This is an overview of the mobile adtech ecosystem. Research was conducted by Thomvest Ventures. It covers topics including mobile advertising spend, programmatic advertising, key mobile advertising vendors (i.e DSP, SSP, exchanges & networks), and key trends.

1. Mobile Advertising Overview
February 2016

2. Three trends that make us excited about the mobile advertising opportunity
The mobile ad spend
will surpass desktop
spend in 2016
- eMarketer predicts that mobile ad spend
will rise to $69B globally this year
(up 71% from 2014)
- In 2016, the global mobile ad market will
surpass $100B, accounting for more than
50% of digital ad expenditure for the
first time
- According to eMarketer, mobile
accounted for 61% of all programmatic
display ad spending in the U.S. in 2015
- Mobile programmatic ad expenditure in the
U.S. is expected to surpass $20B by 2017
- MoPub saw brands account for the
majority of spend in December 2014
through the holidays
- According to MoPub, 60% of its top 25
private marketplace advertisers are
brands (as opposed to performance
advertisers)
- An IAB study showed that brand spend
on mobile increased 142% from 2011
to 2013
Mobile real-time
bidding (RTB) spend
is ramping up
Brand ad dollars are
flowing into mobile

3. Agenda
Mobile advertising market size and growth
The rise of programmatic advertising on mobile
Ad formats and targeting capabilities on mobile
Key mobile publishers & ad-tech vendors
Evolving standardization & regulation environment

4. Ad spend on mobile is growing at a clip similar to early desktop advertising
4
$2
$4
$6
$8
Broadcast TV Cable TV Internet Mobile
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
U.S. Advertising Media Annual Spend Growth for First Four Years ($B)
98% CAGR
72% CAGR
159% CAGR
123% CAGR
Source: IAB, PWC, ComScore, Gartner
(1949-1952) (1980-1983) (1996-1999) (2010-2013)

5. Mobile will drive all of the growth in digital ad spend over the next several years
5
$20
$40
$60
$80
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$65.9
$57.8
$49.8
$40.5
$28.7
$19.2
$10.7
$25.4$25.2$25.0
$26.6
$29.9
$31.6$32.4
Desktop Mobile
U.S. Digital Advertising Spending, Desktop vs. Mobile ($B)
Source: eMarketer, March 2015
Desktop:
-3.4% CAGR
Mobile:
29.7% CAGR
2016 will be the year
mobile ad spend
surpasses desktop

6. Mobile ad spend will be primarily funneled through apps
6
$15
$30
$45
2014 2015 2016
$10.8
$7.9
$5.5
$29.7
$20.8
$13.7
Mobile App Mobile Web
U.S. Mobile Ad Spend, In-App vs. Mobile Web ($B)
~3/4s of mobile
ad spend is
in-app
- According to comScore, U.S. consumers spend 6x
more time in mobile apps compared to mobile web
- 54% of total digital media time is spent in mobile apps,
compared to 8% in mobile web
Time spent in apps dwarfs mobile web
- There is data that advertisers can glean from apps vs.
web, most valuable being location & in-app activity
- Apps rely on advertising identifiers (IDFA, Google Ad ID)
vs. cookies (and third-party cookies are disabled by
default on iOS devices)
Rich targeting data available in the app environment
- Deeper publisher integration via an SDK enables richer ad
experience and a more “native” feel
- Many app publishers work with vendors who pre-cache
ad creative for a better user experience (faster load times)
Better ad units in the app environment
Source: eMarketer, March 2015

7. Agenda
Mobile advertising market size and growth
The rise of programmatic advertising on mobile
Ad formats and targeting capabilities on mobile
Key mobile publishers & ad-tech vendors
Evolving standardization & regulation environment

8. Mobile programmatic advertising has already overtaken desktop programmatic
8
20%
40%
60%
80%
$6
$12
$18
$24
2014 2015 2016 2017
Mobile Programmatic Ad Spend Mobile as a % of Total Programmatic Spend
76%
69%
61%
43%
$20.5
$14.9
$9.3
$4.4
43%
61%
69%
76%
U.S. Programmatic Mobile Ad Spending, 2014-2017 ($B)
47%
CAGR
Source: eMarketer, October 2015
Mobile accounted
for more than half of
programmatic in 2015

9. Illustrating the ad exchange buying process
9
User
Publisher Ad Server,
SSP, or Mediation
Ad exchanges auction ad
requests on a real-time
basis, often finishing under
half a second. Many types
of demand partners can bid
on a single ad request.
The winner of the bid is
notified and the demand
partner relays a tag that
directs to the advertiser’s
ad server to begin ad
serving.
User arrival initiates ad request.
Publishers use various methods to
determine ad fulfillment.
1
RTB Exchange
2
Ad content (text, images, video) is
distributed to the user’s device via a
content distribution network
4
The advertiser’s ad server is called to
deploy the ad. This often occurs via a
content distribution network.
3
Content Distribution
Network
Advertiser
Ad Server
Programmatic RTB Auction
Demand Side
Platform
Agency
Trading Desk
Ad Network

10. Illustrating the ad exchange buying process
10
For each inbound ad request, bid requests are sent to bidders, responses are evaluated under an auction, the winner is
notified & the ad markup is returned. Ads are usually delivered via a content distribution network (not depicted).
RTB
Exchange
Real-time auction
Bidder
Real-time decisioning
engine
0. Ad Request 1. Bid Request (Auction, Site, Device, & User Data)
2. Bid Response (Bid, Ad URL or Ad Markup)
3. Win Notice (Settlement Price)
4. Ad Markup (If not in Bid Response)5. Ad Delivered
Insertion Orders
Tag Setup Setup & Traffic Control
(Config, Rate Throttling, Request Filters)

11. Comparing ad networks & exchanges
Ad Networks Ad Exchanges
Overview
Aggregates publisher inventory via technology
integrations (SDK, API, Server-to-Server etc.) &
segments audiences to sell impressions to
advertisers usually via direct sales
Marketplace driven by real-time auction of ad
inventory. Advertisers buy ads programmatically on
an per-impression basis. The auction usually occurs
in fractions of a second
Ad Buying &
Selling Process
- Advertisers are sold audiences aggregated from
the network’s publishers
- Relies on human interaction (RFPs & insertion
orders)
- Advertisers purchase media with bidders (DSP,
ATDs) or self-serve
- Relies on integrations with DSPs, ad networks,
and SSPs
Pricing Model
- 10-50% margins; sometimes as high as 80%
- Media arbitrage commonly used to improve
margin
- 10-15% margin
- Media arbitrage less common; exchanges provide
transparency in pricing
Publisher
Integration
- Publishers integrate directly with ad networks
(SDK, API, Server-to-Server)
- Publishers can also access ad networks via
mediation platforms
- Publishers integrate with an exchange via SDKs or
APIs
- Integrates with ad network intermediates like
DSPs, SSPs, networks, and other exchanges
Exchanges often provide higher fill
rates than networks due to greater
diversity of demand sources
Exchanges have eroded the
media arbitrage model common
among ad networks
In some cases, private exchanges
provide restricted access to specific
demand partners to bid on a
publisher’s inventory
11

12. Comparing private & public ad exchanges
Public Ad Exchanges Private Ad Exchanges
Overview
Open marketplace where demand partners bid for ad impressions from
publishers. Public exchanges often have self-serve products that allow
easy and open access to demand partners to bid on ads.
Closed system where select publishers and ad buyers. Publishers often
set up markets, select a group of buyers, and dictate market pricing
and dynamics.
Ad Buying &
Selling Process
- Multiple publishers can sell inventory
- Many advertisers can purchase inventory
- Publishers with private exchanges are usually large media houses due
to initial IT setup cost
- Advertisers are curated by the publisher; usually they are brands /
other large advertisers
Inventory
- More remnant inventory than private exchange
- Wider reach and more diverse user segments
- Premium inventory from specific publisher
Control
- Publishers have limited control over which ads are displayed;
however, blacklisting and whitelisting sources are often available
- Advertisers may not know where ads are placed
- Publishers have a wide range of control over advertiser access, ad
content, and pricing
- Private exchanges are used to facilitate guaranteed or direct deals
Key Benefits
- Large volume of inventory, often higher fill rates
- Access to different categories of publishers & ads
- Access to wider audience segments
- Higher quality inventory, higher eCPMs
- Provides publisher with more control over advertisers and
advertisements on their platform
- Easy to facilitate direct deals or guaranteed buys
Concerns
- Lower eCPM, more remnant inventory
- Less control for publishers in terms of ads served; however
blacklisting and whitelisting is an option
- Less transparency for advertisers
- Limited inventory and less diverse audience segments
- Expensive to setup; usually only large publishers can create a private
exchange
12

13. Agenda
Mobile advertising market size and growth
The rise of programmatic advertising on mobile
Ad formats and targeting capabilities on mobile
Key mobile publishers & ad-tech vendors
Evolving standardization & regulation environment
13

14. Several mobile ad formats have emerged, which vary in pricing & performance
Banner Video Rich Media Incentivized Native
Overview
Static images that link to
mobile web or app store
Video advertisements, often
placed with rich media or
incentivized
Interactive ads, often html-5
based
Ads that reward users for
engagement (in-app
purchases, installs, etc)
Ads that are in-stream with the
content of the app
Ad Types
- Partial screen: 320x50,
120x20,300x50, etc
- Full-screen: pop-up,
interstitial
- Interstitial
- Pre-, Mid-, Post-Roll
- Click-to-view
- Incentivized
- Interstitial
- Banners
- Video, click-to-call, deep
linking
- Offer wall, Video, Banner,
Rich Media
- In-stream, Video
Estimated
Average CPM
- Full-screen: $3.00 (all OSs)
- Banner: $0.60 (all OSs)
- $5.50 (all OSs)
- $6.60 (iOS)
- $3.40 (Android)
- Full-screen: $3.20 (all OSs)
- Banner: $0.80 (all OSs)
- Generally lower than non-
incentivized
- $5-$50, depending on
publisher & content
Inventory
Volume
- Largest inventory available
- Relatively low level of
inventory, but growing
- Moderate level of inventory
- Not supported by most
exchanges
- Not supported by many
exchange, but growing
Primary
Performance
Metric
- Effective cost per action
(CPA)
- DR: Cost per completed view
(CPV)
- Brand: Brand lift or recall
- Cost per ad engagement
(CPE)
- Cost per install (CPI)
- Cost per engagement (i.e.
downloads)
Source: Images from NativeX, Thomvest Research14

15. All mobile ad types are expected to grow over the next several years
15
$25
$50
$75
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$6.9
$6.0
$5.1
$3.9
$2.6
$1.5
$0.7
$27.0
$23.8
$20.6
$16.9
$12.1
$8.1
$4.6
$28.4
$25.0
$21.7
$17.9
$12.9
$8.7
$4.9
Search
Banners, Rich Media, Other
Video
SMS / MMS / P2P Mesaging
Other (Classifieds, Email, Lead Gen)
U.S. Mobile Ad Spend by Ad Format (Billions, USD)
- Mobile video is a top priority for many ad tech co’s
- Publishers & media buyers are asking for mobile video
- Vungle launched first in-app mobile video ad exchange
- Greater adoption of IAB industry standards for mobile
video like VAST and MRAID
Growing Demand for Mobile Video
- MoPub recently launched Native Ads specifications for
all publishers
- OpenX launched Native O|X, a mobile native
advertising exchange
- We’re also seeing an emergence of pure-play native
exchanges (TripleLift, Nativo, Sharethrough, and others)
Exchanges are Launching Mobile Native Ads
Source: eMarketer, Flurry, Thomvest Research
$0.6
$1.0
$1.6
$2.1
$2.8
$3.3 SMS
$0.24

16. 16
Video, native & interstitial ads are the fasted growing ad formats on mobile
These mobile formats have been proven to perform better than standard banners ads, driving up CPMs and prompting more
publishers to integrate new ad units
Q2 2014 Q2 2015
Video Enabled eCPMs
Q2 2014 Q2 2015
Native eCPMs
Q2 2014 Q2 2015
Interstitial eCPMs
+31%
+40% +46%
- 50% more publishers with video ad units in Q2
2015 compared to Q2 2014
- According to Nanigans, mobile video ad units have
a 39% higher CTR compared to static images
- 1073% more publishers with native ad units in Q2
2015 compared to Q2 2014
- According to Fiksu, native ads convert at a rate 4x
higher than standard banners
- 52% more publishers with interstitial ad units in
Q2 2015 compared to Q2 2014
- According to Fiksu, interstitial ads convert at a rate
2x higher than standard banners
Source: Mopub Q2 2015 Marketplace Report

17. 17
Marketers expect to continue using video formats, but native formats may decline in popularity
Pre/Mid Roll Video
Display Banners
Native
Rich Media
Display Interstitials
Interstitial Video
Interactive Overlays
In-Banner Video
IAB Rising Stars 31%
33%
35%
37%
37%
39%
45%
45%
46%
15%
43%
28%
28%
29%
46%
50%
63%
45%
Currently Use Will Use in 2016
Source: Trusted Media Brands, Native & Video Mobile Advertising Whitepaper, January 2016
Mobile Ad Formats Current & Planned Usage
According to a survey of 283 brand marketers & agency executives
- Display banners & rich media formats are
expected to decrease most significantly in 2016
- Usage of native formats may begin to wane as
well, driven by difficulties in producing and
measuring ads in this format
- Usage of interstitial and overlay ad formats
is expected to increase in 2016, likely driven by
high viewability and performance relative to
other formats

18. While the Android OS is more common, iOS devices generate over half of mobile ad revenue
18
- About 70% of the auctions that MoPub, Turn, and
Smaato see are for 320x50 banners
- According to Smaato, the 320x250 ad size for app and
mobile web comprised 21% of inventory in 1H’15
Most Mobile Exchange Inventory is 320x50
- 18% of ad spend on Opera Mediaworks came from
Social Networking, followed by News & Information and
then Games in Q2’15. Music, Video and Media still
comprised a good portion at 15%
- Smaato saw spend coming from Entertainment (50%),
Social Networking (16%) & Games (13%) at the end of
2014
Greatest Spend from Entertainment & Media
- According to Opera Mediaworks and Smaato, Android
accounted for more auctions than iOS in Q2 2015
- Android also leads iOS in terms of % of revenue in
Q2’15 (48% Android vs. 47% iOS)
Android Beats iOS on Traffic Not Revenue
Smaato Global Top Operating System Share,
Q3 2015 (% of Auctions)
Android iOS Other
65% 29%
26%
6%
of traffic
44%
of revenue
of traffic of traffic
52%
of revenue
4%
of revenue
Traffic & Revenue Share by Publisher Category, Q3 2015
10%
20%
30%
Business,
finance & investing
Entertainment Games Music, video
& media
News &
information
Social
networking
% of revenue % of impressions
Source: Smaato, Turn, Opera Mediaworks, Thomvest Research

19. Targeting on mobile is becoming more sophisticated, driven by geo and in-app data
19
- Lat/long data is unique to mobile. However, there are
concerns about the accuracy of the lat/long data
provided through exchanges
- Device IDs allow for behavioral targeting, data
enrichment (first- and third-party), and other user level
targeting
Geo and Device ID are Important to Buyers
- MoPub and Nexage have integrated with BlueKai to add
third-party data to ad requests
- Companies like LiveRamp are offering first-party data
onboarding services
- Many DSPs and DMPs offer data onboarding services
Layering of First- and Third-Party Data
- Industry experts admit that parameters in ad requests
are not fully utilized for targeted mobile ad buys, even by
sophisticated DSPs
- Integration with third-party analytics and attribution
providers like Apsalar and others are enabling richer
user behavior capture
Mobile Targeting Still Evolving
Demographic Location Device Behavioral Ad Specific Publisher
- Age
- Gender
- Marital Status
- Children
- Household income
- Education
- Occupation
- Language
- Latitude/ Longitude
- Zip code
- City
- State
- Country
- DMA
- MSA
- Device ID
- Device OS
- Device type Carriers
- IP address
- Screen Resolution
- Key words
- Time of day
- Neustar AdAdvisor Targets
- Nielsen PRIZM clusters
- Ad size
- Ad type and specs (video,
banner, etc)
- App vs. mobile web
- App category and type
- Publisher name
- Whitelist/ Blacklist
Mobile Ad Targeting Paramaters
Source: Nexage, Mocean Mobile, Thomvest Research

20. The challenge for advertisers is connecting users’ targeting profiles across devices
- Unique IDs and cookies are deterministic models that
are accurate but have limitations across app and mobile
web (see right)
- Probabilistic models like fingerprinting are less accurate
but can work across app and web
- Single sign-on is deterministic and works across app
and web. However, typically only the provider of the
sign-on (FB, TWTR, etc) can track user behavior
Limitations of Mobile Attribution Methods
- Fingerprinting and single sign-on can be used for cross
app-web user measurement
- AdTruth, TapAd, and Drawbridge provide methods for
app-web and cross device attribution and tracking
Cross App-Web Tracking and Attribution
- Advertisers are demanding more granular information on
conversion and other lower funnel metrics
- As brands and, in particular, direct response advertisers
enter mobile, ROI measurement will become
increasingly important
Industry Trend Towards Attribution and ROI
ID-Matching Methods In-App Mobile
Unique Identifier Matching (Device IDs)
Unique ID strings for each mobile device. IDFA for iOS,
Advertising ID for Android. Also, Google Play Install Referrer is
available for app install attribution. Limited app-to-web attribution
for IDFA.
Yes No
Cookies, Pixel Tags, Click Redirects
Various methods on a mobile web browser that provides
information on a user’s device and browsing information. Limited
usage on Safari.
No Yes
Device Fingerprinting
Probabilistic method that uses non-unique information from user’s
device header (IP address, etc) to approximate uniqueness.
Biggest limitation of fingerprinting is accuracy.
Yes Yes
User Log-ins
Persistent log-in information across applications, websites &
devices. Examples include Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin
accounts.
Yes Yes
20

21. Agenda
Mobile advertising market size and growth
The rise of programmatic advertising on mobile
Ad formats and targeting capabilities on mobile
Key mobile publishers & ad-tech vendors
Evolving standardization & regulation environment
21

22. The four largest mobile advertising companies together account for nearly 60% of total revenue
22
25%
50%
75%
100%
2014 2015 2016 2017
33%34%32%
27%
2%3%3%
3%
4%4%4%
4%
20%19%19%
19%
32%32%33%36%
Google
Facebook
Twitter
Yahoo!
Apple (iAd)
Pandora
YP
Yelp
LinkedIn
Amazon
Millenial Media
Other
U.S. Mobile Ad Revenue Share, by Company
GOOG & FB
account for >50% of
mobile ad revenue
Source: eMarketer, September 2015

23. Mirroring the broader industry, mobile is the primary growth driver for FB, GOOG, TWTR & YHOO
Mobile Ad Products Notable Recent Updates
- Facebook Audience Network (mobile ad network)
- LiveRail (mobile video, display and native ads)
- Mobile app install and engagement ads
- Page post video, photo, text ad
- Page like, offer, event ads
- January 2016 — Facebook Audience Network (FAN) has a $1 billion annual run rate
- August 2015 — 88% of Facebook’s monthly active users are on mobile
- April 2015 — LiveRail expanded to support non-video ads, including native & traditional units
- July 2014 — Acquired LiveRail
- April 2014 — Announced launch of mobile ad network to deliver ads on non-FB properties
- August 2012 — Launched mobile app install ads
- DoubleClick
- AdMob (mobile apps)
- AdSense for Mobile (mobile web)
- Google Mobile Advertising (replaced AdMob)
- November 2015 — Debuts programmatic ad sales for native & mobile video
- May 2015 — Announced Native Ads beta
- August 2015 — AdMob SDK sunset, switch to Mobile Advertising SDK
- February 2014 — Deprecation of Android AdMob SDK, to be replaced by Mobile Advertising API
- October 2013 — Released Mobile Advertising API which supports AdMob , Doubleclick for
Publishers, and Doubleclick Ad Exchange
- Mobile app promotion suite; app cards
- MoPub Exchange
- Twitter publisher network
- Promoted tweets, follows, trends, videos,
accounts
- July 2015 — Announced video app card, optimized action bidding and CPI bidding
- June 2014 — Acquired TapCommerce (mobile retargeting) and Namo Media (native ads)
- April 2014 — Announced launch of 15 new ad types inc. mobile app install
- April 2014 — Launched Twitter Publisher Network which runs self-serve campaigns from on
MoPub exchange
- September 2013 — Acquired MoPub
- Yahoo Gemini (mobile search and native ads);
available via Yahoo Ad Manager
- Flurry Mobile Ad Network
- Yahoo Ad Exchange (Right Media)
- Flurry Analytics
- February 2015 — Announces mobile in-app advertising network, powered by Flurry
- November 2014 — Acquires BrightRoll
- July 2014 — Acquires Flurry
- February 2014 — Launched Gemini, an ad exchange for mobile search and native ads
- February 2014 — Mocean Mobile and Yahoo launched premium mobile ad exchange
- September 2013 — Yahoo launched Stream Ads; native ad placements on Yahoo properties
23

24. Product segments across mobile ad-tech vendors
Ad Network Ad Exchange DSP SSP / Mediation
Yes Yes Yes No
Yes No Yes No
Yes No No No
Yes Yes Yes Yes
No Yes No Yes
Yes No Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
No Yes No Yes
No Yes No Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No No
24

25. Ad formats across mobile ad-tech vendors
Banner Video Rich Media Incentivized Native
Yes No No No No
Yes No Yes No No
Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes Limited Limited No No
No Yes No No No
Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes No No No No
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Yes Yes Yes No No
Yes No Yes No Yes
Yes Limited Yes No No
No Yes Yes No Yes
25

26. Platform, device coverage and exchange type across mobile ad-tech vendors
Mobile Web iOS (in-app) Android (in-app) Public Exchange Private Exchange
No No Yes No Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
No Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Limited (Jumptap) Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes No
No Yes Yes Yes Yes
26

27. Agenda
Mobile advertising market size and growth
The rise of programmatic advertising on mobile
Ad formats and targeting capabilities on mobile
Key mobile publishers & ad-tech vendors
Evolving standardization & regulation environment
27

28. Regulations & standards on mobile have evolved significantly in the last several years
- Dec 2015 – FTC issues guidance on native advertising,
including information on disclosures used in ads
- Jun 2015 – FTC warned publishers will be held
responsible for misleading native ads
- Sep 2014 – FTC held workshop to discuss
transparency in segmentation
- Dec 2013 – FTC held workshop to discuss
transparency and disclosure in native ads
Recent FTC Updates
- Mar 2015 – IAB released OpenRTB 2.3 Specs
- Dec 2014 – “State of Viewability” transaction report
- Apr 2014 – MMA mobile video benchmark study
- Mar 2014 – MRC green-lighted Viewable Impressions
as a new impression metric
Recent Industry Association Updates
- Jul 2015 – Google Play allows apps to advertise in
Google Play store
- Mar 2014 – Google Play updated with additional
provisions; clarification on content, in-app payment
disclosure, promotion, malware, and ads policy
- Feb 2014 – Apple announced it will reject apps that
request advertising device IDs but do not show ads
Recent Mobile Platform Updates
Government Industry Associations Platforms
Federal Trade Commission
- The FTC is the federal oversight
body for the advertising industry
- Each state also maintains legislation
pertaining to advertising in addition
to FTC rules
FTC Divisions Related to Advertising:
- Division of Privacy and Identity
Protection
- Division of Advertising Practices
- Division of Marketing Practices
- Division of Consumer & Business
Education
Interactive Advertising Bureau
- Industry guidelines, education, and
events for the online and mobile
advertising industry
Apple (iOS)
- Apple sets rules for advertising within
the iOS app ecosystem (App Store)
- Apple dictates tracking methods
(e.g. IDFA) , ad types, privacy , etc.
Mobile Marketing Association
- Mobile-specific advertising and
marketing association
Google (Android)
- Google sets rules for advertising
within the Android app ecosystem
(Google Play)
- Google dictates tracking methods
(e.g. Advertising ID), ad types,
privacy and more
Media Rating Council
- Organization that sets standards for
audience measurement
28

29. The OpenRTB spec provides industry standards for communication between ad buyers & sellers
- The OpenRTB protocol provides open standards for the
communication between buyers and sellers of ad inventory
- Standards including the bidding protocol, information
taxonomies, synchronization, and regulation
- The IAB governs the OpenRTB specs and organizes updates
with the help of contributing ad tech companies
Standardizing RTB Ad Buying
- Most exchanges and DSPs comply with OpenRTB standards
- OpenRTB specs have helped spur adoption for RTB, particularly
in mobile
- However, a few notable companies such as Google DoubleClick
do not follow the OpenRTB standard. DoubleClick has its own
standard
Adoption Increasing with Notable Exceptions
OpenRTB
Consortium Formed
- Formed by DataXu,
MediaMath, Turn,
AdMeld, PubMatic,
Rubicon Project
- By April 2011, 70
companies joined the
consortium and created
committees for Video
and Mobile
Nov 2010
Mobile RTB 1.0 Spec
& Blocklist API Spec
- Mobile RTB 1.0 Spec
provides guidelines for
RTB on mobile
- Blocklist API Spec
provided
standardization for
blocking ad requests
based on specific
attributes
Feb 2011
IAB Takes
Over OpenRTB
- The Interactive
Advertising Bureau took
ownership of the
OpenRTB initiative
- Organization renamed
to the RTB Project
Oct 2011
OpenRTB
2.0 Spec
- Expanded object
hierarchy and depth of
standards
- Expanded IAB
categories
- Video support
- More parameters for
bid requests (data, geo,
ad type, content,
publisher, segment)
Jan 2012
OpenRTB
2.1 Spec
- VAST video over RTB
- IAB Tier-2 category
support (more granular)
- Location source
- Clear identification of
tablet inventory
Oct 2012
OpenRTB
2.2 Spec
- Greater support for
Deal ID
- COPPA regulation
- Support for new types
of video and mobile
inventory
- Differentiating secure
(https) and non-secure
- Buyers can send flags
to publishers about bot
traffic in real-time
Apr 2014
OpenRTB
2.3 Spec
- Adds support for Native
Advertising inventory
- Targeting and
optimization for banner
and video extended to
native
Mar 2015
Source: Nexage, DataXu, IAB, Thomvest Research29

30. MRAID & VAST specifications inform how ads are designed and served on mobile
MRAID VAST
Overview
- Mobile Rich Media Ad Interface Definitions (MRAID) is an IAB standard
to define a common API for mobile rich media ads that run in mobile apps
- MRAID is only specific about providing a method for standardizing ad
containers for rich media. This provides flexibility in terms of the ad displayed
inside the container
- Current Spec: MRAID 2.0
- Digital Video Ad Serving Template (VAST) is an IAB spec for a universal
XML schema for serving ads to digital video players
- VAST is often the preferred way to serve video; as an example, an
agency can provide an exchange with a VAST ad tag that allows the
agency to serve video assets themselves
- VAST tags also allow the demand side, supply side, and exchanges to see and
monitor video completions and other behavioral metrics
- Current Spec: VAST 3.0
Ad Types
- Closing and opening expandables
- Inline (ex. a banner)
- Interstitials
- HTML 5 video
- Calendar event
- Most types of HTML ad with JavaScript rendering engine
- Linear ads (video only)
- Non-linear (overlaying image on top of video)
- Skippable linear ads
- Linear ads with companions
- Ad pods (sequences of linear ads)
Specifications
- MRAID compliant rich media ads will run within MRAID complaint
applications from any publisher using an MRAID complaint SDK
- Two versions of MRAID: v1 and v2. v1 supports expandable and interstitial
ads. V2 adds support for resizable ads and more features
- VAST-complaint ad servers must conform to VAST XML schema
- VAST-complaint video players must display the ad in a VAST response
- Minimum requirements to conform to VAST include adherence to inline &
wrapper ads, tracking events, error reporting, & industry icons
30
Why standards matter: MRAID & VAST create a common set of “rules” by which ads are served, measured & reported,
allowing advertisers to more quickly and easily build rich ad creative that will run in different publishers’ mobile apps.

31. Similar to desktop web, mediation plays an important role in the mobile ad ecosystem
Publisher Site Mediation LayerAd Request
Network 1
Network 2
Network 3
Network 4
Priority Waterfall
Mediation allows publishers to manage demand from multiple ad networks. Mediation can be either third-party or created in-
house by a publisher.
- Publishers integrates mediation SDK
into their app
- SDK for individual ad networks must be
installed, unless the mediation SDK
already includes an ad network’s SDK
(called a wrapper)
- Publishers set rules and parameters for
mediation
Publisher Integration Process
- Mediation vendors create wrappers
(explained above) or adapters to allow
communication between the network’s
and mediation layer’s SDK
- Mediation is often offered as a free
service. For example, MoPub provides
mediation and requires publishers to
use MoPub Exchange in mediation
stack
Mediation
- While ad networks can technically be
mediated without the network’s
consent, almost all third-party mediation
providers work with ad networks before
launching mediation with that network
to publishers
Network Integration Process
- Simple waterfall – Publisher sets which
networks see an ad request first. If the
first ad network does not fill the request,
it will send request the second and so
on
- Probabilistic – Mediation solution
determines which networks provide the
highest eCPM through statistical
methods
Priority Waterfall
31

32. Mediation benefits and concerns & mobile mediation providers
- Mediation provides publishers with a way to handle multiple ad networks,
generally providing more fill than a single ad network
- Mediation SDKs that are wrappers (includes the ad networks SDK within
their own SDK) provides publishers access to many ad networks without
individually installing each network’s SDK
- For publishers, switching priority of ad networks in a mediation waterfall is
easier with a mediation solution than hardcoding
Key Benefits
- Ad networks who are lower in the waterfall stack will generally receive
worse quality impressions. The lower rank networks often receive
impressions from users who have seen ads already and are subject to ad
fatigue (lower engagement due to viewing each subsequent ad)
- In a simple waterfall, it is difficult to determine the best performing ad
networks due to its sequential nature. Well performing ad networks may be
masked if put lower in the priority stack
- Waterfalls are generally optimized around eCPM but not fill
Primary Concerns
Mobile Mediation Providers
32

33. Thank you!
For questions or comments, please contact:
Don Butler
don@thomvest.com
Nima Wedlake
nima@thomvest.com
Mark Prior
mark@thomvest.com Thomvest Ventures
203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 680
Redwood City, CA 94065
thomvest.com
33