Talk:Header bidding

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

mistake! Should be: advertisers are 'bidding' (not publishers)

in header bidding advertisers are 'bidding' (not publishers). Publisher (sell side of transaction) submit 'ad request' to adverisers (buy side of transaction). In response to the request advertisers are submiting bid (that is called 'bidding'). 80.238.119.23 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RTB is anything but "transparent".

"This transparent marketplace ensures that inventory is fairly priced in a competitive environment, which is beneficial to both publishers and advertisers."

There is no transparency for the advertisers. They do not know how much to bid, how much the winning bid was and thus they have to bid high to increase the liklihood that they'll win, rather than what the ad space is worth. There is no transparency in it for advertisers. 52.119.124.160 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for advertisers that work with more than one DSS, which most if not all do, they could be be bidding against themselves. 52.119.124.160 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article not written in an encyclopedic style?

@Jay8g: Why does the article have this cleanup tag? Jarble (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written more in a marketing pitch style than an encyclopedic style. For example "Header bidding allows publishers to maximize their revenue by letting multiple demand sources bid on the same inventory, driving up the price in a transparent and competitive environment." How do we know that this is revenue maximizing? How do we know it drives up prices? Would it be better to just state the facts and leave off the comparatives? How does the article explain why publishers "get fair value for their ad spaces, ultimately contributing to a more efficient and lucrative digital advertising ecosystem"? Encyclopedic style would explain what something is and leave off why it is cool. Is the reader learning more about what header bidding is by being told it contributes to a more efficient ecosystem?

There are some inconsistencies that might be fine in promotional material, but aren't great at conveying the facts about what something is. For example, header bidding marking a new era in programmatic advertising (1) doesn't tell the reader what header bidding is, and (2) seems inconsistent with the later statement that initial adoption of header bidding technology was gradual. How do we know that it experienced rapid growth and that the rapid growth was a result of its benefits becoming more apparent? Maybe the answer is "Duh, it's obvious that that is how it would happen." If that is the case, that everyone would know, then no need to clutter the article with what everyone should already know. Satinlatin (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]