The methodology disclosed explains why the “lift” is so small:
TLDR - they analyzed logs provided from an “ad exchange” in 2016 (as exchanges or SSPs were still “remnant” inventory players at the time and this is pre header-bidding, so lowest quality of the available inventory went there), of the logs they only looked at open auction (lowest quality of the already low quality inventory self-selected by using the SSP logs).
RTB Deal ID, private marketplaces and other higher-rate products all use behavioral/audience data and generate the lions share of the revenues. We are talking impressions being boosted to between 10x and 100x in value easily if they qualified for one of these higher-value channels.
By focusing on open auction that was preferred for valuable behaviorally targeted impressions, the papers authors basically rigged the results.
TLDR - they analyzed logs provided from an “ad exchange” in 2016 (as exchanges or SSPs were still “remnant” inventory players at the time and this is pre header-bidding, so lowest quality of the available inventory went there), of the logs they only looked at open auction (lowest quality of the already low quality inventory self-selected by using the SSP logs).
RTB Deal ID, private marketplaces and other higher-rate products all use behavioral/audience data and generate the lions share of the revenues. We are talking impressions being boosted to between 10x and 100x in value easily if they qualified for one of these higher-value channels.
By focusing on open auction that was preferred for valuable behaviorally targeted impressions, the papers authors basically rigged the results.