3 ms·

> a) Publishers lose about half their revenue because ads aren't personalized anymore: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-pa.. https://se

> a) Publishers lose about half their revenue because ads aren't personalized anymore: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-pa.. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-pa.... I am on the demand side, and the thesis and testing methodology seems extremely flawed. If you disable third party cookies on a test group of certain publishers our (demand side) bidders will start optimizing towards the control group; this is very obvious. Also, was this analysis conducted on other ad exchanges? For example, Google ADX makes only ~30% of the global traffic we get, and the traffic has very different characteristics from the traffic we get from APPNEXUS, Rubicon, etc. I believe this is an analysis for Google's internal conclusions, and not for the industry in general. Has this been made public before?

jefftk 7y ago
> If you disable third party cookies on a test group of certain publishers It says "turned off the availability of personalized data for a small fraction of randomly selected users" and "The experiment was applied to a small fraction of each publisher’s traffic because we did not want to materially affect publisher revenue, though in aggregate the amount of traffic evaluated as part of the experiment was significant". It sounds like you're responding to a version of the experiment that was run on a per-publisher basis? > was this analysis conducted on other ad exchanges? It says the experiment was conducted "through the programmatic arm of Google Ad Manager’s serving system". I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think it includes AppNexus or Rubicon. I believe any publisher could run their own version of this experiment by picking a slice of traffic and telling all their bidders to only show non-personalized ads. > Has this been made public before? This document was released in August: https://www.blog.google/products/ads/next-steps-transparency-choice-control/ https://www.blog.google/products/ads/next-steps-transparency...
- DevKoala 7y ago
  > Using this system, we ran an experiment where we turned off the availability of personalized data for a small fraction of randomly selected users through the programmatic arm of Google Ad Manager’s serving system, thus effectively disabling access to cookies This means the cookies for the auctions of a control group of users were not exposed. The experiment is still wrong, the bidders will still react in real time discarding the traffic without identifiers; specially since it comes from ADX where the identifier is the key to evaluating the model. Not taking any other ad exchange into account is a huge flaw if you want to extrapolate the conclusions into conclusions for the whole industry. Other exchanges provide different identifying properties such as the 4th octet of the ip_address with each auction. Google ADX doesn't send this bit of information, they obfuscate the ip_address always. It's obvious that if you remove cookies from ADX, there is no reason to use ADX since the cookie is the proxy for your model on that exchange, but on the other ad exchanges you could survive just fine. There is no way I read this experiment in which it makes sense as a conclusion for the whole ad industry.

jefftk 7y ago

> If you disable third party cookies on a test group of certain publishers It says "turned off the availability of personalized data for a small fraction of randomly selected users" and "The experiment was applied to a small fraction of each publisher’s traffic because we did not want to materially affect publisher revenue, though in aggregate the amount of traffic evaluated as part of the experiment was significant". It sounds like you're responding to a version of the experiment that was run on a per-publisher basis? > was this analysis conducted on other ad exchanges? It says the experiment was conducted "through the programmatic arm of Google Ad Manager’s serving system". I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think it includes AppNexus or Rubicon. I believe any publisher could run their own version of this experiment by picking a slice of traffic and telling all their bidders to only show non-personalized ads. > Has this been made public before? This document was released in August: https://www.blog.google/products/ads/next-steps-transparency-choice-control/ https://www.blog.google/products/ads/next-steps-transparency...

DevKoala 7y ago
> Using this system, we ran an experiment where we turned off the availability of personalized data for a small fraction of randomly selected users through the programmatic arm of Google Ad Manager’s serving system, thus effectively disabling access to cookies This means the cookies for the auctions of a control group of users were not exposed. The experiment is still wrong, the bidders will still react in real time discarding the traffic without identifiers; specially since it comes from ADX where the identifier is the key to evaluating the model. Not taking any other ad exchange into account is a huge flaw if you want to extrapolate the conclusions into conclusions for the whole industry. Other exchanges provide different identifying properties such as the 4th octet of the ip_address with each auction. Google ADX doesn't send this bit of information, they obfuscate the ip_address always. It's obvious that if you remove cookies from ADX, there is no reason to use ADX since the cookie is the proxy for your model on that exchange, but on the other ad exchanges you could survive just fine. There is no way I read this experiment in which it makes sense as a conclusion for the whole ad industry.