Google U-turn reaction: 'No time to sit back and relax'

Google’s decision not to scrap third-party cookies in Chrome has come as a shock to some, and as an inevitablity to others, but nearly all commentators agree that now is not the time to sit back and think that the move will simply solve the issue of online targeting.

Decision Marketing gauges industry reaction to one of the biggest U-turns the tech giant has ever made.

First up is The Trade Desk CEO and founder Jeff Green, who says: “I have been saying for years now to our industry, to Google, and even to Wall Street that I think it is a strategic mistake for Google to get rid of third-party cookies. Now they apparently agree.

“Google has finally acknowledged what the advertising industry has been saying for years — Privacy Sandbox is not a good product and doesn’t sufficiently protect consumers’ privacy or empower advertisers. And it probably hurts publisher monetisation most.

“Google seems to finally acknowledge that the best option for them is to give consumers the choice. The question that remains is, will Google truly give consumers’ choice? Or will they make the decision for consumers and then bury consumers access to change it? Apple has already taken this path, one that empowers Apple and deprecates users’ experience while asserting that the user can change it if they really want to and have the will to click a lot to find the buttons.”

Mint marketing director Christoph Kruse believes that while the continuation of third-party cookies will surely bring some relief to the advertising world, it is not the solution that solves all challenges the industry is still facing.

He explains: “Despite the availability of cookies, we have seen a decline in acceptance of such cookies. A third of global Internet users use ad blockers that also have an effect on the tracking capabilities and a substantial number of users have become more privacy aware and don’t always accept all cookies when the prompt appears on a site. So even when third-party cookies won’t be deprecated completely by Google, there might be a significant drop of available data.

“In previous years, the AI-powered shift from personal to predictive marketing has seen advertisers keeping impressive results while not being dependent on granular targeting. The large advertising platforms already offer automated bidding or advanced contextual targeting that ensures high performance even when there is not enough data for personal targeting.

“It will be key for marketers to take the birds-eye view and compare platforms and channels in real-time to adjust investments continually and ensure high performance to stay successful in the long run.”

Meanwhile, SBS UK and EMEA director Jason Warner says that while he was initially shocked by the move, after some reflection, it seems the industry can finally turn the page on this issue and focus on more pressing matters.

Warner continues: “The decision brings much-needed clarity to the industry. Allowing users to adjust privacy settings in Chrome to eliminate tracking is, in my opinion, a brilliant solution.

“This approach doesn’t discard the industry’s efforts to find alternatives to cookies. Instead, it puts the choice back into the hands of consumers, empowering them to decide their preferences. Brands now have a range of ways to reach their target audiences, based on how users want to be tracked. Ultimately, this leads to a fairer and more equitable internet for all.”

Making Science head of data and analytics UK Rodney Perry agrees. He explains: “This decision ultimately levels the playing field, as both cookie-based and cookie-less solutions will have the opportunity to compete for user attention and drive performance.

“Amid this U-turn, brands are advised to focus on leveraging first-party data, especially since other browsers have already eliminated third-party cookies. It will no doubt be interesting to see how this dual approach will evolve and which solutions will contribute to maintaining a thriving digital advertising ecosystem while addressing privacy concerns.”

And Azerion director of data technology Marçal Serrate reckons that while it may appear as a reprieve for advertisers who rely heavily on cookie-based tracking, the industry’s trajectory towards enhanced privacy and user consent remains unchanged. The move to a consent-based model implies that despite Google retaining third-party cookies, their efficacy is bound to diminish.

He adds: “Google’s revised strategy echoes Apple’s implementation of App Tracking Transparency in iOS, which resulted in 60-70% of users opting out of tracking and drastically reduced the available granular data that advertisers had relied on. At Azerion, we’ve observed that a significant portion of our user base comes from environments other than Google Chrome, accounting for 50% of our web traffic. As users become more aware of privacy issues, the likelihood of them opting out of tracking increases and will inevitably lead to a reduction in the cookie-based data available.

“The shift towards user consent and privacy-centric approaches signifies a fundamental change in how digital advertising will function. Publishers and advertisers should prepare for a future with increasingly scarce granular tracking data and cookie-based traffic. This means continuing to innovate and adapt to a world where user privacy is paramount by employing diversified data sources, investing in privacy-compliant technologies and enhancing user engagement. By planning for a future with less reliance on cookie-based tracking, we can ensure sustainable and effective advertising strategies.”

Epsilon vice-president of digital Ben Foulkes is another executive who believes that allowing users control at the browser level is a move in the right direction towards greater privacy and personal choice. However, he also sees a strong argument that Google simply could not contain the collateral damage to the open Internet’s ecosystem.

Foulkes continues: “Reading between the lines of the statement, it’s clear Chrome will continue to make tweaks that could well have a similar impact. The silver lining is that publishers and advertisers have already made significant progress in reducing their reliance on browser-controlled identifiers for activation, but even more importantly in understanding their marketing impact.

“It’s business as usual as far as Epsilon is concerned. We’ve operated talking to people not devices, cookies or browsers and will continue to do so. This decision doesn’t change our plans moving forwards.”

Finally, MGID vice-president of global sales Madi Bachar claims the move was not a massive surprise as there was too much money was at stake, and Google could not find a solid alternative.

Bacher adds: “Judging by the jump in Criteo’s shares following the news, the industry has welcomed the move. The question is, what will be the fate of Privacy Sandbox? Google has said it will continue development, but unless there’s pressure from the industry, it’s unlikely there’ll be movement until the legal cases in the US and EU are concluded. Over the coming months, we are likely to see Google make improvements to the existing cookies and evolve them into something that will be easier to digest for privacy advocates.

“Whatever happens, publishers must continue to prioritise the development of first-party data rather than relying solely on third-party data and DSPs for user identification. The risk now is assuming we can relax.

“The benefits of this decision will only be realised if ad tech providers continue to push for cookieless innovation and strengthen collaboration with their advertiser and supply-side partners. Let’s not forget that Safari still has, and will continue to have, a considerable share of users, so industry players need to be able to work with this traffic.”