Google said in a blogpos Wednesday that it will not use alternative methods to track users online once it terminates support for third-party cookies in Chrome, and that it does not approve the use of email as an alternative identifier for ad tracking.
In other words, Google tells the record that it will not create its own voodoo tracking magic and that all of its web products will be powered by the privacy-saving APIs currently being developed in the Privacy Sandbox, including FLoC-based groups.
The immediate consequences of Google’s announcement are not immediately clear. Does Google’s promise not to use or support third-party ad-level identifiers in its products apply only to DV360, Google Campaign Manager, and Google’s application partners – or does it apply to YouTube? The latter is unlikely, but if so, it would be important.
But as the dust settles, Google’s statement does answer one of the biggest open-ended questions raised during meetings of the Improving Web Advertising Business Group (IWABG) at the World Wide Web Consortium, or does Google plan to forgive it? cliche, eat his own dog food if it comes down to applying Privacy Sandbox suggestions.
There was a great deal of skepticism at that point, especially among ad-tech companies who believe that Google will aggressively deliver through a series of pseudo-solutions that are good enough for you, but not for me. as promised.
For example, almost every meeting of the IWABG since the end of January included debate over how Google could use FLoCs to spend 95% of conversions per dollar compared to cookie-based ads, such as Google claims to have been able to do so.
There is still no clear explanation of the math behind the claim or confirmation or 95% is only the best possible result, as opposed to the median that advertisers with FLoCs can expect. It also appears that performance was at least partially good during the test because Google apparently relied on cookie-based learning to train the model – data that would not be available if third-party cookies disappeared.
IWABG member companies, including Criteo, are asking Google to share a detailed report on exactly how its FLoC tests were conducted. They are still waiting.
One thing that is clear, however, is that Google FLoCs or cohort-based IDs strongly insist as a substitute for individual IDs. FLoC is one of the most developed proposals in the Privacy Sandbox, and Chrome is making it available this month for developer testing and for public testing in Google ads in the second quarter.
But what about industry initiatives, namely Unified ID 2.0?
The Trade Desk, which headed UID 2.0, added fast partners and quickly got the ID made public at some point during the first half of 2021. The Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media is currently reviewing the UID 2.0 code. , and Prebid signed the independent operator to implement the identifier.
However, Google is not a fan.
In its blog post, Google took the opportunity to cast some shadow – perhaps even a grenade – in the direction of the corporate identity initiative that is being developed outside the protection of the W3C.
Although David’s director of product management for privacy and trust of advertising, David Temkin, who wrote the message, did not mention Unified ID 2.0 by name, he does not have to.
Regarding what he called ‘PII graphs based on people’s email addresses’, Temkin writes that Google does not ‘believe that these solutions will meet the rising expectations of the consumer for privacy, nor will they be able to meet them’. to rapidly changing regulatory constraints, and therefore not a sustainable long-term investment. ”
One could argue that it does not necessarily matter what Google believes, at least in this regard. If people willingly share their email address and give permission for it to be used as a first-party identifier, what power does a browser or platform have to deny a user’s permission, as long as it is informed and freely given?
Then there is a precedent again. Apple said it rushed emails and phone numbers collected elsewhere cannot be substituted for the detection of articles on iOS 14, regardless of whether they were collected with permission.
Developers will only be allowed to use ad identifiers for ad tracking on iOS 14 devices if collected through Apple’s own AppTrackingTransparent framework.
Would Chrome set a similar policy? The question is ‘would’ rather than ‘could’, because Google could allow hash as a coding method, but whether that would happen, with antitrust complaints flying in from all directions, is a completely different matter.
Perhaps the bigger challenge for email-based business initiatives, at least in the short term, is scale.
Although Criteo is developing a single sign-on user interface for publishers as part of UID 2.0, there’s just no easy way to get people accustomed to web browsing without wires to suddenly start coughing up their email. address.
There seems to be one thing that Google and the advertising industry agree on, and that is the importance of first party data.
Temkin ends his blog post by stating that “first party relationships are essential” and that Google “continues to support first party relationships on our affiliate advertising platforms, in which they have direct links with their own customers.”
… but just not email addresses collected by publishers with permission, I think.