Header Bidding Vs Waterfall
When you compare header bidding to waterfall, the former is a clear winner. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, but you must consider these pros and cons before making a choice. Header bidding increases workload and infrastructure costs for publishers. Waterfall increases eCPMs, but falls short in bringing higher traffic to a website. It also increases the cost of ad campaigns. So which is better?
Adtelligent Header Bidding Platform
The debate about Adtelligent Header Bidding Platform and waterfall advertising systems is a fascinating one. While there are obvious benefits and drawbacks to each method, it’s also important to know what exactly each system offers. Let’s take a look at how header bidding technology works. While header bidding can be a time-consuming process, it can be a highly profitable way to get results.
One of the advantages of header bidding is that it happens in real-time, whereas waterfalling involves a sequential auction model that increases latency and requires ad servers to make frequent updates. Unlike waterfalls, header bidding allows publishers to access more traffic sources and improve fill rates. Header bidding also involves a partner publisher, which makes it ideal for remnant inventory. If you’re looking to get the best results with header bidding, check out these advantages:
In addition to increasing website loading time, header bidding technology is highly effective for achieving premium placement. It cuts down on the amount of passback-tags, which increases web-page load time. Another benefit is that header bidding eliminates long chains of resellers and allows publishers to access remnant traffic and full ad inventory directly. With header bidding technology, buyers can also claim premium inventory and are guaranteed to purchase it.
Using header bidding allows multiple demand sources to compete for the same inventory, thereby minimizing latency and maximizing yield. In addition, header bidding eliminates the need for sequential network and exchange listings, thereby minimizing the impact of passback tags on page load and negatively affecting user experience. There are several disadvantages to header bidding, however. In addition to the lack of flexibility, the hierarchical model does not maximize profits for publishers.
The Adtelligent Header Bidding Platform and waterfall advertising both benefit publishers. Header bidding offers the flexibility to implement simultaneous pre-bid auctions via a web browser or server side. Header bidding increases ad inventory sales income and provides detailed reporting for effective media buying optimization. Header bidding supports Unified Ad Marketplace by Amazon, ensuring maximum profit per impression. However, there are disadvantages to both methods of advertising.
A growing number of publishers are moving away from traditional waterfall buying to use header bidding technology. There are two common methods of this alternative programmatic buying process: header bidding and waterfall structure. Historically, publishers have separated their premium inventory by offering it in a specific order based on their own expectations and previous performance. In the 21st century, header bidding is becoming a major part of many publishers’ advertising budgets.
Although Header Bidding has several benefits, it has some drawbacks. Traditional waterfall auctions favor the first bidder by not soliciting bids from other bidders. Consequently, header bidding creates a more competitive environment. Header bidding also helps to speed up the ad-serving process by not pushing impressions back and forth. Moreover, it enables publishers to offer their inventory to all demand sources simultaneously.
In traditional waterfall advertising, publishers must set up ad partners on price priority levels and create passback tags to allow the demand to pass to the next partner in the ad stack. Header bidding offers publishers the ability to sell their inventory on a per-impression basis, which improves transparency. In addition, header bidding allows publishers to control their partners and increase revenue. In addition, header bidding increases fill rates.
In terms of revenue, header bidding provides greater revenue by up to 60%. But it requires more effort to implement and track header bidding partners. For instance, the Telegraph reported a revenue increase of 70% after adopting header bidding. While header bidding creates a waterfall, the latter is tied to the header by a tier system. The highest tiers of header bidding have low fill rates while the lower tiers are higher and offer higher CPM rates.
Header bidding can also improve ad publishers’ ROI. Header bidding offers a greater number of premium impressions than waterfall bidding. Unlike waterfall bidding, header bidding provides more competition and demand diversity, ensuring that the highest price per impression is always achieved. waterfall bidding can be difficult to manage, lacks automation, and requires a first buyer to meet a minimum bid.
For a successful programmatic advertising strategy, you should integrate header bidding with waterfall. The two techniques are compatible and complement each other, and you should consider integrating both into your programmatic advertising strategy. This article will examine the differences between header bidding and waterfall, and provide a comparison chart for each approach. Global timeouts for header bidding vs waterfall and how to use them to optimize your campaign.
During header bidding, you should ensure that demand partners and pages are responsive. If you do not test these calls, the process can break. If you do not test header bidding properly, it may result in incorrect optimization decisions. Having multiple bidders and too many ports will only add latency. Using header bidding can help you increase revenue. But if you are not sure how to implement header bidding, consult an expert developer.
When using header bidding, publishers should create an ongoing testing program to determine what settings work best for them. A common mistake publishers make is setting global timeouts for header bidding, which can lead to a loss of revenue. However, header bidding will not create a new risk by itself. If you do, consider the advantages it offers. But remember that header bidding should not be used in place of waterfall.
While header bidding is the most popular form of programmatic advertising, it is not the only one. If you want to optimize your campaign, you should consider incorporating waterfall. With waterfall, you will pay more for prime impressions. Header bidding also offers advanced analytics. It’s not the most effective option for optimizing your campaign, but it can improve your ad spend. So, before you decide on the best option for your business, you should compare header bidding vs waterfall.
Although waterfall has more advantages, header bidding is more difficult to implement. Header bidding involves code in the video player, which must be translated to another language in order for it to be interpreted. Header bidding code can be in different languages, causing problems with multiple concurrent processes. Ultimately, it may result in poor user experience, resulting in page abandonment, which means loss of an opportunity for the publisher.
Header bidding is a bidding method that allows publishers and ad servers to compete against one another for the same inventory. This allows publishers to earn the highest possible CPMs while giving advertisers the top spot on the page. It has the added advantage of making the header-bidding process easier for publishers. The difference between header-bidding and waterfall bidding lies in how it manages the header-bidding process.
Header bidding has the advantage of ensuring quality inventory for publishers. It also allows buyers to make more informed decisions about campaign budgets. Since header bidding takes place server-side, the browser doesn’t need to be redirected too many times. As a result, it delivers higher eCPMs than waterfall bidding. Header bidding is an important part of ad tech.
In waterfall auctions, the supply-side platforms get lower-quality inventory. The higher-value inventory sold before they received the bid request was likely already sold. Header bidding allows demand sources to win more premium inventory and maximize yield. The downside to waterfall auctions is their increased latency. By using header bidding, publishers can improve their latency. Further, header bidding eliminates this problem.
The biggest downside of the waterfall model is ad latency. The waterfall model has long been plagued by ad latency. When ad requests are sent to different ad networks, they all cascade down the network. The longer the time it takes for a response, the greater the ad latency. Moreover, the waterfall model has a limited supply of demand sources.
While header bidding is less complicated, it has some negatives as well. In addition to latency, header bidding also introduces duplicate bidding, which negatively impacts the performance of the ecosystem. The number of demand sources is also directly proportional to the latency. Hence, a publisher should always expect to get fair compensation for this type of exposure. In conclusion, header bidding allows publishers to earn higher eCPMs and earn higher yields.
A key advantage of header bidding is that publishers can submit real-time bids on their ad pages before the ad server calls out. Header bidding allows publishers to win more competitive bids on the second-price auction. It allows publishers to bypass Google’s preferential relationship with the latter. And because header bidding is more transparent, it increases publishers’ eCPMs and fill rates.