premium pricing

+ Has creative controls in

place and monitored

+ Gets comprehensive

analytics from campaign

from PubMatic

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

AUDIENCE

SELL-SIDE

PLATFORM

(SSP)

For Publishers:Single Audience

Sales Access Point

For Demand

Partners:

Main Conduit to

Access Premium

Inventory (on behalf

of advertisers and

agencies)

SELL SIDE

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

PREMIUM

PUBLISHER

20


42/60


43/60

As the number of publishers that open up their inventory for RTB grows, and the overall

scale of available RTB inventory grows, publishers need the highest levels of protection

to ensure that RTB is working for them as part of a holistic selling strategy. While it isdiffi cult to dispute that RTB improves publisher revenue at least in the short-term -

cautious publishers have voiced concern over the lack of control that RTB may present.

Specifi cally, some publishers fear that RTB could possibly have a negative impact on their

direct sales efforts because of channel confl ict, transparency, and excessive pixeling that

could lead to data leakage and slow ad loading speed.

While publisher concerns about RTB are valid, recent technology advancements have

been made that will allow publishers to have much greater transparency and control over

RTB campaigns.

One of the most anticipated breakthroughs for publishers in order to help them better

control the pricing of RTB campaigns is the introduction of Dynamic Pricing Floors.

Dynamic Pricing Floors will allow publishers to adjust their selling price during the course

of a campaign in order to encourage bidders to offer fair media value for their inventory,

while making sure that the fi ll rate is optimal.

Publishers can exercise additional control in an RTB environment by choosing to make

their web site URL transparent or not in the bidding process. By making their URL

transparent, publishers can ensure the highest value advertising for their premium brand.

However, some publishers are concerned about creating channel confl ict for their direct

sales forces. In this case, publishers can go beyond restrictive blocklists by obscuring

their URL in the bidding process so that advertisers cannot know where their ads will

show up. By using 3rd party content verifi cation solutions, advertisers can ensure that

they are transacting within a safe environment.

Other recent technology advancements to help publishers gain greater control over RTBcampaigns include automated blocklist management, ad loading speed monitoring, and

data leakage protection to help to ensure that publishers are getting a fair value trade-off

from pixel droppers on their site.


44/60

Channel Confl ict Management& Creative Controls

Having advanced brand control tools in place are critical to ensure that publishers achieve the maximum

benefi ts of RTB without having creative violations or creating channel confl ict with their direct sales forces.

A robust Sell Side Platform (SSP) should scan every RTB ad to ensure compliance, and should provide

publishers a full suite of controls to ensure the publisher is protected. These are the control tools PubMatic

provides to publishers:

Automated Blocklist Manager:

Allows publishers to manage blocklists in one simple to use interface

Automatically scans every ad tag in real-time

Checks both the click-through URL and redirected landing page URL for every ad

Blocks ads that violate the blocklist from being shown to the user

Live Creative Monitor:

Allows publisher ad operations teams to view creative as they appear on the publishers site

Allows ad operations teams to view creative from around the globe

Alerts PubMatic service team for immediate action where necessary

Creative Violations Report:

Allows publishers to view a summary of the ad violations that PubMatic has proactively detected and

block from the publishers site

Ad Inspector Browser Plug-In:

Gathers information on all text, image, and video ads on the publishers site

Allows publishers ad operations teams to mouse-over any ad and instantly determine which ad network

or DSP served the ad and at what price

Alerts PubMatic service team for immediate action where necessary with the ability to easily screenshot

and email debugging information

41



45/60

Brand & Pricing Protection

Malware Detector:

Protects against the threat of malware

Automatically scans for malware across thousands of ad tags


Global Ad Speed Monitor:

Monitors global ad-tags for performance and latency

Suspends ad networks if latency crosses pre-determined thresholds


Dynamic Pricing Floors:

In the coming months, Dynamic Pricing Floors for publishers will be one of the most signifi cant

milestones to date in the evolution of RTB. With Dynamic Pricing Floors, publishers will have the

opportunity to get closer than ever to capturing the fair media value of each ad impression.

While RTB acquired inventory generally does demand a higher price than non-RTB inventory, the

companies that represent advertisers and specialize in RTB are continually evaluating and refi ning their

bidding strategies in order to reach their audience at a price that maximizes their ROI. Publishers should

have the ability to evaluate and refi ne their selling price dynamically, by adjusting fl oors at the ad tag,

user, and advertiser level, which will enable them to set the highest bid levels possible while maintaining

optimal fi ll rate.

20


46/60

Protection Against Data Leakage

Publishers work hard to create premium audiences, so why should any 3rd party be able to identify and

use it without giving the publishers what they deserve?

PubMatic estimates that data leakage costs publishers $1B per year. Data leakage occurs when 3rd

parties capture a publishers audience data and then use that data to target users outside of the site from

which the data was taken, without an appropriate economic interchange. That leads to direct revenue

loss for the publisher. This is a problem that has grown considerably in the past two years along with the

increasing advertiser demand for audience-based advertising.

The practice of dropping pixels is a core component of the data-driven advertising ecosystem that we are

a part of, and many publishers have fi nancially benefi ted from the practice especially because publishers

have, until very recently, lacked the ability to monetize their audience as well as 3rd parties. In the majority

of cases, the publisher receives revenue either directly or indirectly - from the 3rd party pixel droppers,

but publishers should have extra protection to ensure they know who is dropping pixels on their site, how

often, and what the revenue return is.

Data Firewall 2.0: Audience Data Transparency Technology with Expert Guidance for a Better

Understanding

PubMatics Data Firewall is the only technology that helps publishers protect against data leakage by

providing them with transparency and fi nancial insight into third party pixeling. Data Firewall 2.0 gives

publishers deeper insight into who is dropping pixels on a global level, so they can take action to prevent

unfavorable pixeling.

1. White Lists for Pixel Droppers

Not all pixel dropping is for collecting audience data. Publishers understand that pixels are dropped for a

multitude of reasons including frequency capping, ad delivery confi rmation, content verifi cation, and more.

Publishers need to be able to mark known and legitimate pixel droppers as safe or white-listed.

2. Protection for International Audience Data

Pixel droppers are not restricted to any specifi c geo location. PubMatic understands this and has

expanded its pixel scanning service across the globe. With additional geo locations, the publisher is betterprotected against pixels dropped on their international visitors.

3. Expansive Pixel Droppers Database

PubMatic continues to provide publishers a comprehensive understanding of pixel droppers, how they

function, and how publishers can best prevent data leakage. With this release, Data Firewall can now track

more than 300 unique pixel droppers.

43



47/60


48/60

RTB Campaign Flow forthe Indirect Sales Channel

[Detailed View]

WEB

MOBILEVIDEO

PUBLISHER

1. Page request and ad call

request goes to PubMatic

4. Dynamic fl oor pricing is

activated - only demand

partners bidding above

fl oor price minimum

proceed into competition

5. Publisher brand

controls activated

+ Blocklist Manager

+ Ad Speed Assurance

+ Malware Detector

7. Winning demand partner

serves ad to publisher

45



49/60

DEMAND PARTNERS

WITH ADVERTISER

CAMPAIGNSIN WAITING +

AUDIENCE DATA

2. PubMatic sendsad request to RTB

demand partner pool

3. Demand partners

return bids in real-time

6. Notifi cation sent

to highest paying

demand partner

meeting pricing

and brand control

requirements

20


50/60

The Two ChannelAudience Selling

Strategy

47


51/60

Until very recently, publishers generally have not leveraged 3rd party audience data to

increase the value of their ad space for direct sales. The reasons publishers have not

taken advantage of 3rd party data include not understanding the value of the data and

the process and technology challenges of using 3rd party data. Demand-Side Platforms

(DSPs) have exploded in popularity and scale specifi cally because of their ability to utilize

3rd party audience data effi ciently and effectively. Through the indirect sales channel,

DSPs and advanced ad networks are becoming a key component of the publishers

overall ad revenue strategy.

Today, publishers do have the ability to sell media layered with 3rd party data, and with

audience-based campaigns in high demand from advertisers, publishers need a two-channel audience selling strategy. Each sales channel has its own benefi ts, so publishers

should understand those benefi ts and use that insight to create a holistic selling strategy.

Publishers can take advantage of RTB for audience-based advertising as demand for

RTB campaigns from advertisers levering the indirect sales channel continues to grow.

According to Google, half of all non-guaranteed ad inventory will be purchased via RTB

in 2015, and because of the large inventory scale that the indirect channel provides for

advertisers and the proven success of RTB campaigns, the number of advertisers that

leverage the indirect sales channel for RTB will increase for many years to come.

In 2011, publishers have more choices for selling audience based campaigns, including

through the direct sales channel. Leveraging SSPs, publishers can now set up private

marketplaces, which will enable them to sell RTB campaigns directly to agency trading

desks and advertisers - all with greater control over those RTB campaigns. Through

SSPs, publishers can also have easy access to 3rd party audience data that they can

apply to their media and sell directly.

As the opportunities for publishers to sell true audience-based advertising increase and

improve, publishers should have a strategy for balancing the two sales channels that will

allow them to take advantage of the benefi ts that both sales channels deliver.


52/60


53/60

The Two Channel AudienceSelling Balance [Illustrative]

Direct

DirectIndirect

Indirect

Direct sold campaigns will always fetch higher CPMs than ones sold through the indirect sales channel

because of their guaranteed placement and no ad networks or DSPs taking a percentage of the revenue.

RTB will be the preferred method to acquire publisher audience specifi c inventory. RTB campaigns will be

routinely sold by the publisher's direct sales force. Additionally, audience extension will allow publishers to

sell RTB campaigns directly for campaigns that run on their site and other sites giving advertisers the scale

they need for highly targeted campaigns.

These factors will increase the overall revenue contribution from audience-based campaigns signifi cantly.

AD REVENUE PER IMPRESSION FOR PUBLISHERS

OVERALL REVENUE CONTRIBUTION FOR PUBLISHERS

2015

Audience-Based

Campaigns

with 3rd PartyAnonymous Data

Audience-Based

Campaigns

with 3rd Party

Anonymous Data

20


54/60

Publisher Ad Revenue FromAudience-Based Campaigns

2011

$2.2B*

Direct Indirect

2015$5.2B*

Direct Indirect

Ad Spendby Year

Publisher Ad Revenue Ratio From AudienceBy Sales Channel [Illustrative]

Example scenarios based on published growth numbers of:

Non-Guaranteed ad revenue & RTB

Audience targeting demand

Revenue opportunity & scale for direct audience selling

*eMarketing and Jordan Edmiston Group

51



55/60

Conclusion

For the fi rst time in a decade, online advertising is on the brink of becoming a sellers market. RTB and

programmatic ad buying is improving effi ciency for advertisers and publishers alike. More importantly, sell

side technology is fi nally catching up to the sophistication of the demand side, allowing publishers to take

advantage of new selling opportunities and grow their business. As opportunities for publishers increase

and improve, publishers will need to rethink their sales strategy.

Specifi cally, as demand for audience-based advertising continues to grow at a rapid rate, publishers must

develop a holistic sales strategy that includes the use of audience data for both the direct and indirect

sales channels. By utilizing a combination of anonymous contextual, demographic, and behavioral data,

publishers can achieve several key objectives:

Level the playing fi eld with advertiser intermediaries to achieve fair market value for their inventory and

signifi cantly increase their revenue

Attract a broader array of advertisers that can be sold to via both the direct and indirect sales channels

Protect the users privacy and deliver more relevant and interesting advertisements at the same time

Its clear that expertise in audience selling will be a critical part of the publisher revenue strategy in the near

future. Publishers must adopt newly created technology to protect their brands from unwarranted risk and

take advantage of the new opportunities that lay ahead.

20


56/60


57/60

MOREREVENUE

BETTEREXPERIENCE

MORECONTROL

About PubMatic

One Holistic Selling Platform to Protect Publishersand Increase Online and Mobile Ad Sales

The PubMatic SellSide Platform forPremium Publishers

More Revenue

RTB for Direct &Indirect Sales

Dynamic Pricing Floors

Audience Dataon Demand forDirect Sales

More Control

Publisher ControlledRTB Campaigns

Creative Control Suite

Data LeakagePrevention& Education

Better Experience

High-Touch ExpertGuidance

Trusted DemandPartners

True Innovation &Thought Leadership

Some of the most respected online publishers have chosen to work with PubMatic,

including the Huffi ngton Post, McGraw Hill, eBay, United Online, TV Guide, MSNBC,

Scribd, and the majority of the ComScore Top 10.

Contact Us

Publishers interested in working with PubMatic should contact [email protected]

Demand Partners interested in working with PubMatic should contact [email protected]

20


58/60

ADVERTISER


59/60

WE TAKE SIDES

PUBLISHER


60/60

Empowering PublishersContact Us:

Phone: (646) 706-7171

Publishers contact: [email protected]

Ad Networks contact: [email protected]

For General Information: [email protected]

www.PubMatic.com

audience selling for publishers: part 1

Documents