Experts Responses to Adweek Audience Poll, Revealing Polarized Opinions on Google and the Future of Ad Tech

Google's news earlier this month about how online advertising will function in the future has had ramifications few others can generate. Google stated it would not support alternative identifiers to third-party cookies after its dominant web browser Chrome withdraws support for the historic ad-targeting tool in 2022, bringing into question many of the industry’s best-laid plans. “Once third-party cookies are phased out, we will not build alternate identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web, nor will we use them in our products,” stated David Temkin, director of product management, ads privacy and trust at Google in a blog post, dated March 3. In essence, Google was confirming that it is doubling down on its Privacy Sandbox, a program that proposes substituting the one-to-one ad targeting of third-party cookies with a seemingly more privacy-safe alternative. Read more: Inside Google Chrome’s Privacy Sandbox Proposals Google’s March 3 declaration also brought into question the viability of ad-targeting alternatives to third-party cookies such as Unified ID 2.0 and LiveRamp’s authentication tools within Google’s advertising ecosystem. Concern filled each tier of the industry as the depth of the fundamental changes ad tech is about to go through in a short period of time became apparent. Google has issued assurances there will be “no backdoors” to its user tracking policies and that it won’t unfairly bias its own ad products compared to rivals, and has since clarified its policies on publisher-provided identifiers but opinions are still polarized. Divided opinions A poll of attendees at Adweek's recent town hall on the topic demonstrates the depth of divergence. Data based on 113 responses. Additionally, when asked, "Does the ad-tech ecosystem care enough about privacy?" 67% of respondents replied "No" with the remainder answering "Yes." Meanwhile, 55% of respondents said they believed "the policies and implementations between major browsers will converge" while the remainder thought the privacy requirements of the industry's dominant web browsers, Apple's Safari and Google Chrome, would continue to differ. 'Not a zero-sum game' Commenting on the survey data, Lulu Phongmany, an ad-tech consultant who works with publishers such as Digital Trends, said Google's policies are likely the result of it trying to balance heightened privacy requirements while also staving off regulators. "I don’t believe that Google is trying to shut down the competition," she said. "Their only real competitors are Facebook and Amazon and those two are not going anywhere, plus regulators are already watching Google’s every move." In response to the prospect of internet users having a universal profile, Phongmany agreed with the 70% of polled participants they should exist, but without PII. "Personal data is not a zero-sum game," she added. "I definitely think that users should have universal profile including permissions and email ID and I think they should have control over how much of that profile they want to share." Brands in a tailspin One brand-side marketer, who requested anonymity due to their employer's PR policies, said conversations with the public over the value-exchange of 'data for free content' are straightforward in concept but difficult to execute. "Consumers are confused and irritated by all the consent mechanisms which act as a block to content unless they 'accept all' or are prepared to trawl through endless lists of technology vendors," said the source. Meanwhile, brand-side marketers have been "thrown into a tailspin," especially those that have gone all-in on an audience-first approach. What Google can’t say outright to brands is, 'Relax, we’ve got you covered ...—A brand-side marketer According to the source, there are a "myriad [of] questions for Google around how they continue with their marketing use cases" with the concepts currently laid out by Google still confusing to many as it prepares to experiment with external parties in Q2. "What Google can’t say outright to brands is, 'Relax, we’ve got you covered, if you stay in our ecosystem we have a ton of first-party data we can still leverage,'" added the marketer. Also commenting on the survey results was Emily Culp, CEO Cover FX Skincare, who doubted the proclamations of Apple and Google that their moves are purely motivated by consumer-advocacy. "They are fortifying their walled gardens and, in turn, may make it less enjoyable for consumers," she said. "My hope is that eventually a less polarized solution could be realized and consumers are truly empowered." 'Stop moaning ... figure sh*t out' Meanwhile, Paul Silver, CSO at MiQ, said the "anti-Google sentiment" reflected in some of the survey results was predictable, and that the industry was primed for an unprecedented overhaul. "There will be more innovation emerging within the next six months than there has been in the last six years," he added. "It will catalyze companies into advancing solutions that address the needs of brands to drive data-driven advertising across the authenticated and anonymous web ... stop moaning and figure sh*t out." Similarly, Wayne Blodwell, CEO of The Programmatic Advisory, said progress is already underway, and that cookies, both first- and third-party ones, were never fit for purpose. "Companies are finding ways to cross-stitch first-party cookies or to find ways to refresh cookies without the user knowing," he added. " If we look five years ahead, I'd be very surprised if digital advertising targeting and measurement isn't entirely API-based." read more: Antitrust Suit Takes New Aim at Google’s Cookieless Future

Ad Tech Industry News

Adweek Audience Poll Reveals Polarized Opinions on Google and the Future of Ad Tech

'Stop Moaning, Figure Sh*t Out'

Ronan Shields

Andrew Blustein

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Ronan Shields

Andrew Blustein