-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Additional options for PA Deal Support #873
Comments
Hi Roni, We have received a significant amount of feedback that Deals are an important use case for the industry today. According to IAB TL: Deals, also referred to as Private Marketplace (PMP) offer curated or exclusive access, or preferred pricing for buyers on a subset of inventory. Also, referred to as “programmatic deals,” agreements for PMPs can be organized between publishers or SSPs and DSPs, agencies or advertisers. A notable, related use case is Publisher Audience Extension (issue #144). In this use case, sellers curate audience information for buyers, in some cases using Deals to package that information across sites. This latter area is currently under exploration by Chrome, but not addressed within this design. We understand there are several components to Deals. Two of the most essential are the concept of a seat ID and deal ID. They are defined as:
Based on the feedback so far, we have identified some requirements:
Our proposed solution is to make some modifications to an existing field, buyerAndSellerReportingId, to accommodate the use case:
The end to end flow may look like the following:
There are a few design plans to highlight:
We welcome feedback on this proposal! |
Thanks @leeronisrael for the detailed proposal. I'll highlight a few challenges:
This requires a given IG to include all the seats and all the dealIDs -- and implies that the buyer is necessarily aware of these when creating or update the IG. The seat is associated with the advertiser and campaign, outside of the bidding process -- and generally doesn't vary per seller -- so that seems feasible; furthermore, since this bid is associated with a single seat on a given buyer, the k-anon shouldn't be impacted. However, on the deals side, this seems problematic -- this would require somehow bringing awareness of the dealIDs to the IG creation/update process -- rather this merely being an attribute of the bidding logic JS/WASM and TBS fetched from the buyer's KV.
How would a seller know what this would represent, consistently, across buyers, in order to make sense of this value? I would prefer that we didn't combine seat and dealID into a single attribute. Furthermore, from a k-anon perspective, this would explode the cardinality -- every dealID x every seat -- which would greatly diminish the ability of these deal bids to render and win impressions. Furthermore, as highlighted in #792, there are other reasons why seller need to know the seat for a given
Can you elaborate further? (4) below suggests the seller should be forwarding the list, but this point seems to suggest a role for the buyer? Conceptually, the buyer might not even know in advance what dealIDs are relevant outside of the on-device auction. Of course, the buyers are welcome to pass any signals they want in
The sequential auction setup results in
Unlike seat, there's no a priori relationship between a
Would the seller be aware of this decision when the bid is received in |
It's been a month -- has there been progress outside of this issue on including |
In case of multi bid, multiple values should be selected from buyerAndSellerReportingId.
adMetadata can be one option, but requires sync with ssp to understand the exact fields.
This likely needs to be an array to adapt multibid's use case, which serves like an allowlist. A deal id can be reported only if it shows up in this array. |
sequenceDiagram
participant Buyer
participant Seller
Note over Buyer,Seller: Before the auction
Buyer->>+Seller: Pre-register seat & deal IDs in buyerAndSellerReportingId
Note over Buyer,Seller: At contextual auction time
Seller->>Buyer: Send deal IDs in contextual bid request
Buyer->>Seller: Identify deal IDs in perBuyerSignal of bid response
Note over Buyer,Seller: At PA auction time
Seller->>Seller: Forward list of deal IDs via perBuyerSignals
Buyer->>Buyer: Decide to bid on deal ID and specify ad and deal ID
Buyer->>Seller: Optionally indicate buyerAndSellerReportingId requirement in reporting
Buyer->>Seller: Selected deal ID accessible to scoreAd
Seller->>Buyer: Pick winning bid or reject bid
Note over Buyer,Seller: At PA reporting time
Seller->>Buyer: If k-anon threshold met, report deal ID in reportResult and reportWin
|
"buyerAndSellerReportingId" is a generic name , if we want to use this field only for deal-id then we can rename this field or create a new field with appropriate name and dedicated purpose. Otherwise it will be difficult to know at execution time whether this field is used for deal or some other purpose. "The deal ID may originate with either the buyer or seller." As per the nature of the deals, PA core logic can make it mandatory for buyers to pass seatId to make the deal work. |
At a high level, Magnite is aligned with Google on this proposal for the basic deal use case (based on contextual targeting) but there a few caveats to this approach:
|
Thanks @rsachdev9191 ! See our responses in-line below:
Yes, we acknowledge that use case is a priority, but it is out of scope for this solution.
The ability for generateBid to return multiple bids has landed in Chrome 125 at 1% of traffic.
We are aware that some buyers may have concurring use cases that require buyerAndSellerReportingId and buyerReportingId. Currently, the default behavior is that the former will overwrite the latter. We propose to make it possible to report on both fields, subject to a joint k-anon check. In other words, buyerAndSellerReportingId + buyerReportingId + renderURL will need to be jointly k-anonymous in order for all values to be reported on.
We have received some directional feedback that k-anon will not have a material negative impact on the proposed solution's ability to support the use case. We welcome additional analysis from other DSPs on this.
We do expect this will increase the size of IGs in the browser. There is an overall size limit for all IGs. There is potential future opportunity to optimize IG size, but we do not see it as a blocker for this solution.
We agree with this concern, but it is not specific to the Deals use case. That is, latency concerns may exist with multiple bids regardless of whether or not we move forward with this solution. Therefore, we do not intend to block this solution on this potential issue. Some in the industry have expressed another concern we’d like to highlight:
We believe the best solution is for the industry to align on a standardized string format that can be represented in the buyerAndSellerReportingId array, and supports the various use cases. For example, this may look something like, “{d:123,s:456,o:789}”, where “d” represents deal IDs, “s” represents seat IDs and “o” represents some other ID. |
@leeronisrael Would it be possible to also have sellerReportingId that fits the seller's use case. Take deals as an example, seat id is something that seller wants to know but not buyer. By moving seat id to sellerReportingId can help decrease the IG size for buyers. The k-anon requirement would be buyerAndSellerReportingId + buyerReportingId + sellerReportingId + renderURL |
question: is there any reason why this proposal can't include the introduction of new fields? Can you elaborate on why it's preferable and/or advantageous to re-purpose |
In general, it's better for the browser to offer a pipe with the required privacy characteristics, and let the API user put what they want to put into the pipe. If we offer a pipe that is specific to one use case, then each time you figure out a new use case, you need to come back and ask the browser to build a new pipe for it. I guess I would ask the opposite question: Why would you rather wait for us to add a field with a new name and new complexity, rather than reuse something we added a year ago? We could indeed add new fields if there were a functional reason to do so. Or we could change the name of an existing field if a different name turns out to be better — that's not discussing functionality, it's discussing spelling :-). |
Well, there are a myriad of other changes required here -- it's not simply a matter of 'adopting' an existing field and using it for contextual deal targeting -- so if we're changing other things, that affords us the opportunity to revisit.
Aligned that if we have a general-purpose 'pipe', API users can make the most of it, the naming/spelling indeed at that point is secondary. |
Deals (private marketplace) have been the focus of a number of issues -- #716, #682 #686 -- and I'd like to suggest some options for consideration.
buyerAndSellerReportingId
andbuyerReportingId
are interest group attributes -- however, there's no a priori correlation between adealID
and a particularrenderURL
(aka creative) -- that is, in principle, a givendealID
could accompany any creative for a given buyer. Furthermore, new deals can be created after a browser joins an IG, and having to update each IG with each potentialdealID
seems cumbersome.Furthermore, as noted elsewhere, both
scoreAd()
andreportResult()
need to receive thedealID
(not to mentionreportWin()
) -- this signal must exfiltrate the device -- as it's fundamental both to revenue share calculations as well as reporting attribution.The list of dealIDs for any given slot is also highly dynamic -- and each DSP will receive a different subset of those dealIDs for any given slot. Assuming we're talking about contextual-based deal activation (not publisher audience extension, which has been discussed elsewhere), in principle, an SSP would be able to return
perBuyerSignals
with a per-DSP list of potential dealIDs. Making this available to on-device bidding could follow existing API surfaces -- the challenge is how to get it 'back out' in a privacy-centric fashion.Perhaps there's an opportunity to consider the notion of dealIDs handled like interest groups -- i.e. a "deal group" -- where the browser maintains such a list for k-anon purposes -- tied to a seller origin. Once thusly registered with the browser (i.e. via a
joinDealGroup()
call), the seller can return a list of dealIDs via the contextual response, linked to their buyer origins. In this model, existing IGs could be upgraded to include 'deal intent' -- a boolean indicating if a given IG ever intends to bid with a dealID -- and thus the brower would be able to deal with k-anon determination well before auction time, and for an defined set of (IG, renderURL, dealID) tuples. Once k-anon has been satisifed, exposing this to PAAPI functions shouldn't be a privacy concern anymore.There's another potential alternative -- leveraging https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/FLEDGE.md#6-additional-bids (#319) in order to be able to derive the creativeURL for a dealID via the contextual response. In this model, there would be some OpenRTB-powered mechanism to signal that dealID response would only be used for a PA auction (like in the additional bids workflow); but this, too, would allow for the dealID to be made visible to the PAAPI functions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: