The ultimate guide to Video Header Bidding

Evolution of client side, server side and hybrid video header bidding

Table of contents

Introduction overview………………………………………….…..3

The promise of programmatic video………………………….....4

Video header bidding vs. waterfall..……………….………….…..5

Programmatic RTB for video transactions……….………........6-7

Client side only header bidding…...…………………….……...8-9

Server-side only video header bidding……………………...10-11

Hybrid video header bidding………...…………………….....12-13

More information………………………………………..……..….14

©2017 Cedato All rights reserved I www.cedato.com I Powering video transactions

Programmatic video is rapidly penetrating into mainstream advertising. With an

expected double-digit growth rate, programmatic video spend is predicted to

reach $10.65 Billion by 2018 in the US alone (eMarketer). Massive growth can be

attributed to the explosion of mobile video, social media’s pivot to video and

transaction technology breakthroughs.

Programmatic video’s advantage is the use of real time data to hyper-target the

right customer at the right time. When overlaid with user demographic, geo and

behavior data it can source real time intent signals to engage more intuitively, and

drive audiences down the conversion funnel. So it pays to explore the solutions

offered today.

This paper aims to help you make sense of the programmatic video technology landscape. To help you navigate through the video header bidding maze it includes diagrams that illustrate the video transaction options.

Introduction

Programmatic video was designed to; • Overcome waterfall model snags • Optimize campaigns in real time • Deliver true value to each impression • Lift fill rates

For publishers it promises a way to connect and easily manage multiple

demand partners while gaining more control over transactions and

achieving better results.

Despite adoption rates, many video stacks rely on display-based programmatic bidding,

assuming that video transactions mirror display. Unfortunately display practices brute-

forced on video fall short on delivery. When header bidding emerged, the industry

hoped to democratize the playing field, increase efficiency and eliminate errors. But

campaigns running across multiple screens with complex player functionality and

standards need video-specific transaction and optimization technology to truly deliver.

The promise of programmatic video

Video header bidding offers publishers -

• More control • Higher inventory

rates • More revenue

The waterfall creates inventory aggregation chaos

To improve transaction processes, early-stage waterfalls were replaced with

waterfalls from demand sources to simplify transactions, but often unintentionally

created more hurdles and confusion through inventory aggregation.

A host of video ad technology and standard-related errors crawled

into video ad delivery and transaction.

The emerging calamities added oil to the fire already set alight by publisher side

cascading bids and competing players trying to protect their demand sources.

Here we’re making sense of the programmatic video eco-system.

To help you navigate through the video header bidding scape we mapped out for

you the main options.

Video header bidding vs. waterfall

Programmatic video

transaction options:

• Real Time Bidding (RTB)

• Client-side video header bidding

• Server-side video header bidding

• Hybrid video header bidding

RTB (Real Time Bidding) video serves

ads based on user data optimized for

maximum fees. Buying and selling

occurs in a digital marketplace during

the milliseconds when a page loads.

Successful bidders pay the 2nd highest

price (so they don't lose if they bid far

beyond others) before the ad is served.

Publishers can offer a pre-defined traffic

volume and increase revenue by

maximizing yield per impression.

Programmatic RTB for video transactions

In RTB video bidding, as in display,

publishers aim for the best inventory fee through an open auction

Pure server side:

Each impression is sent to a SSP server & auctioned in real time. The highest bidder wins.

Pros: - Low latency

- No resource loading on client device

Cons: - Limited scope of demand

- Optimized for price only is inadequate for video

- Ad delivery is risky

In RTB transactions each impression is sent to a single SSP (Supply

Side Platform) and auctioned to capture the highest bidder

amongst the DSPs (Demand Side Platforms).

Unfortunately the lack of a video-specific bidding

technology increases the risk of ad delivery failure. So

the winning bid may not materialize into a playing ad.

Yield optimization, specifically in RTB is also compromised by a

process that only accounts for price without tracking whether the

video ad actually made it to playback.

As optimization focuses only on high paying bidders the

inevitable outcome for publishers is lower fill rates.

Programmatic RTB for video transactions Although loading

times are relatively fast, exposure to demand, via one SSP source only is highly

limiting

In theory video header

bidding promises faster

loading times and higher fill

rates through parallel bidding

on the client side.

Publishers enabling bidding

on the client side can reach

out to multiple demand

partners simultaneously,

enabling a higher rate.

Client-side video header bidding

Pure client side:

Runs each impression with multiple demand sources simultaneously. The demand that exceeds the target price wins

Pros: - Broader scope of demand

Cons: - High latency

- Resource loading on client device

Client-side video header bidding was at first a popular choice because it significantly increased exposure to demand.

In Client-side video header bidding, where inventory is pulled

together, demand sources can compete with each other in real time

over prices. Once the process begins, the highest demand to exceed

the targeted price wins the bid.

Each bidding partner has a different response speed, so the auction

works only as fast as the slowest bidder. In mobile, the number of SDK

kits needs to be considered as well as the issue of bandwidth.

In programmatic video, large files specific to video produce a host of compatibility issues which affect performance and loading times. Large file sizes can produce even higher latency and a watered down user-experience.

Being highly dependent on speed and performance, publishers and partners needed a new way to avoid browser-side traffic jams.

Although the header bidding wrapper tried to replace the traditional tag-based waterfall with better loading, it allowed multiple partners to add more JavaScript on the web page, which increased loading times.

Client-side video header bidding

Server-side header bidding creates

more demand and better scaling.

Unlike the client-side, performance

isn’t tied to multiple integration

points.

The server side tried to overcome client

shortcomings, in particular latency, and

JavaScript code stuffing in the header.

Conducting auctions outside of

publishers’ sites, beyond the plagued

header was a positive step. Rather than

facilitate multiple calls, auctions occur

only when a call is sent to the server side.

Server-side video header bidding

Pure server side:

Each impression is sent to a server & auctioned in real time across multiple SSPs. The highest bidder wins.

Pros: - Broader scope of demand - Low latency - No resource loading on

user

Cons: - Optimized only for price –

problematic in video - High risk of ad delivery

failure; video may not play

Server-to-server integrations create simultaneous auctioning through many demand sources without adding extra client-side latency.

But the departure from the client side increases the risk of delivery failure due to:

• Lack of client-side visibility • Inability to recover from VPAID errors • Inability to validate playback

The outcome - lower yield and fill rate compared to client side bidding

There is also the issue of syncing user data because the move from the client to a server side generates loss of access to the end-user and creates a blind spot.

The server side’s big drawback is the lack of video-specific technology for delivery and playback.

Server-side video header bidding

Being absent on the client side increases the risk of ad delivery failure due to lack of visibility and recovery of VPAID errors.

The absence on the client side increases the risk of ad delivery failure due to lack of visibility and recovery of VPAID errors. The result; lower yield and fill rate compared to client side solutions

Hybrid video header bidding

Hybrid server-client video header bidding:

- Predictive optimization on the server side achieves the heavy lifting - Based on source scoring - Minimal verification on client side

Pros: - Advanced optimization

accounts for more parameters than just price

- Excellent yield and fill rate

Cons: - Relies on proprietary

technology

By concurrently

working on the client and server sides, hybrid video header bidding addresses all the main shortcomings of one-sided processes and clears the way for quick, effective

optimization.

To date, publishers were forced to choose a client or server-side solution.

In programmatic video, the sacrifice is far too costly.

With Hybrid server-client video header bidding, publishers do not

need to pay a high price for technology shortcomings.

Operating on both the demand and supply sides, it captures the best

of both worlds.

On the server side, video header bidding outsources the heavy lifting

predictive optimization process. It accounts for multiple data points beyond

price to deliver the best results. It captures the widest range of available

bidding sources before shortlisting the optimum set and sending it back to

the client for action.

On the client side it validates “last mile” video ad delivery by detecting

potential VAST / VPAID errors and resolving them during the selection

process. If triggered on the client side alone, video header bidding is prone

to repetitive ad requests that once again, slow loading times.

Hybrid video header bidding Operating in real time across all formats, hybrid video header bidding overcomes compatibility issues to significantly lift demand, reach far higher fill rates, minimize latency, and reduce the risk of video ad delivery and playback errors.

Click here to learn more about video header bidding technologies

By Debbie Meltzer

©2017 Cedato All rights reserved I www.cedato.com I Powering video transactions