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.

Things just ain’t the same for mobile. Times are changing, and signals are disappearing.

We recently outlined what mobile marketers need to know about the Android Privacy Sandbox. Now, we turn our lens toward publishers.

Google’s Android Privacy Sandbox isn’t just another update — it’s a fundamental overhaul of mobile ad infrastructure enhancing user privacy, and impacting how ads are served and measured. But as with any ad tech update, every overhaul comes with both opportunity and complexity. This guide aims to break down these changes, offering a balanced view of what publishers can expect — and what they should watch out for along the way.

What’s Really Going On Inside the Android Privacy Sandbox?

Android Privacy Sandbox is Google’s response to the increasing demand for user privacy. It’s designed to create a delicate balancing act of protecting personal data while still enabling effective advertising.

For publishers, the transition requires rethinking how ads are targeted and measured. While Google presents the Sandbox as a solution to the privacy dilemma, it’s critical to assess whether it meets publishers’ needs without introducing new challenges.

Can it live up to the mobile IDs of the past? Is this really the silver bullet it claims to be?

Core Objectives:

Protecting User Privacy: While this is crucial, what happens to data granularity and advertiser effectiveness when third-party access is restricted?

Balancing Personalization with Privacy: Can the Sandbox deliver personalized ad experiences without compromising user privacy? This is the tightrope that the Sandbox attempts to walk — relevance without invasiveness.

Redefining Measurement Tools: The new APIs promise precise metrics, but the transition might come with trade-offs in data richness and complex implementation.

Showdown: Android Privacy Sandbox vs. SKAdNetwork vs. Ad Attribution Kit

Why pit the Android Privacy Sandbox against Apple’s SKAdNetwork and Ad Attribution Kit? Because they all address balancing privacy with effective advertising — but in distinct ways. By understanding these differences, publishers can make smarter choices about which strategies to adopt as they navigate mobile privacy.

The Publisher’s Playbook: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls

1. Cross-App Tracking: The End of an Era?

The decline of cross-app tracking is more than a simple shift. It forces data collection strategies that could either unlock new opportunities or leave gaps in your data.

2. Ad Targeting and Measurement: New Tools, New Complexities

The new Sandbox APIs promise a lot but also require a leap of faith. Will these tools deliver the precision they claim, or will they leave publishers with a diluted version of what was once possible?

3. Revenue Implications: Walking a Tightrope

The impact on revenue streams is real. While contextual ads and first-party data are touted as solutions, the practical implications could be more nuanced.

Real-World Experiences: Insights from Early Adopters

1. Gameloft’s Strategic Leap: Testing the Limits of Privacy-First Ad Measurement

Gameloft, a mobile gaming titan, has been at the forefront of adopting the Android Privacy Sandbox. Partnering with Singular, they tested the Attribution Reporting API, balancing effective ad measurement with the demands of user privacy. Their journey highlights both the promise and the challenges of adapting to these evolving standards, particularly in maintaining data accuracy and targeting precision.

2. Verve Group’s Bold Move: Redefining On-Device Bidding with Privacy Sandbox

Ad tech innovator, Verve Group, is pioneering on-device bidding through the Android Privacy Sandbox, focusing on the Protected Audiences API. By moving auctions to the user’s device, Verve reduced data transfers, aligning with privacy goals. But not without running into significant hurdles. Their collaborative work with partners like Remerge has been essential in overcoming these technical challenges, from latency issues to complex implementation requirements.

The Realities of Implementation: What Publishers Need to Know

1. Implementation Complexities: The Devil’s in the Details

Implementing these new APIs requires more than a simple update — it’s an extensive reworking of infrastructure. Publishers should invest significant resources into testing and development to ensure these systems work effectively. Expect compatibility issues.

2. Latency: The Hidden Cost of Privacy

On-device processing is a cornerstone of the Android Privacy Sandbox, but latency can become a significant issue, impacting ad delivery, viewability, speed, and efficiency.

3. Data Accuracy: A Double-Edged Sword

Privacy-preserving methods often result in less data granularity. While this protects users, it can also undermine ad targeting precision and measurement, leaving publishers questioning whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Will we still be able to hit KPIs?

Game Plan For Sailing Mobile’s Privacy-Preserving Seas

1. Hoist Your Sails, But Chart Your Course Wisely

Early adoption is key to catching wind and gaining momentum but plot your journey carefully. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid just yet. Thorough testing and validation are necessary before full-scale implementation, ensuring you’re prepared for the uncharted waters.

2. Steer Your Ship with Trusted Crew

Partnering with reliable DSPs, SSPs, and MMPs is crucial for steering the complex waters. Ensure these alliances are aligned, guiding you towards your specific goals — not just drifting the tide of broad industry trends.

3. Keep a Steady Hand on the Helm: Embrace New Standards, But Stay Informed

As you sail through the shifting currents of the Android Privacy Sandbox, keep a watchful eye on the horizon. While the new Attribution Reporting API offers potential, it’s vital to understand what’s being gained — and what might be lost. Stay informed and ready to adjust strategies as the seascape evolves.

Looking Forward: A Cautious Path to the Future

1. Stay Critical, Stay Agile

As the Android Privacy Sandbox develops, keep a close eye on updates. While it promises much, the reality may require agile adjustments to strategies and expectations.

2. Evolve with the Technology, But Manage Expectations

This shift isn’t a survival strategy — it’s about evolving. But evolution is complex and often slower than anticipated. Prepare for a marathon rather than a sprint.

The Android Privacy Sandbox is not a cure-all, publishers need to navigate these changes carefully, balancing new opportunities with potential pitfalls. By staying informed, skeptical, and proactive, you can make the most of this transition — without falling victim to the hype.

Additional Resources:

– Google Privacy Sandbox Documentation

– AppsFlyer’s Guide to Privacy Sandbox 

The post Dissecting the Android Privacy Sandbox: A Critical Guide for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

Google recently announced changes to their plans to deprecate third-party cookies (3PCs) on their Chrome browser:

“…we are proposing an updated approach that elevates user choice. Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time.” 

Emphasis added

Reading these proposed changes has led to many interpretations, including the headline “Google cancels plans to kill off cookies for advertisers.” My careful reading of this announcement leads me to another conclusion: while Google will not deprecate cookies, a workflow will be introduced that allows users to turn off cross-site tracking via 3PCs more easily, similar to Apple’s App Tracking Transparency. If this is the case, we may see an accelerated time frame where users may start to opt out of 3PCs sooner than the previously stated 3PC deprecation plans.  

The bottom line is that the advertising industry still needs to prepare for loss of addressability of some cohort of users via 3PCs. This will still be a massive shift that leaves brands wondering: What can we do today to ensure we’re prepared for the post-third-party cookie world? 

Collecting Zero- and First-Party Data 

Brands are likely already using both zero- and first-party data in some capacity for personalization and targeting purposes. Zero-party data is solicited directly from users and generally captured in the form of personally identifiable information (PPI) such as email, address, and phone number. Zero-party data can’t currently be onboarded to Google’s Protected Audience API (PAAPI) or other Privacy Sandbox solutions. Since one-to-one targeting is unavailable through PAAPI, zero-party data should be part of a broader, identification-based targeting strategy encompassing additional retargeting and personalization strategies. 

With first-party data–the data passively captured from site visitors– you can create interest groups within PAAPI. For instance, if a user visits a page for petite women’s jeans, they may be added to a “petite clothing” interest group, enabling brands and DSPs to identify and target these user segments in subsequent auctions. It’s important to note that the current segmentation will be the same for the API, as no changes are expected to be made that will impact the user experience. 

If it’s not a priority already, brands need to start collecting and storing zero-party data in customer relationship management (CRM) or customer data platform (CDP) systems.

Testing Emerging Tactics

The most prominent emerging solution is Google’s Privacy Sandbox, which aims to create a more private internet by reducing cross-app and cross-site tracking, including blocking covert tracking while keeping online content free.

This initiative includes Google phasing out 3PCs and creating new web standards to create technology that protects user privacy while still giving advertisers the tools needed to develop well-targeted campaigns.

While testing is underway, results from the initial trial involving 1% of Google Chrome users indicate that there is still a long journey ahead before completely phasing out 3PCs. 

Evaluating Alternative Identifiers

Deterministic IDs are created via authenticated registration events and rely on a user’s personal identifiable information (PII). Active efforts to collect zero-party data, especially email addresses, are essential because email addresses are the primary piece of PII that creates the most deterministic IDs.

With an email address and a deterministic ID, you can track a user’s first-party behavioral and interest data. For instance, if a user adds items to their cart but doesn’t complete the purchase, their activity syncs with your CRM. You can then automatically send an abandoned cart email or retarget them with relevant ads using a DSP that supports deterministic ID technology.

However, because deterministic IDs rely on PII, they’re expected to be limited in scale availability. Users must share their email information with publishers who sell advertising space on their website(s) or app(s). That said, deterministic IDs are often highly accurate because the information comes directly from users, which is where incentives can come into play.

Probabilistic IDs rely on multiple cross-channel signals to approximate user identity without collecting PII from zero-party data. They may use the IP address, screen resolution, device type, and operating system. 

Because probabilistic IDs are not reliant on PII, the data involved is much easier to collect and more widely available. Due to this approach, probabilistic IDs are often less accurate and have a lower persistence over time due to browser-readable signals.

 Key Questions to Assess Ad Providers’ Readiness  

While testing Privacy Sandbox APIs and alternative identifiers is limited by the current lack of market adoption and, in some cases, technical readiness, there are ways to gauge whether your current or future ad provider is prepared to help you navigate these tactics in a post-3PC world. To ensure your ad provider is ready to help you as 3PC addressability is lost, you can ask these questions:

•     Have you been involved in the W3C and the development of the Privacy Sandbox API specs?
•     To date, what level of testing have you done on the Privacy Sandbox APIs?
  • Which APIs have been tested?
•     How will a loss in 3PC impact your attribution reporting?
•     Which deterministic and/or probabilistic IDs do you support today and why?
  • Which do you plan to support in the future?
•     Which systems and functionalities are 3PC dependent?
  • How are you future-proofing these systems?
  • What systems will be drastically impacted or not future-proof?
•     What approach(es) will you take to future-proof your technology?

 Potential Red Flags When Choosing an Ad Provider

There are a few potential red flags you should watch out for when assessing ad providers, including, but not limited to: 

• They’re unfamiliar with the extent of Google’s shift away from 3PCs or dismiss concerns about the potential severity of impact.
• They don’t already have a plan to account for the loss of reachable audiences caused by Google’s shift away from 3PCs.
• Collecting and maintaining user privacy and consent aren’t core considerations in their strategies.
• They don’t have methods prepared to leverage first- and zero-party data for retargeting, interest-based targeting, or full-funnel campaigns.
• They can’t provide specifics about campaign attribution, performance tracking, and optimization.

While the future state of retargeting following Google’s shift away from 3PCs is still evolving, it’s unlikely that a single tactic will emerge as the solution. Instead, advertisers will need to leverage each of these tactics in concert to maximize the value of their retargeting efforts. 

The post Google’s New Cookie Plan: Empowering Users, Shaping Advertiser Strategies appeared first on AdMonsters.

This week, Google threw the ad tech industry for a loop by announcing a significant shift in its privacy strategy. Contrary to its long-standing plan to eliminate third-party cookies from its Chrome browser, Google has revealed it will offer users the option to opt out of third-party cookies through a new choice mechanism. This unexpected pivot has sparked a flurry of reactions from publishers, advertisers, and industry stakeholders, many of whom have spent the past few years preparing for a cookieless future.

In a blog post by Anthony Chavez, VP of Privacy Sandbox, Google outlined its revised approach, emphasizing user choice and engagement with industry feedback. This move comes after four years of extensive testing and regulatory discussions, during which Google faced substantial pushback from industry players and regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). 

The original plan to phase out cookies had been postponed multiple times, with the latest delay pushing the deadline to 2025. Now, Google’s new path aims to balance privacy with the practical needs of the advertising ecosystem.

There are mixed reactions to this news. While some industry leaders express relief at the additional time to adapt, others remain wary of the potential implications for privacy and competition. The ad tech community is now grappling with questions about how Google will implement this mechanism and its impact on the broader industry. Below, we’ve gathered insights and opinions from key figures in the industry, offering a glimpse into the varied responses to Google’s surprising announcement.

Publishers React to Google’s Privacy Pivot: Balancing User Choice and Industry Innovation

In light of Google’s recent decision to let users choose between Sandbox and legacy cookie behaviors, publisher’s reactions vary. Some expect a shift towards user opt-outs rather than forced changes, while others are hopeful for a balanced approach that maintains innovation and effective monetization. There are calls for transparent messaging without fear-mongering and a recognition that Google is grappling with the complexities of balancing user privacy with meaningful ad experiences.

“The news is confirmed. I think we’ll see aggressive messaging pushing users to opt-out, instead of a forced deprecation effort.” – Justin Wohl, Chief Revenue Officer, Snopes.com

“This transition was never going to be easy. Google’s announcement that users will be able to choose between Sandbox and legacy behavior seems to offer the best of both worlds. It places the decision where it belongs, in the hands of the consumer, instead of any large technical organization. 

We’re looking forward to continuing our innovations in both environments, and we’re hopeful this doesn’t imply the CMA will release Google from their commitments in exchange for a small minority of users being able to opt into cookies. We won’t back off our ongoing investment in audience addressability using Sandbox technology so advertisers can reach all consumers, and our publishers will enjoy our industry’s best monetization however the consumer or their browser chooses to consume advertising.” – Patrick McCann, SVP of Research, Raptive

“I think Google’s decision is about removing deadlines and finding solutions that can work (and hopefully be more broadly supported) for the industry. Google already offers users the ability to remove third-party cookies in Chrome, so publishers will need to understand better how implementing this “new experience” plays out to understand the impact of this change.” – Emry Downinghall, SVP, Programmatic Revenue & Strategy Unwind Media

“I’m very interested to see more details come out following Google’s initial announcement.  I’m relieved at the step back, mainly because the proposed alternatives to date weren’t sufficient, and the industry wasn’t ready. The concept of actual damage due to third-party cookies and tracking has gotten overblown – offering a choice makes sense. I’m hopeful that the messaging around that choice won’t be skewed to elicit fear and will present a clear option to toggle them off if the site visitor is bothered by the idea of third-party cookies. Let’s not participate in fear-mongering this time around, a la ATT.” – Catherine Beattie, Director of Programmatic, Weatherbug

“As Google wrestled with balancing privacy and delivering a relevant ad experience to every user, I believe they were forced to identify exactly how much data is too much data. If we are honest with ourselves there are probably about five or so personally identifiable elements that are needed to provide a meaningful experience and meet the request of advertisers. Broad concern that it has passed the point of need to greed drove the push for Google to go cookieless.  Unraveling this invasive practice has become nearly impossible for Google without being completely blind to any user behavior. I’m glad that this forced Google to be honest about the state of advertising and its needs and wants in this ecosystem.” – Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director of Advertising Technology, Fortune

“The news isn’t a shock, but I hope the fact that we still will have 3P cookies doesn’t stall the progress made around targeting without cookies. Preparing for life without cookies forced publishers to think about ways to get closer to their audiences, and I think that is ultimately a good thing. So, I hope they still push for that moving forward.“ – Kevin Antione, Head of Digital Inventory Optimization, Graham Media Group

“I was not surprised to see Google’s announcement that it would pause the deprecation of third-party cookies. Looking ahead, there is no changing the fact that cookies will still be deprecated within Google Chrome, even if a small percentage remains. With at least 60% of the web being unaddressable by cookies at the moment, the focus should be on solutions that work for cookieless environments. I advise my clients to stay the course and continue weaning into a cookieless future. While the sandbox will be an important part of the ecosystem in the future, the short-term focus should be on more immediate and tangible solutions beyond just the sandbox.” – Scott Messer, Principal and Founder, Messer Media

Ad Tech Leaders React: The Impact of Simplified Opt-Outs on Consumer Choice and Ad Revenue

The conversation around third-party cookies and privacy continues to evolve. Efforts to simplify opt-out processes for third-party cookies are a step towards greater consumer control, although the broader impact on advertising and data collection practices remains significant. Industry leaders stress the need for privacy-focused solutions that balance user protection with the realities of digital advertising.

“The CMA needs to be wary of letting Google off the hook by accepting Apple’s dark choice patterns. AdMonsters’ readers need to write to the CMA before 12 August to resist remedies involving user prompts controlled by monopolists. Remedies that enable transparency across data controllers and processors, including within Google’s own data engine, are preferable.

If notices are to be used then they must be applied equally to each of Google’s own services and products to avoid creating disparity. For example; when using sign-in-with-Google to collect so-called first-party data any user prompt needs to be identical to the one used with Chrome for so-called third-party data. CMA has the power to require this in the remedy and policy implementation. It is not a matter for data protection authorities like the ICO.

The industry narrative now needs to move towards quarantining web browsers by restricting them to access and navigation only. Web browsers must be separated from the monopolists’ other interests. W3C has a role in enforcing its antitrust guidelines to ensure fair play and prevent further privacy abuses in standards setting.” – James Rosewell, Co-Founder, Movement For an Open Web 

“Deprecating cookies in the world’s most used web browser was never going to be easy. This effort has been fraught with challenges, from antitrust and privacy concerns to the impact on ad revenue. While this announcement may feel like a reversal, I don’t think we should view it as a return to the status quo. 

Introducing a feature that will allow users to declare their preferences across all browsing activities is significant. This sounds like a global privacy control that consumers may actually use.  If that’s the case, the efforts invested in testing privacy-preserving APIs and introducing alternative identifiers will pay off. The use of third-party cookies will continue to get scrutiny from regulators, and when given an easy-to-use choice, consumers may choose to opt out.  

The data faucet has been slowly turning down, and with or without an official deprecation of third-party cookies, the industry needed a push to consider alternative solutions. Moving towards solutions that can balance the need to protect consumer privacy with the understanding that advertising powers the open web is a worthwhile endeavor, and I hope to see those efforts continue (albeit without the pressure of an impending deadline).” – Jessica B. Lee, Partner, Co-Chair, Privacy, Security & Data Innovations at Loeb & Loeb LLP

“When third-party cookie opt-out is made simple, people overwhelmingly say no, evidenced by the impact of GDPR in Europe, where over 90% of people have opted out. Forty percent of people who use Chrome have already said no, and that is when disabling cookies is hard, let alone easy. Google is using consumer choice as the cloak, killing the third-party cookie without necessarily providing an alternative solution, similar to Apple and ATT.

The vast majority of users online are already unreachable due to signal loss in the open web today, causing publishers’ OMP yields to collapse. For advertisers, this signal loss means bidding on an ever-smaller group of users, pushing up CPMs, and reducing the perceived efficiency of open web buying.

There is another way for advertisers to build brand equity, grow market share, and drive performance in programmatic. It lies in publisher first-party signals and data collaboration between data owners—advertisers, and media owners. When these data owners collaborate, it is not only enormously scalable but also performant, delivering increased yield for publishers, incremental sales, and reduced cost per acquisition for advertisers.” –  Joe Root, CEO & Co-founder, Permutive

“While some might see this as a relief, it’s a clear signal that the industry must diversify its strategies and focus on privacy-first technologies. We shouldn’t view this as a chance to return to old ways but as an opportunity to continue innovating and building a more resilient digital advertising future.” – Yang Han, CTO of StackAdapt

“Consumers are the beating heart of our industry, and I support Google’s decision to elevate consumer choice when it comes to cookies. Google is toeing the line between clients and customers, and they have already made improvements to Privacy Sandbox after many months of work. However, it benefits everyone if they have more time to perfect better identity-protecting strategies without harming Q4 revenues.

Regardless of Google’s decision, privacy regulations are ever-evolving and our industry should remain committed to enabling advertisers and publishers to succeed with privacy-first strategies. Apple has blocked cookies by default from Apple for years, and now that Google is following suit, advertisers should be prepared to meet their audiences where they are. Many consumers will likely choose to opt out of third-party cookies, and protecting the user journey will be key.

Google’s news today sets the tone for a privacy-centric future driven by the consumer, and the industry should continue to work together to leverage alternative IDs and other more privacy-focused solutions like contextual alongside existing signals (e.g., audience, performance). Publishers and advertisers must continue to navigate these transitions and build a strong, privacy-friendly data culture built on collaboration, trust, and a test-and-learn mentality, that keeps the consumer top of mind.” – Jenn Chen, President and CRO of Connatix

“This recent – and hopefully – final decision boils down to placing users in the driver’s seat regarding privacy. But this is a nothing-burger in many ways, as advertisers have already been on a cookie-less road. The digital advertising ecosystem will experience less disruption in the short term. Still, it could face long-term challenges related to privacy concerns, regulatory pressures, and the eventual need to adapt to a more privacy-focused environment. As XR has recently implemented IAB’s ACIF, we’re revolutionizing creative tagging throughout its lifecycle, driving the future of measurement and identity. This leadership positions us decisively ahead as others scramble to understand and adapt to the changing landscape.” –  Jo Kinsella, President of XR Extreme Reach

“Viant has estimated that less than 10% of total ad spend across our platform utilizes cookies today, which is indicative of an industry that has already moved on. The increasing importance of new channels such as CTV, which never relied on third-party cookies, has only expedited their diminishing utility. Ultimately, advertisers want contribution, not attribution, toward their real goals like return on ad spend.” – Jon Schulz, Chief Marketing Officer, Viant

“Google’s decision to create consumer choice with the advertiser use of their own data, signals two things. First, Google needs additional time to get the Privacy Sandbox to perform at a level that reduces disruption to their core business model. Thus far, sparse and unconvincing tests have proven that the Privacy Sandbox is not ready for the big show and they need more time. Second, is that complexity is not a concern. Depending on the functionality, there will be parallel data supply paths. In short, buckle up for more disruption in the coming months and years.”(Read more insights) – Therran Oliphant, Chief Strategy Officer, Hand Raiser Marketing

The post Industry Leaders Respond to Google’s Cookie Deprecation Pause and New Opt-Out Mechanism appeared first on AdMonsters.

In a detailed discussion with AdMonsters’ Yakira Young, James Rosewell, co-founder of Movement for an Open Web, discussed the nuances of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) recent report and concerns regarding Google’s Privacy Sandbox. 

Exploring the pivotal changes and challenges in digital privacy and competition, this analysis highlights the tension between innovation and regulation, examining how new policies may reshape the digital advertising landscape. 

Here are Rosewell’s insights into the evolving dynamics of digital privacy and its potential ramifications for the industry. This recap highlights the significant aspects of his analysis, touching on the tensions between privacy, competition, and interoperability, as well as the future steps for addressing these emerging challenges.

Tensions at the Triangular Table

• Digital Industry’s Inflection Point: Rosewell describes the CMA’s April report as a pivotal moment that could dictate future directions for digital advertising and privacy. It’s a tipping point for the digital industry, marking significant changes in the regulatory landscape.
• Interplay of Competition and Privacy: The report underscores the ongoing tension between competition and privacy, pointing to the need for balance between these elements.
• Interagency Dynamics: Rosewell clarifies the distinct roles of the ICO and CMA in the UK’s regulatory framework, emphasizing their collaborative yet focused mandates on privacy and competition, respectively.
• Google’s Compliance Challenges: The ongoing scrutiny over whether Google’s Privacy Sandbox meets the dual mandates of the ICO and CMA.
• Future Projections for Google: Insights into potential changes Google might need to implement to align with regulatory expectations.

Unpacking Compliance and Concerns

• Non-Compliance with ICO Guidelines: Rosewell points out significant gaps in Google’s adherence to privacy standards, particularly in how the Privacy Sandbox handles data. While Google’s Privacy Sandbox has not fully complied with the ICO’s privacy guidelines, this could signal significant shifts in how data privacy is managed. Rosewell suggests that the ongoing non-compliance could lead to more stringent oversight and possibly a rethinking of current data privacy frameworks.
• Technical Shortcomings in APIs: There are concerns about the technical limitations and the potential misuse of de-identified data. The report details criticism of how privacy APIs might still be processing personal data, indicating a lack of true anonymization.
• Call for Clarity and Compliance: Upcoming, more detailed ICO reports, are expected to address these compliance issues. 
• Stakeholder Feedback: Reflections on the broader industry concerns regarding the overreach of the Privacy Sandbox beyond basic legal frameworks.

Governance and Technical Hurdles

• Need for Robust Governance: The discussion emphasizes the essential role of governance in managing digital practices fairly and transparently.
• Governance in Digital Operations: There is a necessity for proper governance frameworks that ensure fairness and compliance in digital operations, as opposed to automated, unchecked processes.
• Challenges of Ensuring Reliability: There are limitations in current technological solutions like the Attribution Reporting API’s Coordinator Service.
• Industry’s Call for Protection: There is a potential need for warranty language to safeguard the interests of advertisers and ad tech partners.
• Technical Challenges of Latency: The discussion of latency issues within digital platforms, emphasizes the limitations of browser-based solutions and the potential need for server-side solutions.

The Smaller Players’ Predicament

• Disproportionate Impact on Smaller Entities: Changes driven by the Privacy Sandbox could particularly challenge smaller publishers and advertisers.
• Potential for Increased Market Consolidation: Stringent privacy regulations may inadvertently push smaller players towards more restrictive platforms and into less competitive environments.

Looking Ahead: Remedies and Regulations

• Advocacy for Meaningful Dialogue: Rosewell calls for a balanced discussion that does not sacrifice interoperability, privacy, or competition.
• Engagement with Regulation: The importance of engaging with regulatory processes to influence and adapt to new market conditions.
• Envisioning Future Remedies: Data labeling and enhanced privacy guidelines could serve as potential solutions for the industry.

In this crucial moment for digital advertising, Rosewell’s insights underscore the importance of a collaborative regulatory approach that balances innovation with privacy and competition. As the industry anticipates the next phases of the CMA’s evaluations and Google’s responses, the continued dialogue at AdMonsters Ops — during Rosewell’s closing keynote June 4, 2024 — promises to provide a vital forum for shaping the future of digital advertising. 

The challenges and opportunities discussed highlight the critical need for an industry-wide dialogue and cooperation to ensure that future developments benefit all stakeholders.

The post LinkedIn Live Rewind: Unpacking the Implications of CMA’s Surveillance on Google’s Privacy Sandbox appeared first on AdMonsters.

In our quest for the perfect keynote speakers for AdMonsters Ops, we wanted industry leaders who were not afraid to expose what’s going on behind the curtains, and James Rosewell does just that. So, who is James Rosewell? He’s not your average entrepreneur. He’s the guy who caught the attention of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in January 2020 with his razor-sharp insights on digital markets.

With one bold move, through his B2B data business, 51 Degrees, Rosewell’s submission to the CMA sparked a series of events leading to the formation of Movement for an Open Web (MOW). This not-for-profit aims to educate regulators, industry players, and standards bodies about the need for stable interoperability in the digital realm.

Our discussion with Rosewell was a whirlwind of wisdom and revelations. In a short amount of time, we covered a range of privacy concerns. Now, let’s unpack the key highlights.

Collaboration Among Regulators is Key: James discussed engaging with various regulatory bodies like the UK’s CMA, the European Commission, and the Department of Justice to address digital monopolies and the need for market regulation to ensure fair competition and innovation. 

Recent actions by the US Department of Justice and the EU signal a coordinated effort to address antitrust issues in the tech industry. With investigations into major players like Apple, Alphabet, and Meta, the focus is shifting toward ensuring fair competition and consumer protection. The road ahead may be complex, but the goal remains clear: to promote innovation while safeguarding user privacy.

The Future of Cookies: Our conversation dove into the regulatory whirlpool of challenges facing Google before it fully phases out third-party cookies. Rosewell suggested that based on the CMA’s findings and ongoing reports, the complete removal of third-party cookies by 2024 seems uncertain. 

The CMA’s most recent report highlighted concerns about Google’s practices, with at least 39 regulatory issues to address before third-party cookies can bid adieu. The timeline for the cookie’s demise is not set in stone, but regulatory bodies are closely monitoring Google’s proposed changes and their implications for privacy and market competition.

One key takeaway from our conversation was the importance of industry feedback in shaping regulatory decisions. The CMA encourages all businesses to voice their concerns and provide input on the impact of regulatory changes. Anonymity plays a significant role in this process, allowing businesses to share insights without fear of repercussions. 

Privacy Sandbox and Market Concerns: Diving into the heart of the concerns over Google’s Privacy Sandbox are as real as they get. It’s a scenario brimming with self-preferencing issues and the risk of technologies tipping the scale in Google’s favor, leaving other players in the digital dust. Rosewell advocates testing these technologies, especially in environments like YouTube, to ensure they are beneficial and fair to the market before broader implementation.

As we look towards the future, Rosewell emphasizes the need for competition to drive innovation for the best privacy solutions. Rather than relying solely on Google or Apple’s approaches, we need diverse solutions tailored to the entire ecosystem’s needs, making it a more equitable and dynamic open marketplace. As we navigate these complexities, collaboration, industry feedback, and a focus on competition is essential. The future of digital innovation hinges on our ability to adapt, evolve, and embrace new solutions that prioritize user privacy and drive technological progress.

The post AdMonsters Ops Reveal: Keynote James Rosewell on Disrupting Digital Monopolies and the Future of Online Privacy appeared first on AdMonsters.

Today we’re talking Video and Google’s PAAPI, so bear with me it’s going to get technical.

We’ll do our best to untangle the web of acronyms and give you a better understanding of the current situation as these two have been trading blows over the past month.

VAST & PAAPI Overview, Why It’s Not Going to Work Right Now

In one corner we have VAST, short for Video Ad Serving Template, this is the industry standard that video players use to serve ads. It’s an XML schema launched by the IAB in 2008 that has standardized the industry’s approach to video.

In the other we have Google’s Protected Audiences API, or PAAPI for short, a major piece of Google’s Privacy Sandbox alongside their Topics & Attribution APIs. PAAPI is Google’s solution to phasing out the 3PC in Q3 2024 and still help publishers monetize their Chrome audience.

You all know about the back and forth this past month that started with the extensive report the IAB Tech Lab released criticizing Google’s Privacy Sandbox. Though in all the summaries and hot-takes, video still hasn’t been getting enough attention and it’s an area that needs the most work ahead of the Q3 deadline.

In short, it’s a mess. The proposed changes to video creative delivery and rendering require big changes across the ad ecosystem and if something isn’t done it will heavily impact publisher fill rates and revenue.

Video fallbacks are especially an area to key in on, as fallbacks are how publishers ensure an ad serves to improve fill-rates and ultimately revenue. If you know anything about VAST is that it throws errors plenty of times, you need to have fallbacks in place to account for that.

The PAAPI integration all hinges on this flow of “postmessage sequencing” that bounces between the Sandbox’s iframe and parent frame of the user’s browser. The issue with the current proposal is that it only allows for one fallback if at all. Where a publisher would typically load 3-4 VAST XML files to fill that ad slot.

This is a demo of how a video ad would serve in a Privacy Sandbox environment.

It’s not all doom and gloom, but the time is running out.

Many common scenarios with VAST including playbacks haven’t been considered and from what we see in the GitHub discussion boards they’re being actively worked on right now.

What Does Work?

Video ads without content seem to be the direction publishers are moving with their testing so far. That’s the only scenario the IAB says is currently supported by the Privacy Sandbox. This allows an auto-playing, muted, audience targeted video ad to run via HTML and then close when finished.

It’s a limited use case for publishers to be testing, but valuable nonetheless to understand how monetization will look when the clock strikes midnight on the 3PC in Q3 of 2024.

What About Fenced Frames?

A new even more privacy-oriented replacement for the  (inline frames) discussed above are Fenced Frames. Which will further restrict data from moving across domains, essentially preventing cross-site tracking.

But don’t worry about that yet, the new Fenced Frames requirement of the Privacy Sandbox has been pushed until 2026. We’ll all be talking about that soon enough…

What Do Publishers Do?

Publishers should be working with their Ad Tech partners to build up their testing capabilities with the Privacy Sandbox. The heavy-lifting is primarily going to be on the SSPs & Google to update their specs to accommodate this new bidding mechanism & environment.

VAST and the way video conventions like fallbacks work are deeply ingrained into existing video adtech. Google needs to ensure proper support for existing technologies and conventions or the VAST majority of video implementations are going to break or be severely hamstrung.

Even Google Ad Manager itself bases its video off of Google’s IMA library which is a VAST rendering library and a requirement of AdX. I’m confident they won’t be shutting off instream AdX revenue over this.

Though from my past decade on the sell-side, I don’t see publishers, ad servers and SSPs making huge overhauls to how they serve video ads. There’s going to be a tech compromise over the next couple months to help VAST function with PAAPI and keep the advertising dollars flowing through to publishers. 

The post Privacy Sandbox: What’s Wrong With Video? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Conducted by the IAB Tech Lab’sPrivacy Sandbox Task Force — composed of senior ad tech leaderships across 65 companies — the Fit Gap Analysis analyzes the APIs of Privacy Sandbox and its impact on essential digital advertising use cases. It paints a picture of an industry at a crossroads, facing the challenge of reimagining traditional targeting and measurement strategies to embrace innovation, collaboration, and adaptability.

The Privacy Paradigm Shift

Privacy Sandbox heralds a substantial shift from relying on third-party cookies to a more anonymized framework aimed at safeguarding user privacy while allowing advertisers and publishers to meet their objectives. Despite this progressive step, the IAB Tech Lab’s analysis underscores a harsh reality: most essential digital advertising functionality encounters significant hurdles under this new schema.

These issues underscore the pressing need for inventive solutions that balance privacy with operational efficiency. Challenges span across audience management, auction dynamics, creative and rendering, reporting, and technology interoperability, each presenting unique obstacles to the traditional processes of digital advertising. The analysis assessed use cases for:

• Audience Management
• Auction Dynamics
• Creative & Rendering
• Reporting
• Technology and Interoperability

Moreover, companies should keep these factors in mind:

Operational and Financial Implications

Advertisers and agencies must innovate and create new strategies to reach and measure their campaigns, while publishers must reimagine content monetization to preserve ad revenue. Financially, this shift necessitates investment in privacy-compliant technologies and collaborations, a steep hill for smaller entities with limited resources.

Complicating matters further, only two companies have achieved “compliant” status, with Google being one of them. The absence of published compliance criteria leaves many wondering what is required, and will undoubtedly pose significant challenges for smaller organizations with fewer resources.  This must become clearer, with resources dedicated to ensuring all users can adapt and comply.

Legal and Compliance Considerations

The absence of formalized agreements between Chrome and the party accessing the Privacy Sandbox APIs, introduces legal and compliance risks, as entities navigate uncertain responsibilities and liabilities, especially when considering potential system bugs that could disrupt ad auctions or servers, causing financial losses for publishers and advertisers alike.

Unlike in the past, where companies could negotiate credits or refunds for losses incurred due to technical issues when there is no formal contract with Google, this leaves companies without clear legal recourse in the event of such disruptions. This situation highlights the urgent need for industry-wide dialogue and preparation to mitigate these risks effectively.

Adherence to Industry Standards

The move towards privacy-centric models brings to light concerns about maintaining transparency and measurement standards set by the Media Rating Council (MRC). The lack of MRC accreditation for Privacy Sandbox raises questions about its ability to adhere to established measurement norms, potentially diminishing confidence in digital ad effectiveness and leveraging them for currency and decisioning.

Additionally, the absence of a paradigm for basic impression counting in an environment where data is aggregated and or there is noise injected, further complicates how constituents can have confidence that billable numbers are correct, challenging the integrity of reported metrics. It is imperative that the Privacy Sandbox team begins discussions with the MRC to understand what is required for accreditation.

Addressing Integration Challenges with Privacy Sandbox

The apprehension that Privacy Sandbox may not fully support or significantly degrade numerous use cases signals potential broader implications for the digital advertising landscape. The Privacy Sandbox team has signaled that in a privacy-centric world, we may never be able to replicate the use cases that the industry has become used to over the past 30 years.  If we acknowledge this to be the case, we must work collectively to understand the trade-offs and make the best transition during these formative times.

Where Do We Go From Here?  Innovating for an Inclusive and Transparent Digital Advertising Future

As we navigate the shift away from cookies, the key takeaway isn’t to critique the Privacy Sandbox but to clarify its role and capabilities for the industry. The assessment by IAB Tech Lab’s Privacy Sandbox Task Force reveals the complexity of digital advertising strategies, and current assessments suggest challenges in replicating these strategies without cookies, potentially affecting the ability to scale, measure, and optimize with the same efficiency. Notably, the IAB Tech Lab is currently reviewing Google’s feedback of the Fit Gap Analysis, a crucial step in understanding and addressing the nuances of transitioning to a cookie-less environment.

The focus should be on moving beyond seeking direct cookie replacements to fostering a portfolio of innovative, privacy-centric advertising solutions. This requires clear communication about what the Privacy Sandbox can support, what it does not, and where there might be gaps.

It’s critical for companies to understand how and if their current use cases can adapt within this new framework. This effort isn’t about pointing fingers but ensuring a collaborative approach among IAB, IAB Tech Lab, Google, and other industry leaders to identify and establish viable solutions for addressability and measurement, ensuring the industry’s continued success.

This transition is more than adapting to privacy norms; it’s about reimagining digital advertising for a post-cookie future, emphasizing innovation, inclusivity, and transparency. Google’s significant role in supporting use cases, addressing accreditation, and alleviating legal concerns could greatly enhance industry confidence and facilitate a smoother transition.

This is an opportunity to integrate privacy considerations with advertising effectiveness, ensuring a balanced approach where both can coexist. Let’s view this as an exciting challenge, a chance to innovate and thrive in uncharted territories.

The post Can Privacy and Performance Co-Exist Within the Privacy Sandbox? appeared first on AdMonsters.

Last week, the IAB Tech Lab released a comprehensive report detailing the challenges of Google’s Privacy Sandbox. 

IAB Tech Lab CEO Anthony Katsur stated that the Privacy Sandbox analysis report indicates the industry’s lack of readiness and identifies multiple hurdles to implementation due to limitations in achieving key advertising objectives. 

But it’s not like the Big G to stay quiet when industry stakeholders call them out, and understandably so. In response, Google thanked the IAB Tech Lab for showcasing their perspective but asserted that their “analysis contains many misunderstandings and inaccuracies, which we consider important to correct in order to provide accurate information to the ecosystem.” 

The IAB Tech Lab’s Concerns 

As the IAB Tech Lab mentions, embracing Google’s Privacy Sandbox marks a tremendous evolution in the advertising industry, diverging from the industry’s trajectory of the past 25 years. Yet, the advertising tech and standards organization believes the industry needs more time to prepare for these changes. From their point of view, Chrome prioritizes discrete components to support different use cases. Still, the IAB has reservations that Chrome can combine these components into a cohesive framework that offers a sustainable business foundation. 

The analysis revealed several key issues highlighting the challenges media companies, advertisers, and the broader industry face in adapting to Privacy Sandbox-mandated changes. For instance:

• Essential Event-Based Metrics: Temporary support for essential event-based impression and click counting is followed by a shift to aggregated reporting, hindering bid loss analysis and complicating revenue reconciliation and troubleshooting.
• Brand Safety Concerns: The new landscape introduces brand safety concerns, requiring advertisers to address potential threats to advertisement integrity and ensure alignment with desired contexts and values.
• On-Browser Computing Implications: Google’s integration of an ad exchange and server within the Chrome browser necessitates significant re-tooling of the programmatic advertising ecosystem, impacting addressability, reporting mechanisms, ad rendering processes, bidding decisioning capabilities, and scalability challenges for the Privacy Sandbox.
• Lack of Consideration for Commercial Requirements: Chrome’s active role in financial transactions and ad delivery raises concerns about Privacy Sandbox overlooking legal and business requirements, potentially leading to legal penalties and loss of trust from customers and partners.

Google’s Rebuttal

While Google pointed out the alleged inaccuracies of the IAB Tech Lab’s report, their primary concern was that the report overlooked the main goal of Privacy Sandbox, which is to improve user privacy while still backing efficient digital advertising. 

Google created Privacy Sandbox APIs to support business objectives while safeguarding user privacy. Big G did not intend to directly replace third-party cookies or cross-site identifiers, despite potential misconceptions.  As highlighted in the tech company’s press release, “to enhance user privacy effectively, recreating every current marketing tactic isn’t feasible, but adapting existing methods and innovating new ones can address business goals.” Although Google warns that this shift requires investment, effort, and collaboration, it’s both necessary and achievable.

Some industry stakeholders agree. “Beyond constructive criticism, it’s important to highlight that even though the Privacy Sandbox APIs may not provide a direct replacement for third-party cookies and mobile ad IDs, that should not be the ultimate goal. Instead, ensuring that the technology enables fair competition should be the priority for industry groups and regulators alike,” said Bosko Milekic, Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer at Optable.

The more in-depth Privacy Sandbox’s response to IAB Tech Lab’s analysis focuses on the Technical Assessment section, offering detailed commentary and clarifications across five programmatic advertising categories: Audience Management, Auction Dynamics, Creative Delivery and Rendering, Reporting, and Interoperability. 

The Inaccuracies

The Privacy Sandbox APIs support correcting assumptions or filling gaps in use cases. For instance, the claim in the report about the “Loss of Runtime Data for Brand Safety” is incorrect, according to Google. Unlike current practices, buyers still receive the page URL in ad requests. Moreover, during a Protected Audience auction, they can cross-check the seller-declared URL with the browser-declared URL for an additional brand safety measure. 

Specific use cases, like the assertion that “Interest Groups do not span across devices,” are not covered by third-party cookies, just as the Privacy Sandbox does not cover them. Proposals suggesting methods that could revive cross-site tracking and conflict with privacy objectives, such as the request for passing buyers’ signals to generate identifiable reports, are not aligned with privacy goals. 

Moreover, certain functionalities like “Look-alike modeling” may not be directly supported, but alternative approaches can fulfill similar objectives. For example, leveraging the Private Aggregation API to understand the aggregate behavior of a seed audience can serve the purpose effectively.

Despite both sides taking out their gloves, Chrome is welcoming additional feedback from the IAB and the industry at large to help improve Topics APIs. 

You can read the full report here.

The post Google Responds to the IAB Tech Lab’s Scathing Privacy Sandbox Report: “It’s Full of Inaccuracies” appeared first on AdMonsters.

Today’s successful marketing strategies rely on accurate targeting and personalization.  Marketers who don’t have both aren’t likely to meet their KPIs.

TransUnion’s updated identity graph includes data representing 98% of the US population and with the help of advanced AI, it will deliver more precise identity resolution and better demographic enrichment. The new and improved identity graph leverages advanced AI by clustering and scoring identities. 

Now with detailed demographics, incorporating life events and interests, the identity graph provides buyers and sellers with tools to create highly relevant and engaging campaigns. The expanded reach allows for more personalized content and improves the overall quality of consumer insights. 

We spoke with Michael Schoen, EVP and Head of TruAudience marketing solutions at TransUnion about the company’s new identity resolution product, how they’re building the future of addressability, and how it can benefit advertisers and publishers alike.

Yakira Young: With the identity graph now covering 98% of the U.S. adult population, how does this extensive reach impact the accuracy and effectiveness of targeted advertising for publishers?

MS: The TransUnion identity graph’s 98% coverage ensures widespread reach for users, significantly improving precision and effectiveness. As a unified, offline-online identity graph, we can connect together a wide variety of consumer touchpoints and enable the measurement of media tied to conversions. 

With an impressive persistence rate of 99.5%, it offers a dependable perspective on individuals, enhancing the accuracy of targeted efforts. Publishers who leverage TruAudience marketing solutions receive increased access to marketable phone numbers and targetable IP addresses.  

YY: Given the surge in IP addresses and device IDs linked to U.S. households, what new opportunities does this open in terms of personalized content delivery and monetization?

MS: The increase in data presents new opportunities for businesses to customize delivery more precisely, leading to more relevant content across different devices. Richer data benefits advertisers and content creators by enabling more effective audience segmentation. This deeper engagement enhances user experience and creates opportunities for effective monetization with genuine customers.

YY: Can you explain how the advanced AI used in TransUnion’s upgraded identity graph enhances identity resolution and demographic enrichment for ad tech purposes?

MS: TransUnion uses advanced AI in a four-stage methodology. 

1. The process begins with the collection of consumer data. 
2. Followed by the application of matching algorithms to eliminate duplicates and establish a unified view. 
3. The AI clusters data into individual profiles and households, offering a thorough understanding of consumer behavior. 
4. By scoring identities based on data reliability, the enhanced identity graph attains heightened scale, precision, and effectiveness in ad targeting and the delivery of personalized content.

YY: TransUnion’s collaboration with The Truthset Data Collective seems to underscore a commitment to data accuracy. How does this partnership enhance the reliability of data used in ad targeting?

MS: TransUnion’s partnership with The Truthset Data Collective highlights our commitment to accurate data for ad targeting. This ensures that advertisers have a reliable foundation for targeting strategies and improved precision in reaching the desired audience. 

TransUnion remains dedicated to high accuracy levels and transparency, as seen through the exposure of linkage scores to customers. The verification of the graph by Truthset, along with its application in critical areas like marketing measurement, fraud, and compliance, strengthens the accuracy of its performance. 

This partnership also helps us identify areas for improvement, where we can iteratively improve our methodology or bring in incremental data sources.

YY: Looking towards the future, how does TransUnion plan to evolve its identity graph to keep pace with emerging trends and technologies in the ad tech space?

MS: TransUnion is adjusting its identity graph to navigate changes in the ad tech landscape, especially with the upcoming removal of third-party cookies in Google Chrome. The company is dedicated to a privacy-first marketing approach for scalability and precision without third-party cookies.  

Our approach is anchored on using multiple identifiers and cloud-based integrations for identity translation, interoperability, and activation. These efforts address security, privacy, and governance concerns to meet challenges from evolving privacy trends, legislation, and emerging technologies. The identity graph will evolve in alignment with changing needs, emphasizing streamlined processes for improved efficiency.

The post Targeting Precision Reaches New Heights with TransUnion’s Identity Graph appeared first on AdMonsters.