Pre-Conference AdTech Summarization | Gubbins

; Things you should know about AdTech, today; In His Blog, centrally hosted on LinkedIn; 2017-08-30; regwalled (you have to login to linkedin).


Boosterism in front of the trade shows
  • Exchange Wire #ATSL17
  • Dmexco
  • Programmatic IO


  • There be consolidation in the DSP category.
  • There will be more DSPs not less fewer.
  • Owned & Operated (O&O)
  • preferential deals
  • private equity companies
  • party data & a GDPR compliant screen agnostic ID
  • no “point solutions.”
  • Doubleclick Bid Manager (DBM), Google
  • Lara O’Reilly; Some Article; In Business Insider (maybe); WHEN?
    tl;dr → something about how Google DSP DBM guarantee “fraud-free” traffic.
  • Ads.txtAuthorized Digital Sellers, IAB Tech Lab
  • Claimed:
    comScore publishers are starting to adopt Ads.txt

Buy Side

Deal Flow
  • Sizmek acquired Rocket Fuel, (unverified) $145M.
  • Tremor sells its DSP to Taptica for $50M.
  • Singtel acquired Turn for $310M.
No flow, yet
  • Adform
  • MediaMath
  • DataXu
  • AppNexus

Sell Side

  • Header Bidding (HB)
    • Replaces the SSP category
    • <quote>effectively migrated the sell sides narrative & value prop of being a yield management partner to that of a feet on the street publisher re-seller.</quote>
  • QBR (Quarterly Business Result?)
  • Prebid.js
  • With server bidding, too.
  • Supply Path Optimization (SPO)
    • Brian O’Kelley (AppNexus); Article; In His Blog; WHEN?
      Brian O’Kelley, CEO, AppNexus.
    • Article; ; In ExchangeWire; WHEN?
  • Exchange Bidding in Dynamic Allocation (EBDA), Google
The Rubicon Project
a header tag, compatible with most wrappers, no proprietary wrapper, only Prebid.js
Index Exchange
a header tag, compatible with most wrappers, a proprietary wrapper
a header tag that, compatible with many (not ‘most’) wrappers, a proprietary wrapper
a header, compatible with many (not ‘most’) wrappers, a proprietary wrapper (that is better than OpenX’s which is not enterprise grade)
a header tag, compatible with many (not ‘most)’ wrappers, a proprietary wrapper.
  • TrustX
    • with
      • Digital Content Next
      • IPONWEB
      • ANA
    • Something about a transparent marketplace.
  • Something about another supply network
    • German
    • trade press in Digiday
  • No header bidding, yet.
  • Mobile equals Adware (“in app”)
    • but Apps don’t have “browsers.”
    • but App browsers don’t have “pages” with “headers.”
    • though Apps have SDKs (libraries).
  • RTL acquires SpotX
  • <quote>One could argue video is the perfect storm for header bidding, limited quality supply & maximum demand, the ideal conditions for a unified auction…</quote>
Talking Points
  • The industry is currently debating the pros & cons of running header bidding either client or server side (A lot boils down to latency V audience match rates)
  • Google offer their own version of header bidding, this is referred to as EBDA (Exchange Bidding in Dynamic Allocation) and is available to DFP customers.
  • Facebook recently entered header bidding by launching a header tag that enables publishers to capture FAN demand via header bidding on their mobile traffic.
  • Criteo entered header bidding by offering publishers their header tag (AKA Direct Bidder) that effectively delivers Criteos unique demand into the publisher’s header auction, at a 1st rather than cleared 2nd price.
  • Amazon have launched a server to server header bidding offering for publishers that delivers unique demand and the ability to manage other S2S demand partners for the publisher.
Extra Credit
  • <quote>senior AdTech big wigs</quote>
  • programmatic auction process
  • 1st v 2nd price
  • 2nd price was for waterfall
  • 1st price will be for unified (header bidding)

General Data Protection Regulation’ (GDPR)

  • 2018-05
  • Consent must be collected.
  • Will make 2nd party data marketplaces economical.
  • The salubrious effect.
  • Publishers have a Direct Relationship with consumers.
    this is argued as being “better.”
  • Industry choices
    • collect holistic consent
      <quote>one unified [process] of consumer [outreach] rather than one for every vendor</quote>
    • individual vendor consent
      <quote>for every cookie or device ID that flows through the OpenRTB pipes we have spent the last 10 years laying.</quote>

Viewability & Brand Safety

  • IAB
  • MRC

Talking Points

  • Moat was sold to Oracle for reported number of $800M.
  • PE Firm Providence Equity bought a % of Double Verify giving them a reported value of $300M.
  • Integral Ad Science remains independent, for now


  • Telcos have what everybody in AdTech wants:
    • accurate data
    • privacy compliant data
    • scaled data
    • 1st party data.
  • Telcos want what AdTech & publishing companies have:
    • programmatic sell and buy side tools
    • content creation functions
    • distribution at scale.
    • diversification of revenues

Talking Points

  • Verizon buys AOL & Yahoo to form Oath, a publisher, a DSP, a DMP.
  • Telenor buys TapAd, a cross-device DMP-type-thing
  • Altice buys Teads, a streaming video vendor)
  • Singtel buys Turn, a DSP
  • AT&T needs a line in this list; might want to buy Time Warner which is a movie studio, media holding copmany, a cable operator, an old owner of AOL.
Raised $18.75M, Series A. Why?
Raised $20M, through Series B, Why?

Data Management Platform (DMP)

  • Not a pure-play business.
    • A division, not a business.
    • An interface, not a division.
  • Everyone wants to own one.
  • Should DMP’s also be in the media buying business?
  • What are DMP’s doing to stay relevant for a world without cookies?
  • Do DMP’s plan to build or buy device graph features / functions?
  • For platforms that process & model a lot of 1st, 2nd & 3rd party data, how will they be affected by the pending GDPR?
Talking Points
  • Adobe bought Tube Mogul, a video DSP, for $540M (based on information &amp belief).
  • Oracle bought Moat, a verification feature, for $800M
  • Oracle bought Crosswise, a cross-device database, for <unstated/>
  • Salesforce bought Krux, a DMP, FOR $700M

Lotame remains independent, for now

ID Consortium’s & Cross-Device Players

Probabilistic “won’t work”
<quote>The GDPR may make it very difficult for a number of probabilistic methods to be applied to digital ID management.</quote>
Walled Garden
They … <quote>are using their own proprietary cross-screen deterministic token / people based ID that in many cases only works within their O&O environments.</quote>
Universal ID
Is desired. <quote>CMO’s & agencies in the future will not be requesting a cleaner supply chain, but a universal ID (or ID clearing house) that will enable them to manage reach, frequency & attribution across all of the partners they buy from.</quote>
The DigiTrust
<quote>This technology solution creates an anonymous user token, which is propagated by and between its members in lieu of billions of proprietary pixels and trackers on Web pages.</quote>
Claim: “Many” leading AdTech companies are already working with the DigiTrust team. [Which?]
AppNexus ID Consortium
  • Scheme: people-based ID.
  • Launch: 2017-05
  • Trade Name: TBD
    • Index Exchange
    • LiveRamp
    • OpenX
    • Live Intent
    • Rocket Fuel
  • Adbrain
  • Screen6
  • Drawbridge



  • Blockchain is slow, too slow, way too slow
    Blockchain can handle 10 tps.
  • Does not work in OpenRGB
    • New York City
  • Some Q&A; In AdExchanger
    tl;dr → interview of Dr Boris WHO?, IPONWEB; self-styled “the smartest man in AdTech and he concurs”

Artificial Intelligence

  • Is bullshit.
  • c.f.(names dropped)
    • Deepmind
    • Boston Dynamics


  • DOOH
  • Audio
  • Programmatic TV
  • Over The Top (OTT)
  • MarTech != AdTech

Previously filled.

On means & methods for predicting the timing of IPv6 adoption

Previously filled.


I’m more interested in concepts and approaches rather than the answer itself. Some background on developing the answer to this particular question follows below.

My interest here is more around how to phrase these claims such that they are meaningful over the time scales that we’re working with. One of the difficulties in working with claims over long enough periods of time is that institutions, currencies and measurement apparatus can vary sufficiently or fail outright across those time scales. I’m concerned with approaches to the “and how shall we test that?” Election results: easy; Hollywood movie sales: a procedure exists; Simon-Ehrlich or Bjorn Lomborg type wagers: controversial, but possible; and so on. What is of interest in this particular case is not whether something will happen in a binary sense but how soon something that is known to be happening is going to reach a significant enough level to matter, for some relevant definition of “matters.”

My interest is in how one goes about framing these questions (claims) about the future in a meaningful way, one that will be meaningful in the transition into the future as action against the claims will not be continued if the previous calls to action are no longer relevant. Futurism being but memoir writing if it isn’t tied to planning and thus to action. In the IPv6 case, the timing is important from an online entertainment perspective as the investment in the new networking scheme is significant. From a consumer standpoint, customer premises equipment is rarely churned unless it is force-replaced by the internet service provider. These technologies take multiple decades to roll out and be adopted so they are well within the time-span that we consider in the course (-10 years < t < +10 years).

On using wagers to “know the future”

There have been and maybe still are interesting expreriments with prediction markets against diffusion of innovation questions. Spoiler: the market (game) failed when two fine folks figured out how to run an arbitrage scheme on it; there were no countervailing forces sufficient to counteract the scheme. There exist other surveys in academic paper form of intra-corporate opinion markets. Separately filled.

Behind these is the thesis that a market can “know” things (encode knowledge) that no individual participant can “know” (understand). The aphorism often used is “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” This folk wisdom is usually attributed to Benjamin Graham and then Warren Buffet.


On the evolving IPv6 transition

In this particular case, we have (the industry has) a sufficient answer for business purposes and elements of the industry have been acting upon the answer as suits their temperament for risk and prospection. Google: yes (as shown), Comcast: yes, AT&T: no, Verizon: yes. RFC 6598 of 2012-04 were developed to support ISPs who have as-built infrastructure that will not be making the transition. Parts of Yahoo’s merchant ad systems went live 2012 (I drove that); the rest is transitioning now. The Google chart is interesting in that it did not hit 5% until two years ago. Prior to that one could reasonably say from a business perspective that there was “no business need” to consider the technology.

Some of these dates give the concept of how long these things take:

IPv6 was “in trials.”
B2B-type production availability; e.g. Solaris.
Microsoft shipped IPv6 default-enabled in Vista.
IPv4 was considered to have been exhausted in North America
“the Internet is full, please dial in at a later time.”

There are other longer technology transitions still under way.

On the continuing 64-bit transition

There is a wonderful survey article from ACM Queue that surveys the transition to 64-bit two-score year transition to 64-bit technologies. One is beginning to see the industry transition wholly to 64-bit for server-class and office-work-class gear and 32-bit and below for so called “IoT” leaf-level devices. The key signal for the future here is Intel’s announcement last month repudiating substantially all of their consumer-focused IoT SBC product lines. The supporting staff is now gone; Intel won’t be in that line of business going forward. And they aren’t a supplier in low-power “mobile” consumer gear meaningfully either. It’s an interesting question that: in 2027, “Intel Inside” means … ???


That other cultural transition, that didn’t happen.

The previous examples are all very in-trade and deeply technical. A more culturally-relevant transition that is still unfolding and is likely to several-multiple more generations to complete is the transition to the metric system in the United States, outside of narrow application domains. We tried but the U.S. population still trades against gallons of gas, quarts of milk, auto tires in pounds-per-square-inch; 55 miles per hour saves lives and gas-gallons, and thermostats shall be set to 65 degrees or lower. We are proscribed against carrying more than 3 ounces of toothpaste into airplanes nowadays.

One could imagine that what can’t (won’t) be different in any future scenario is the U.S. popular or commercial measurement system.

Originally a discussion point for PDV-91.

Unsanctioned Web Tracking | W3C

Unsanctioned Web Tracking, Finding, Technical Architecture Group (TAG), W3C,

This Version:
Latest Version:
Latest editor’s draft:
work site
Mark Nottingham


Section 5


  • Finds that unsanctioned tracking is actively harmful to the Web, because it is not under the control of users and not transparent.
  • Believes that, because combatting fingerprinting is difficult, new Web specifications should take reasonable measures to avoid adding unneeded fingerprinting surface area. However, added surface area should not be a primary factor in determining whether to add a new feature.
  • Asserts that when a new feature does add fingerprinting surface area, it should be documented as such.
  • Finds that new local storage features and other potential tracking mechanisms should maintain and interoperate with existing user controls.
  • Encourages browser vendors to expose appropriate controls to users who wish to minimize their fingerprinting surface area.
  • Acknowledges that despite best efforts, technical solutions to unsanctioned tracking are not able to completely prevent its use by a determined adversary. Instead, our focus should be on making sure that unsanctioned tracking does not become “normal” on the Web.
  • Encourages policy makers to be aware that unsanctioned tracking may introduce privacy, security and consumer protection concerns within their jurisdiction, and to consider appropriate action.



Light on the definition of the effect (what is ‘unsanctioned tracking’?).  This seems to be enumerated in Sections 1 & 2 as:

  • unsanctioned web tracking → is the inverse of standards-defined tracking.
  • standards-defined web tracking→ interpreted as
    • Technologies
      • HTML4 State (Cookies)
      • HTML5 Web Storage
    • Acceptable pattern of use
      • Pixels (GET of zero-sized, no-op, documents [images])
      • Consumer-visiblity affordance
      • Consumer-visible opt out signalling.
    • Acceptable product features & business models
      • shopping carts
      • persistent site preferences
      • behavioral advertising
      • [unclear the list is closed or open]

Not Mentioned

  • Advertising Identifiers, e.g. IDFA, GPSAID
  • Geofencing, geo-behavioral identification.


Appendix A

A. Barth. HTTP State Management Mechanism. 2011-04. Proposed Standard. URL:
Butler W. Lampson. A Note on the Confinement Problem. In Communications of the ACM; Volume 16, Number 10; 1973-10; 5 pages.
Yossef Oren; Vasileios P. Kemerlis; Simha Sethumadhavan; Angelos D. Keromytis. The Spy in the Sandbox – Practical Cache Attacks in Javascript.; previously filled.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ian Hickson. Web Storage (Second Edition). 2015-06-09. W3C Candidate Recommendation.


Linked within the document; in order of appearance



This is a straw man, a red herring, a toy argument.  The elements cited are substantially fringe techniques in any case, but that not withstanding.  There is no such category as unsanctioned tracking.  All in-industry tracking&targeting is done under consumer consent, with agreements voluntarily entered-into with full presentment of Notice & the availability of affordance of Choice subject to the stated Terms & Conditions of the owner of the (entertainment) service which being delivered unto the consumer for their enjoyment.  There is no other kind of trak-N-targ except under consumer consent; it simply doesn’t exist, it can’t exist by definition.  Acceptance of the T&C contract is by adhesion and the consumer’s remedy upon inability to accept the T&C is to leave the area [leave the internet].  For fun, here is a publisher who makes this framework very clear: <quote>If you don’t agree to the terms contained in this User Agreement and Privacy Policy, you must immediately exit the Service.</quote>

California Privacy Policy; At Condeé Nast, in force at Ars Technica; 2014-01-02 → 2015-07-17 (present).

Via: backfill

Compendium on Verizon’s Precision Marketing Insights, Precision ID, X-UIDH Header


  • Unique IDentifier Header (UIDH)
  • The (silently-added) HTTP header X-UIDH
  • X-UIDH: OTgxNTk2NDk0ADJVquRu5NS5+rSbBANlrp+13QL7CXLGsFHpMi4LsUHw
  • Behaviors (based on information & belief)
    • X-UIDH changes weekly
    • The UIDH identifier indexes demographic, persona and browing history-type records of the subscriber (of the handset or PSTN or paying account).
  • Demonstrators
  • Trade Names
    • Verizon Selects
    • Relevant Mobile Advertising
    • Verizon’s Precision Market Insights
  • Precision Market Insights, a partner
  • Availability
    • No 1st party program
    • Something vague about making data available via partnerships.
  • Capabilities
    • Demographic segments on mobile
    • loyalty
    • retargeting
  • Partners
    • BlueKai
    • BrightRoll
    • RUN
  • Pilot
    • PrecisionID
    • Kraft with Starcom MediaVest group
    • 1-800-Flowers
  • Separately
    • Precision has an in-stadium identification scheme
  • Who
    • Colson Hillier, VP, Precision Market Insights
    • Debra Lewis, press relations, Verizon.
    • Adria Tomaszewski, press relations, Verizon.
    • Kathy Zanowic, senior privacy officer, Verizon.


In archaeological order; derivative works on top, original reportage lower down.


  • Open RTB v2.1 Specification, as implemented by MoPub; on DropBox; updated 2015-02-13; landing.
    <quote>2015-02-15: Removed passing of UIDH parameter and removed all references in the specification</quote>
  • HTTP  Header Enrichment Overview; Documentation; Juniper; 2013-02-14.
    • HTTP Header insertion X-MSISDN
    • MobileNext Broadband Gateway for an Access Point Name (APN)
    • <quote>installing one or more Multiservices Dense Port Concentrators (MS-DPCs) in the broadband gateway chassis</quote>


Vocabulary for Event Recording and Incident Sharing (VERIS)