Following recent changes announced by Google for its Chrome browser, users will be prompted to exercise more control over third-party cookies. And while it is plain to see that Google and regulators wish to avoid a repeat of the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) debacle, the mere possibility of comparison warrants serious investigation into alternatives, of which Privacy Sandbox appears heir apparent.

Years of development and negotiations, its most recent pivot, and newly announced features demonstrate Google’s dedication to finding a balance that satisfies its obligations to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the concerns of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). When it does, addressability through cookies will decline rapidly and brands dependent on them will be impacted absent adaptation.

Powering this colossal and oft-delayed shift is an irrefutable truth: online privacy has become a core concern for lawmakers and their constituents in Europe and worldwide.

The Legal Push Behind Corporate Change

Privacy is no longer a niche concern; it is becoming a fundamental expectation of regulators and consumers, especially in the States where legal reforms are gaining momentum. Comprehensive privacy laws are taking effect in nearly twenty states, with California leading the way through the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its amendment, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).

The rapid pace of legislative change is striking — more than half of new privacy laws were introduced in 2023-24 alone. While the House failed to pass the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) out of committee, the bill came far closer to a floor vote than most anticipated. Congress appears poised to pass children and teen-focused privacy bills before the end of session.

This shift is more than just a legal headache for companies; it reshapes how businesses interact with consumers. Brands should rethink their data collection and data use strategies, due to the requirement to respect types of opt-out signals mandated by laws in California, Colorado, and Texas, as well as increased obligations to consent for certain data types, and internal data mapping requirements.

U.S. state laws, while different in structure from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), share common enforcement elements that compel companies to change their data practices, and penalties for non-compliance are steep The message is clear: compliance isn’t just about avoiding penalties—financial and reputational—it’s about staying ahead of a wave of risk that is only gathering strength.

What the U.S. Can Prepare For

Looking to Europe provides a roadmap for how privacy laws can amplify consumer expectations. The GDPR, now six years into enforcement, has dramatically altered the landscape for advertisers and consumers alike. With more than  2,000 fines issued by March 2024 and penalties nearing €4.5 billion, companies have had to adjust their strategies to comply with stricter privacy regulations.

Even though privacy was already a top concern for consumers in Europe, legally required changes by companies there led to increased awareness of users’ privacy rights and more frequent exercise of those rights

In the U.S., this process is beginning to unfold. While data protection concerns have historically focused on government surveillance, the growing wave of state privacy laws and increasing public scrutiny of private data usage — especially after Cambridge Analytica — are starting to mirror the European experience. However, the signs of fatigue in Europe due to the constant consent requests have led regulators to express a desire for reform. If it happens, the process will likely be slow, but we may hope to see similar changes in U.S. legislation sooner rather than later.

The Path to Consumer Trust

The importance of comparing the EU and U.S. approaches to privacy lies in user behavior. As brands prepare to comply with evolving privacy laws, consumers are becoming increasingly informed about data practices, leading to heightened expectations around transparency and choice. However, there is a critical need to find the right balance between customer expectations regarding data privacy and their desire for relevant, personalized experiences.

A recent survey revealed that 86% of Americans are concerned about their online privacy, a number likely to rise as privacy laws gain ubiquity. Just as the GDPR heightened awareness among Europeans, U.S. consumers will reasonably demand more control over their data. This shift will inevitably result in more users opting out of third-party cookies, requesting their data deletion, and exercising their rights to the data companies hold about them — whether manually, through changes implemented by platforms, or via authorized agents.

Navigating the Road Ahead

It’s essential for brands to recognize that user behavior will evolve alongside legal obligations. Companies that fail to adapt their strategies now risk losing trust and relevance in the eyes of consumers.

The shift towards cookieless technologies is not merely a legal necessity but also a crucial response to meet evolving consumer demands and offset increased risk and overhead associated with new obligations.

First-party data and strong consumer relationships have never been more critical. Diversifying vendors for each critical function will ensure continuity and create a competitive advantage amidst these changes. Additionally, assessing whether partners are equipped to help navigate this new landscape is vital.

Laws are driving changes in both corporate behavior and consumer expectations, forcing companies to adapt. Eventually, the switch for third-party cookies will be flipped to “off.” The time to prepare is now.

The post Beyond Compliance: Adapting to Privacy-Centric Platforms and Consumer Expectations appeared first on AdMonsters.

 The AdMonsters team is back for another week of intense courtroom drama in the Google vs. DOJ trial. We’re now deep into week three, and let me tell you, the plot has thickened faster than a bowl of your grandma’s gumbo.

Week 3 Overview

If you’ve been keeping up with the trial, you know we’ve already had heavy hitters taking the stand, spilling the tea on Google’s iron grip over the ad tech ecosystem. But this week? It’s all about the tangled mess of “ad tech spaghetti.” Google came out swinging in its defense, but rather than clearing things up, they managed to tangle themselves up even more. It’s like watching someone try to detangle a pair of headphones — they’re only making it worse.

Check out the AdMonsters Team breaking down the highlights of week 3 of the DOJ vs Google trial in the video below and you can also catch their weekly updates on YouTube.

Key Testimonies

Andrew Byrd jumped into a few polarizing testimonies, particularly from witnesses like Mark Israel. Israel defended Google, claiming regulators focused too narrowly on open web display advertising. He waved off the allegations like, “Look over there! TikTok! Facebook! Amazon!” — and suggested that competition from social media platforms and e-commerce sites like Facebook, TikTok, and Amazon was being overlooked.  He was saying just anything to divert attention from the real issue.

His argument that Google’s share of the online ad market had dropped from 15% to 10% over a decade due to a shift toward mobile and app-based advertising was… let’s just say, an interesting flex. Critics like Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads quickly noted that this defense overlooked the publishers’ plight, focusing too heavily on advertisers.

Publisher Concerns

Andrew further elaborated on testimonies from Kenneth Bloom from BuzzFeed, who, despite some nervous energy, praised Google’s ad display business. The over-reliance on Google’s tools is real, and it’s leaving publishers in a tight spot. There’s a clear tension—while some publishers benefit from Google’s ad tech, it’s a double-edged sword.

A viral LinkedIn post from Ariel hit the nail on the head: publisher revenue losses weren’t fully addressed in Israel’s defense, leaving his argument feeling like Swiss cheese — full of holes.

Eyewitness Accounts

To make matters worse, Yakira talked about when a Google project manager called a prominent ad tech journalist “stupid.” Talk about drama. These actions only underscore the growing tension and contradictions in the testimonies that have been the hallmark of this trial.

Internal Google Emails

One of the most damning pieces of evidence has been internal Google emails, which disclosed strategic advantages gained through acquisitions like DoubleClick. The DOJ used these documents to argue that Google’s market power resulted from deliberate actions to stifle competition, not just from good business practices. Oh no, say it isn’t so. Say it wasn’t a well-orchestrated game of Monopoly with Google holding all the prime real estate.

Judge’s Stance

Judge Brinkema isn’t letting anyone slide either. She’s been giving some Google employees the side-eye, openly questioning their credibility. You know things are getting shaky when the judge looks at you like Hmm emoji. This added yet another layer of drama to the proceedings, leaving Google’s defense team scrambling to keep their narrative intact.

The Complexity of Ad Tech

To wrap up the week, it’s clear the ad tech ecosystem isn’t just complex—it’s like the ultimate Choose Your Own Adventure novel. And guess what? Google isn’t just a chapter; they’re the whole darn book. Their fingers are in every part of the ad tech supply chain, from publishers to ad buyers, and everything in between.

Transparency Issues

Of course, transparency (or the lack thereof) is an elephant in the room. Key testimonies are happening behind closed doors and some trial documents are sealed. It’s giving major “black box” vibes. The public and the industry are left speculating about what’s really at stake.

Implications for the Future

So, there you have it. Week three’s tangled mess of spaghetti — that none of us would want to eat — unveiled a web of power plays and serious courtroom drama. We’ve got Google’s defense team spinning its wheels while the DOJ tightens the net around Google’s ad empire.

At its heart, this trial isn’t just about Google; it’s setting the stage for the entire ad tech industry. You can bet competitors like The Trade Desk are watching this soap opera unfold, taking notes on what not to do. Will this end with a Google split-up, or will they find a way to wriggle out of this like Houdini? Only time will tell.

Got thoughts on the trial? Head over to our Slack community polls and spill the tea. 

The post Google vs DOJ Trial Week 3: Ad Tech Spaghetti and Courtroom Drama appeared first on AdMonsters.

With testimonies revealing Google’s deep grip on ad tech, we unpacked how this could reshape the industry and finally give publishers their due. Watch the full breakdown and get the highlights of the trial here.

Hey Monsters! We’re back with our coverage of week two of Google on Trial, and let’s just say it’s heating up like a summer block party.

This week, we peeled back more layers of Google’s ad tech dominance — revealing how publishers, once sidelined, finally have their grievances heard in court. If week one was the appetizer, week two served the main course, and the DOJ wasn’t holding back.

Catch the full video recap below…

Publishers: “Just Give Me My Money”

Last week’s testimony made it clear — publishers have been getting the short end of the stick. With Google controlling AdX, the biggest pool of premium advertisers, publishers don’t have much leverage. Even though there’s plenty of demand, publishers aren’t cashing in like they should. Between Google’s 20% cut and their alleged sneaky peeks at competitor bids during the First Look days, it’s no wonder publishers felt like they were being squeezed.

It’s like publishers were throwing the biggest club night, but Google controlled the guest list and took a big chunk of the door charge, leaving publishers with barely enough to cover the bar.

Even U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema bluntly asked: Does Google’s ad tech actually benefit publishers? Spoiler alert: according to the DOJ’s witness, if Google wasn’t meddling in the auction process publishers could’ve walked away with a lot more.

Unified Pricing Rules: A Straitjacket for Publishers

Next up, came the Unified Pricing Rules (UPR). Google sold it as a win for efficiency and innovation, but publishers tell a different story. Matthew Wheatland from The Daily Mail testified that UPR caused a dip in revenue per impression, leaving publishers gasping for air.

Sure, there was an uptick in overall revenue when UPR rolled out, but Wheatland pointed out that this likely came from a surge in web traffic, not from Google’s pricing rules. Without that traffic boost, the hit would’ve been much worse. He also noted that if The Daily Mail tried to move away from Google’s ad server, they’d be staring down a 28% revenue loss. That’s what happens when you’re locked in Google’s ecosystem.

Defense Buzzwords & Bingo Cards: Google’s Shield

Google’s defense team has relied on buzzwords like “brand safety” and “inventory quality” to paint themselves as the good guys.

Our friend Arielle Garcia over at Check My Ads spiced things up with her “Defense Buzzword Bingo,” turning this corporate showdown into a game — literally. But behind all the buzzword smoke, the truth is much harsher. Google’s “innovation” isn’t really about pushing the industry forward — it’s about maintaining an iron grip on ad tech.

Key Testimonies: Behind the Curtain of Ad Tech Monopoly

The courtroom spotlight shone on some big Google players last week. YouTube CEO Neal Mohan stepped in to explain the inner workings of Google’s ad tech strategy, tracing it back to the DoubleClick acquisition. According to Mohan, this acquisition was meant to drive innovation, making life easier for publishers and advertisers.  Sounds great, right? But the DOJ didn’t buy it. They pointed out that Google’s shopping spree — including acquisitions like DoubleClick and Admeld — was more about wiping out the competition than building better tools.

Mohan tried to defend Google’s habit of “parking” acquired companies, saying it was about letting them run independently while syncing up their tech. He swore Google’s rise came from “product innovation and services,” but the government painted a different picture — one where Google’s integrated ad stack turned rivals into roadkill.

Then we had Nirmal Jayaram, Senior Director of Engineering at Google, in the hot seat. Jayaram did his best to downplay internal documents showing how Google allegedly used AWBid to snatch up publishers from competitors. His testimony was jam-packed with buzzwords like “latency” and “brand safety,” contradicting earlier evidence about Google’s strategy. There was a big gap between what internal emails said and what was claimed in court. Classic Big Tech spin, if you ask us.

Publishers Finally Seen: The Trial’s Turning Point?

For the first time, publishers are stepping out of Google’s shadow, with their frustrations about ad tech monopolization being aired for everyone to see. As our brother from another mother, AdExchanger’s Anthony Vargas called it — publishers are feeling seen. The years of discontent, the quiet side-eye at conferences, the “let’s call up our Google rep” complaints? They’re now front and center. And it’s about time.

Global Implications: What Happens Next?

This trial isn’t just a U.S. thing. The ripple effects are being felt worldwide, from the U.S. courtroom to the EU, where regulators are watching with popcorn in hand. Sure, Google scored a small win in Europe last week, dodging a $1.66 billion antitrust fine. But don’t let them pop the champagne just yet — the global fight against Big Tech dominance is far from over.

Stay tuned as Andrew Byrd, Yakira Young, and Lynne d Johnson return to dive deep into week three of Google on Trial.

The post Google on Trial: Unpacking Week Two of the DOJ’s Case and What It Means for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

We were all at the edge of our seats last week as the entire industry tuned in each day of the DOJ vs. Google antitrust trial. 

The ad tech world is on high alert, gripping the industry with every twist and turn. To help make sense of it all, the AdMonsters editors dive deep into the first week of the trial in our premiere episode of ‘Google on Trial.’ This is more than just a courtroom drama—it’s a potential turning point for publishers, advertisers, and digital media.

In this episode, Lynne, Andrew, and I unpack key moments, testimonies, and implications that could reshape how we think about Google’s role in ad tech. We explore everything from data brokerage and market manipulation to publishers’ challenging negotiations with Google. The discussion even touches on global regulatory impacts, secretive maneuvers by Google, and how small players might be the most affected.

Curious to hear the full breakdown? Watch the video and join us in dissecting this critical moment for the industry.

Lynne’s Takeaways:

Data Brokerage and Market Manipulation – Lynne references an AdMonsters article by Adam Heimlich, arguing that Google’s true power lies in its massive data trove and how it uses it to broker ad placements. Google’s dominance is not just about having better tech but leveraging data to manipulate the ad marketplace in its favor.

Global Regulatory Impact – The trial could have global implications. She mentions fines imposed on Google and Apple in Europe and the UK’s CMA pushing for more transparency in ad tech. This trial could be part of a larger global reckoning against tech giants like Google and Apple, or “GApple.”

Stephanie Layser’s Testimony – Lynne highlights former NewsCorp exec Stephanie Layser’s testimony about publishers feeling held hostage by Google’s dominance. The lack of transparency and the difficulty of finding alternative demand sources means that publishers are stuck with Google, despite the potential for higher costs and complications if they switch away.

Yakira’s Takeaways:

Negotiating with Google Was Never Easy – Yakira emphasizes Goodway Group’s Jay Friedman’s testimony, noting that negotiating with Google is almost impossible due to its dominance. Friedman compared the alternative options to Google’s services as choosing between high-end and budget hotels, underscoring the unrealistic nature of switching away from Google without suffering revenue losses.

Header Bidding Was ‘Not the Answer – Header bidding was supposed to provide an alternative to Google’s dominance, but it actually made things worse for some publishers. Gannett’s attempt to switch to header bidding led to a 15-20% increase in CPMs, illustrating the difficulty of finding viable alternatives to Google’s ad services.

Why Is Google Being So Secretive? – Google’s attempts to exclude certain testimonies and make the switch from a jury to a bench trial by paying the government $2 million. This move highlights Google’s extensive power and raises questions about their transparency and motives in the trial.

Andrew’s Takeaways: 

The Small Player’s Reliance on Google – Small businesses and publishers see Google’s ad tech as a cost-effective and streamlined solution. Breaking up Google’s ad business could complicate ad management and increase costs, negatively impacting their ability to advertise and grow.

Check My Ads’s Two Cents – Ariel Garcia from Check My Ads argues that Google’s monopolistic practices stifle competition and transparency in the ad tech space. The trial could lead to structural changes and more global regulation, and reignite discussions on legislative measures like the America Act for digital media transparency.

What’s Next?

The trial has highlighted the complexity of breaking up major tech monopolies, the potential ripple effects on small businesses and publishers, and the intricate balance between legislative oversight and market self-regulation.

Stay tuned for weekly updates and deep dives as we continue to unpack this monumental trial. We will bring you the latest developments and expert analyses on what it all means for the future of digital media and ad tech.

Bye everyone, and see you next week!

The post Inside the DOJ’s Big Tech Showdown: AdMonsters Breaks Down Week 1 of Google’s High-Stakes Trial appeared first on AdMonsters.

As the US vs Google ad tech trial unfolds, Chalice’s Adam Heimlich explores how Google used data to dominate display advertising, manipulate auctions, and crush competition. Discover the hidden tactics behind its market power and what it means for the future of digital advertising.

Since a broker is an intermediary, and the basis of audience targeting is data, there should be no doubt Google is an enormous data broker — maybe the biggest of all time. That’s the big takeaway from Week 1 of US vs Google, the ad tech case currently in session in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Google’s Doubleclick & Admeld Takeover

Instead of selling consumer data to ad tech companies, Google opted to dedicate its brokerage to the service of Google advertisers. By 2007, these were demanding more cheap clicks than Google search could drive.

In glaring contrast with what an honest broker would do, Google decided to acquire Doubleclick and Admeld, assume the role of a trusted sell-side broker helping publishers monetize, and then use buy-side data against those publishers.

Cream Skimming and Auction Manipulation

Google monopolized the market for intermediary auction software by replacing fair and open auctions with auctions manipulated through Google’s secret use case for consumer data: cream skimming.

It’s relatively easy to predict conversions if you know what nearly everybody has been searching for online lately. But Google wasn’t satisfied with simply bidding to place, say, Proactiv ads in front of people they knew were worried about pimples. Google felt it necessary to place relevant ads without ever paying above market rate on behalf of Proactiv or any other advertiser. Overbidding is a natural consequence of winning a lot of auctions, which is why sellers like them. There’s no way to know what bid price you have to beat to win. Usually!

Secret Projects: Bernanke, Jedi, and Poirot

Acting as a dishonest broker with unique auction privileges, Google implemented a series of secret tactics to place ads in front of future purchasers for prices lower — sometimes much lower — than those placements were worth.

These include First Look, Last Look, Project Bernanke, Project Jedi, and Project Poirot. (It says a lot that only the DOJ was able to uncover these conducts, despite intense publisher scrutiny and dozens if not hundreds of ex-Google employees knowing about them. The amount of power required to keep a secret so big for so many years is immense.) Though auction manipulation is rightly the focus of the federal case, advertising professionals should note it’s data that drove the outsize profits Google reaped from digital display.

Data Power vs. Market Power

There’s nothing illegal about having the most data or using it to win continuously in search. There’s also nothing illegal about selling data, though reputable data brokerages somehow came to be regarded as less ethical than Google (I wonder how that happened). Where Google crossed a line was in exporting its data advantage from search to display.

Cream skimming radically altered what had been thriving competitions for buy- and sell-side ad tech. US law looks askance at market winners crossing into adjacent markets for an excellent reason: success in this sort of “monopoly maintenance” closes off markets from what they need to grow properly. Without a route to success through competition, markets see less investment, a slower pace of innovation, and lower value at every price. This is what happened to display.

The Downfall of Display Advertising

The trial includes a great deal of evidence on CPMs: which way they changed, at which times, and by how much. We who worked in digital display over the last decade can recall what we saw: deteriorating quality, persistent fraud, opacity on fees even when transparency was promised, constant reputational and corporate risk, and routine non-disclosure of even the basic facts about what we purchased or sold. There has been a great deal of finger-pointing at allegedly bad actors, though not enough at the biggest one. Finally, we can be grateful to have reached a moment of accountability, and an opportunity to reset.

A Market in Need of a Reset

Google thrived while the market suffered because it used its data advantage to cherry-pick display opportunities of high value to search advertisers. Besides lowering the overall value of display and rewarding corrupt players, Google’s bias tilted the display market toward direct response advertising, which values last actions over persuasion and sentiment lift. This has been extremely costly to brands, whose use cases for advertising were simply not served by the dominant technology. Also victimized were quality publishers, as monetization was (and still is) determined almost entirely by decision algorithms that ignore quality signals such as ad-to-content ratio, refresh rate, and share of returning readers. No one knows as well as we do what drove the devolution of news toward clickbait.

If Google’s data had been left within its search walled garden or brought to an open market for display advertising, that market would not nearly be so ruined. Google’s case unravels if you doubt that winning an arms race in data should grant a company the right to dominate in AI. If the data world champions hoard what they know about us, and only use it to fuel their own predictions, they will kill competition in many markets. It will be better for America if the world’s biggest data collectors, with their detailed digital dossiers on us all, are forced to be honest brokers.

The post Google Is a Data Broker appeared first on AdMonsters.

AI has already begun transforming various aspects of mobile marketing, from personalized recommendations to predictive analytics. As AI technologies evolve, their impact on mobile measurement and attribution will become even more pronounced. 

AI’s ability to process and analyze vast amounts of data quickly and accurately is unparalleled. In the context of mobile measurement, AI can provide deeper insights into user behavior, helping marketers understand what users are doing and why they are doing it. This capability will enable more precise targeting and personalized marketing efforts, enhancing user acquisition strategies.

The Power of AI in Mobile Measurement

Predictive analytics powered by AI can forecast future user behaviors based on historical data. For example, AI can identify patterns that indicate a user is likely to churn, allowing marketers to intervene with targeted campaigns to retain the user. This proactive approach can significantly improve user retention rates and lifetime value (LTV).

AI-driven automation will streamline various aspects of mobile measurement and attribution. Tasks that were previously manual and time-consuming, such as data collection, segmentation, optimization, and reporting, can now be automated. This not only increases efficiency but also reduces the likelihood of human error.

Automated attribution models, for instance, can dynamically adjust to changing user behaviors and market conditions, providing more accurate and timely insights. This agility will be crucial in a fast-paced industry where trends and user preferences can shift rapidly.

Privacy Concerns and Regulatory Challenges

While AI offers numerous benefits, the rise of privacy concerns poses significant challenges to mobile measurement and attribution. Users are becoming increasingly aware of how their data is collected, stored, and used, leading to greater demand for privacy protections.

Governments around the world are enacting stricter data privacy regulations. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States are just two examples of legislation having significant implications for mobile measurement and attribution.

These regulations require companies to obtain explicit consent from users before collecting their data and to provide transparency about how data is used. This shift towards user consent and control over personal data will limit the amount of data available for traditional attribution models, which rely heavily on tracking user interactions across various touchpoints.

The Shift Away From Traditional Tracking

Additionally, changes to Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) and Google’s upcoming Privacy Sandbox for Android are major developments that will impact mobile measurement. Third-party cookies have been a staple of digital advertising, enabling cross-site tracking and attribution. However, with browsers like Safari and Firefox blocking third-party cookies and Google’s Privacy Sandbox for Android planning to remove any personally identifiable information (PII), marketers need to find alternative methods for tracking user behavior.

Similarly, Apple’s introduction of the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework requires apps to obtain user permission before tracking their activity across other companies’ apps and websites. As a result, many users are opting out of tracking, reducing the effectiveness of IDFA for attribution purposes.

Adapting to a Privacy-First Future

The mobile app industry needs to adopt new strategies and technologies to navigate the challenges posed by AI and privacy concerns.

With traditional tracking methods becoming less viable, marketers should explore privacy-centric attribution models. By leveraging solutions like incrementality, marketing mix modeling (MMM), and predictive analytics, it’s possible not just to work with aggregated data, but to gain true insights from it. This involves analyzing trends and patterns at a cohort level rather than tracking individual users, thus respecting user privacy while still gaining valuable insights.

First-party data, collected directly from users with their consent, will become increasingly valuable. By building strong relationships with users and encouraging them to share their data willingly, companies can create rich datasets for analysis and attribution. This data is often more accurate and reliable than third-party data, leading to better targeting and measurement outcomes.

Contextual targeting, which focuses on delivering ads based on the context of the content being consumed rather than user behavior, will also gain prominence. This approach respects user privacy by not relying on personal data and can still achieve effective targeting by aligning ads with relevant content.

The Role of AI in Ensuring Compliance and The Future of Mobile Attribution

AI can also play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. Machine learning algorithms can be used to detect and manage sensitive data, ensuring that personal information is handled appropriately. AI can automate the process of obtaining and managing user consent, making it easier for companies to comply with regulations while maintaining a positive user experience.

The intersection of AI and privacy concerns presents both challenges and opportunities for mobile measurement and attribution in the coming years. AI has the potential to enhance data analysis, predictive analytics, and automation, driving more effective user acquisition strategies. However, the increasing demand for privacy and regulatory changes will require the industry to adapt by adopting privacy-centric attribution models, leveraging first-party data, and exploring contextual targeting.

As the mobile app industry navigates this evolving landscape, companies that can successfully integrate AI-driven solutions while respecting user privacy will be best positioned to thrive. The next 12-24 months will be a critical period of transformation, shaping the future of mobile measurement and attribution practices for years to come.

The post What Is the Role of AI in Mobile Measurement and Attribution? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Identity resolution has become a Rubik’s Cube that everyone’s trying to solve.  

At AdMonsters Publisher Forum Boston, we got a front-row seat to the latest strategies and challenges in this space, thanks to a lively session with Christine Lee, Director of Data Partnerships at Fandom, and Tamir Shub, VP of Business Development at Intent IQ.

Addressability Meets Privacy: The New Balancing Act

Let’s face it: the identity game is rigged. Publishers are caught between the rock of addressability and the hard place of privacy. Lee laid it out clearly — Fandom, the world’s largest fan platform, is navigating a minefield of fragmented regulations and inconsistent user behaviors across devices and browsers. Think of it as trying to juggle on a tightrope while the wind’s picking up speed.

“We’re dealing with different browser types — Apple’s ATT, Firefox, Chrome, Safari — and each has its own set of rules,” Lee explained. She added, “It’s like trying to juggle different user behaviors across desktop, mobile, and mobile web while keeping an eye on the privacy landscape, which is extremely fragmented, not just globally but even within the U.S.”

Whether it’s Apple’s ATT or the ever-shifting sands of state-level privacy laws, Fandom is testing identity solutions to find that sweet spot where addressability meets privacy without losing sight of either.

Fandom’s Secret Sauce: Testing, Testing, and More Testing

But, with over 100 ID solutions on the market, not all options are worth your time. As Lee pointed out, “We’ve leaned into testing a variety of ID solutions in the space, including Google initiatives, Amazon initiatives, and our partnership with Intent IQ. But it’s difficult to compare apples to apples because every vendor has a different methodology.” The real challenge is figuring out which ones move the needle.

Fandom has actively experimented with many ID solutions, but they’re not just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. The key is to be selective — testing the ones that make the most sense for their audience and business goals.

By working with Intent IQ, Fandom saw revenue uplifts from 55% to a whopping 140% across different properties, proving that the right approach can help publishers thrive in this new identity landscape. But it’s not just about the numbers. Lee emphasized the importance of comparing these results side-by-side with traditional methods — a task easier said than done. Still, Fandom’s commitment to rigorous, strategic testing sets them apart from the pack.

Identity Graphs: The Backbone or the Achilles’ Heel?

If identity resolution is a puzzle, then identity graphs are the pieces that need to fit together perfectly. But, as Shub pointed out, not all graphs are created equal. The crux of the issue? Accuracy. Without frequent updates and a reliable truth set, you might as well be hiking with a faulty compass.

“Identity solution infrastructure is founded on its identity graph. But the accuracy is only as good as the graph and the data it uses,” Shub stated. “Without frequent updates, the data becomes irrelevant and misleading. That’s why refresh rates are critical.”

And let’s be honest: no one knows what a post-cookie world will look like. We’re all betting on a hypothesis. The regulatory landscape is murky, platform decisions are unpredictable, and consumer sentiment is a moving target. In this climate of uncertainty, it’s easy to get swept up in solutions that might not hold up under scrutiny.

There’s an urgent need for a standardized way to validate these graphs because trusting data without validation is like betting on a rigged horse race. It’s a gamble, and not one publisher can afford to lose. As Shub pointed out, “Currently, there’s no tool available that can validate data accuracy on a household level ID or person level ID.”

ID Bridging: A Savior or a Mirage?

With the deprecation of third-party cookies looming like a storm cloud, ID bridging has stepped into the spotlight. But as with any tech innovation, it comes with its share of controversy. Critics argue that ID bridging while promising, is fraught with transparency issues, potential fraud, and ever-present privacy concerns. Some in the industry see it as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound — helpful in the short term, but not the long-term solution we need.

ID Bridging is almost directly correlated to the impending demise of third-party cookies. While publishers and tech companies scramble to maintain addressability, there’s growing concern that with no universal standard, ID Bridging could create more problems than it solves. Shady practices, lack of transparency, and fragmented user data are just a few of the issues that put the buy side on edge.

Yet, this is where Intent IQ aims to stand out from the pack. Their technology is built with transparency and accuracy at its core. Beyond following the new IAB standards, the ad tech vendor sets a high bar for others to meet. By ensuring their identity graphs are refreshed every 48 hours and maintaining over 90% deterministic accuracy, they’re working to shut down skepticism and build trust on both the buy and sell sides.

The Buy-Side Perspective: Scaling the Heights with Alt IDs

While publishers are busy fine-tuning their strategies, the buy side faces another set of challenges. Shub gave us a peek into how agencies grapple with the scalability of alternative IDs. The promise is there, but the execution? Not quite hitting the mark — yet.

“Agencies report that alternative IDs didn’t generate the results they were hoping for,” Shub noted. “They’re saying the solution was promising but lacking scale. It’s not just about scale; it’s about having the expertise in identity — specifically.”

Intent IQ is working closely with agencies to overcome these hurdles, with successful campaigns already showing significant performance gains. “For example, we’ve delivered a successful campaign with Involved Media, leading to a 77% increase in leads for an education client,” Shub shared.

It’s a tough climb, but the right tools and partnerships are helping the buy side make headway.

Takeaways for Publishers: Test, Partner, and Evolve

The identity resolution space isn’t just evolving; it’s mutating at a breakneck pace. For publishers, the mantra is clear: test relentlessly, choose your partners wisely, and stay agile.

Lee’s advice? Don’t just look at the numbers—look at the whole stack, and make sure you’re not comparing apples to oranges. “Continue to test various solutions, and make sure when you measure, you’re looking at your entire stack, not just certain demand channels,” she emphasized.

And as Shub pointed out, identity solutions should work for everyone involved, creating a win-win situation for both publishers and advertisers. “Identity is sustainable as long as it works for both sides,” he concluded.

The post How Fandom Is Mastering the Art of Addressability and Privacy With an Assist From Intent IQ appeared first on AdMonsters.

In what could only be described as a Hail Mary pass, Google has agreed to cough up $250 million over five years to fund journalism and AI research in California. This deal was announced with much fanfare, and some might say a dash of self-congratulation. But before we start throwing confetti, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on here.

The Big (and Not So Big) Picture

On the surface, this deal looks like a lifeline for local journalism. California’s newsrooms have been on life support for years, hemorrhaging jobs and revenue as the digital era reshaped the media landscape. The fund, administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, promises to inject much-needed cash into these struggling institutions. 

It helps Google paint itself as the savior of the free press while avoiding a dreaded “link tax” that could have forced the tech giant to pay publishers for linking to their content. This brings to mind California’s Journalism Preservation Act, which proposed to make Big Tech pay for news.

But here’s the kicker: $250 million over five years sounds like a lot until you consider that Google’s ad empire rakes in over $200 billion annually. To put it bluntly, this deal is a drop in the ocean for Google — a PR move dressed up as corporate responsibility.

Why It Matters: The Real Cost of Free News

For years, publishers have watched in horror as their ad revenues dried up while Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) turned into digital juggernauts. The relationship between tech platforms and news publishers has always been lopsided. Publishers create the content that drives traffic, but the platforms get the lion’s share of the ad dollars. This new deal doesn’t change that dynamic; it merely delays the inevitable. 

The idea of a “link tax” has been gaining traction globally, with Australia and Canada leading the charge. In those countries, Google and Meta were initially resistant, but eventually, they caved — well, sort of. In Australia, Google opted to pay selected publishers, while Meta briefly blocked news altogether before returning to the table. In Canada, Google agreed to pay $74 million annually to keep news content in its search results, while Meta decided to go the nuclear route and block news links entirely. The global push for Big Tech to pay for news mirrors what’s happening in California.

Google’s deal with the state allows the tech behemoth to avoid the more stringent regulations that would have come with the now-shelved CJPA. The CJPA would have forced Google and other tech giants to hand percentages of their ad revenue over to news publishers. Instead, we get a voluntary fund that’s easier for Google to swallow and far less beneficial for the publishers who need it most. The CJPA could have significantly shifted the balance of power, much like similar legislation in other regions.

The AI Angle: A Trojan Horse?

Then there’s the $62.5 million earmarked for AI research. Let’s not kid ourselves — this deal might seem like a bonus, but it’s worth asking whether it is really about saving journalism. Could it be more about Google bolstering its AI capabilities under the guise of public good?  While the idea of using AI to solve “real world problems” sounds noble, including AI funding in this deal is more about securing Google’s future dominance than helping the news industry.

As Google continues refining its AI-driven search features — like its Search Generative Experience — publishers are experiencing a decrease in traffic from organic search results, directly impacting their revenue. The rise of AI in search is reshaping the landscape, with AI-powered engines like Perplexity.ai offering revenue-sharing models that starkly contrast Google’s approach. 

Google’s move to include AI in this deal is less about journalism and more about maintaining its dominance in the search market. As Scott Messer recently pointed out in his analysis of Google’s latest SEO shake-ups, Google is playing a different game altogether. The company is not optimizing for sending traffic to publishers; instead, it’s focusing on maximizing its ad revenues, often at the expense of the very content creators it claims to support.

Critics, including journalists and labor unions, have called out the deal for what it really is: a backroom agreement that benefits Google far more than it does the struggling newsrooms of California. The Media Guild of the West, representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona, and Texas, was notably excluded from the negotiations, leading them to denounce the agreement as a “shakedown.” This isn’t the first time Google has been suspected of using its financial might to navigate legislative pressures.

Connecting the Dots: What Publishers Need to Know

For publishers, this deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any funding is better than none, especially in an industry that’s been in a death spiral for years. On the other hand, this deal sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Google to dictate the terms of its support for journalism, California has effectively ceded control to a tech giant with little incentive to change the status quo.

Publishers should be wary of becoming too dependent on these kinds of deals. The digital landscape is shifting rapidly, and while Google’s money might keep some newsrooms afloat for now, it won’t fix the underlying issues that have led to the decline of local journalism. With AI companies like Perplexity.ai and OpenAI entering the scene with revenue-sharing models, publishers might need to start exploring these alternative sources of revenue to stay afloat — or, maybe not. The real solutions could lean more towards finding sustainable business models that don’t rely on the whims of Silicon Valley.

The Bottom Line: Google Wins Again

So, what’s the takeaway? Google has once again managed to sidestep regulation while presenting itself as a benefactor of the public good. The $250 million might help some newsrooms in the short term, but it does little to address long-term challenges. This deal is more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

As the dust settles, it’s clear that Google got the better end of this bargain. By agreeing to a voluntary fund, the tech giant has avoided the much larger financial obligations that would have come with the CJPA. Meanwhile, California’s newsrooms are left to grapple with an uncertain future, their fate still largely in the hands of the very platforms profiting from their decline. 

In the end, this deal is a stark reminder of the power imbalance between tech platforms and the news industry. Until that changes, we’re likely to see more deals like this — ones that look good on paper but ultimately fail to address the real issues at play.

The post Google’s $250 Million ‘Gift’ to California News – Is It Really a Gift or Just a Clever Tax Dodge? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google has had a tough few months.

First, they announced an abrupt about-face in their years-long initiative to remove third-party cookies from Chrome. Barely two weeks later, they were officially declared a Search monopoly by a federal court in one of the most consequential antitrust losses in decades (with another concurrent antitrust case about Google’s AdTech business still pending.) 

As the CTO of Upwave (a Brand Outcomes measurement startup) I’ve spent the last decade doing what everyone in AdTech has to do – navigate cautiously and quietly around Google, for fear of drawing their ire (or simply being toppled by their massive wake.) I have spent years participating in World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) discussions about Google’s Privacy Sandbox, and I’ve watched the cookie saga unfold with morbid fascination. 

One thing became clear very early in the W3C process – a small number of companies (particularly, but not exclusively Google) believed very deeply that they had both the power and the right to exercise pervasive control over the entire digital media and advertising industries. Now, it appears that Google may have finally found the limits of its influence: at the courthouse steps. 

But with or without third-party cookies, the web must go on. So where do we all go next?

The Privacy Paradox

The Privacy Sandbox initiative was Google’s attempt to reconcile irreconcilable objectives: overcoming Apple’s privacy counter-positioning, maintaining ad revenue primarily generated by capturing and applying comprehensive behavioral data about its billion+, and preserving a sufficiently healthy web ecosystem (since what’s the point of maintaining a search monopoly if searchers have nothing to find?) 

However, Google’s approach was fundamentally flawed in its overly simplistic view of privacy, focusing solely on eliminating cross-site tracking. This narrow definition sidestepped uncomfortable conversations about Google’s data collection and use, but also set an unrealistic bar for the Privacy Sandbox APIs by demanding they facilitate effective advertising while rendering cross-site data sharing technologically unfeasible.

Google put a smart, capable team in the Privacy Sandbox, but their mission was impossible from the start.

The Monopoly Question

The recent court ruling confirming Google’s monopoly in search underscores the company’s immense influence in shaping the digital landscape. Google’s control of the most widely used web browser means that its decisions about cookies and privacy reverberate throughout the advertising ecosystem. And Google’s “walled garden” approach to its many interlocking properties has allowed it to build an unassailable flywheel by tightly bundling its proprietary data, unique scaled inventory, and ad tech stack. 

The Privacy Sandbox initiative, despite its stated goals, has always seemed more about protecting Google’s flywheel than about safeguarding user privacy. And whether the ongoing antitrust trial focused on Google’s ad tech business finds that Google’s dominance of the plumbing of ad buying and serving rises to the level of a monopoly, there can be no doubt that the entire ad tech industry still operates in Google’s long shadow.

Forging a New Privacy Path

Google’s announcement that they won’t entirely remove 3rd party cookies doesn’t mean cookies are safe. Industry analysts anticipate Google will likely implement a consent mechanism similar to Apple’s “App Tracking Transparency,” effectively decimating cookie availability without outright eliminating them.

This scenario presents significant challenges:

1. The industry loses momentum in its efforts to move beyond outdated tracking methods.
2. The Privacy Sandbox initiative risks fading into irrelevance without the urgency of imminent cookie deprecation.
3. Uncertainty surrounding the open web’s future continues to accelerate ad spending shifts toward walled gardens, paradoxically giving a few tech giants even more panoptical views of user behavior.
4. Google may decide it has bigger problems than the long-term viability of the open web and simply retreat into its castle, leaving everyone outside its walls to pick up the pieces.

The digital advertising industry stands at a critical juncture. It’s evident that where privacy is concerned, both industry self-regulation and unilateral decisions by tech giants have fallen short. 

So what’s next? In a world where big tech can no longer set the rules, what’s needed instead is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort to develop pragmatic privacy standards, practices, and enforceable guidelines.

It’s time for an international coalition to unite regulators, industry representatives, academic experts, and consumer advocates. Their collective task should be to craft a flexible, adaptable privacy framework that embraces a comprehensive view of privacy, acknowledging its contextual nature and the intricate realities of data usage in today’s digital ecosystem.

In the interim, we must prepare for a transitional period where cookie effectiveness wanes, but no clear alternative emerges. Advertisers must explore and evaluate various strategies, including refining contextual targeting, exploring emerging privacy-preserving technologies, and learning to think like marketing economists.

Google’s privacy misstep, combined with its antitrust challenges, presents an opportunity for industry-wide recalibration. By fostering collaboration, diversifying our approaches, and constructively engaging with regulators, we can work towards building a truly user-centric, economically sustainable, privacy-respecting digital ecosystem.

Ultimately, we have no choice. Google and the Privacy Sandbox are not coming to save us.

The post What Happens When Google Can No Longer Set the Rules for the Web? appeared first on AdMonsters.

At this point, it’s not news that years of ongoing changes in data privacy regulation have created massive amounts of change in the way that data is being used (or not used) across the advertising industry.

As IAB Tech Lab CEO, Anthony Katsur, often says, “Just like energy, finance, or healthcare, advertising is now a regulated industry.” As part of this trend, publishers face challenges in creating sustainable revenue growth.

Navigating Data Privacy in Advertising

Whether it’s the continuing decline in ad revenue that digital publishers are grappling with or the never-ending struggle that the streaming television industry is having to reach profitability it’s clear that owners and publishers of media are feeling the effects of these changes.

One of the areas where these changes are most visible is within the publisher’s data technology stacks. Increasingly, publishers are centralizing the many data sources they need for monetization within their data warehouse. While this evolution brings the promise of insights and connectivity, publishers also need a purpose-built application layer to help them activate and get the most value from their data.

DMPs: From Central Role to Obsolescence

For years publishers relied on DMPs to be at the center of their monetization efforts. As cookie-based monetization becomes less and less dependable and publishers’ distribution channels continue to fragment outside of the web these systems have failed to develop new solutions for key functions like app and historical data collection, 2nd-party audience enrichment, and programmatic activation.

This leaves most legacy DMPs relegated to web-based data collection, audience segmentation, and simple ad-serving activation. Additionally, traditional DMPs were not built with important capabilities such as data clean rooms, identity resolution, and PETs which are extremely important in our privacy-centric world.

Data Warehouses: A New Hub for Monetization

Many DMPs have responded by integrating large data sets through mergers and acquisitions to help fill gaps around identity, some are playing catch up by trying to build more privacy-centric features like identity and clean rooms, and others have decided to completely go out of the business. A response to this lack of innovation by DMPs in recent years has been more organizations investing in their data warehouse to centralize their various audience data sources. The question is, is the data warehouse alone enough?

The Missing Piece: Purpose-Built Applications

As we talk to customers in the market it’s clear that they need applications that can work with their data warehouse to create efficiencies and grow their revenue. One of the biggest challenges is actually activating data.

Data warehouses often rely on applications and integration providers to make data more actionable which leaves publishers building expensive custom solutions and navigating complicated operations.

Similarly to how the Composable CDP movement has stepped up to help marketers evolve how they activate data in their warehouse, media owners and publishers (and new companies like retail media) need solutions that are purpose-built for both the era of privacy as well as ad monetization use cases.

Embracing the Future of Audience Monetization

Audience monetization platforms of the future need to be able to combine the streamlined audience building and activation (in both programmatic and direct)  that legacy DMPs relied on, while also allowing for more complex tasks like normalizing various data sources, running complex identity resolution models and collaborating within data clean rooms.

As free and scaled 3rd-party cookie data goes away the monetization is shifting to the publishers and media owners who are investing appropriately in their 1st-party-data, and there’s a major opportunity to create profitable growth. Investing in technology to help power this growth is crucial and will separate the winners from the losers during this period of change.

The post The Data Warehouse Has Replaced Many DMP Functions, but Is It Enough for Publisher Data Monetization? appeared first on AdMonsters.