4 ms·
I honestly think this move toward "less tracking" (3rd party cookie restrictions) is having the opposite intended effect. It used to be you could just "clear y
by cj 4y ago
I honestly think this move toward "less tracking" (3rd party cookie restrictions) is having the opposite intended effect.
It used to be you could just "clear your cookies" and you'd have a virtually clean identity on the internet. Now basically every ad platform, including Google Ads, is heavily encouraging the use of "first party data" - aka name, email addresses, phone numbers, mailing addresses - as a way to target customers. Google Ads help docs specifically cite the phasing out of cookies as the reason advertisers should send Google as much "first party data" as possible.
In effect, that means "clearing your cookies" will do nothing if you're the average Google users who's still logged into chrome/google after clearing your cookies.
And instead of Google + ad networks just having your data in cookies, now they have your name, email, mailing address, zip code, etc provided to them on the backend with no way for the consumer to easily opt out or delete their data.
Edit: adding another supporting example: for advertisers tracking conversions, it’s no longer good enough to just fire a conversion pixel on a checkout page. Now it’s heavily encouraged to send the user’s personal data (email, name, phone, etc) along with the conversion pixel/tag so Google (or whatever ad platform) can match the conversion to clicks without cookies at all. This type of conversion tracking was not pushed or encouraged until browsers started phasing out 3rd party cookies.
Edit 2: Google has even gone as far as adding a setting to their AdWords tracking tag that automatically scrapes the HTML of a page in search of anything that resembles a user’s email address or phone number to make it easier to collect first party data automatically.
- RowanH 4y agoI guess I shouldn’t have been shocked but this week looking at some display ads, in Googles audience builder there’s literally an “upload email of who you want to target” feature. Made my skin crawl. Can’t tell me that’s not abused to the ends of the earth and back - some marketing interns will just go nuts, GDPR be damned
- svachalek 4y agoThere's got to be some more regulation around advertising in general. I just don't see how it adds anything to the world that even begins to compensate for the damage. It should be like cigarettes, something we used to see as a legitimate business but decided we're really just better off taxing the heck out of and boxing into very limited places.
- ChadNauseam 4y agoAn easy example is that websites with billions of satisfied users (tiktok, facebook, instagram, reddit, twitter, and google) are all primarily funded through advertising.
- reaperducer 4y agoThere's got to be some more regulation around advertising in general. I just don't see how it adds anything to the world that even begins to compensate for the damage. It should be like cigarettes, something we used to see as a legitimate business but decided we're really just better off taxing the heck out of and boxing into very limited places. I agree with your advertisement of your viewpoint.
- nr2x 4y agoBlame the Irish.
- adrr 4y agoThats remarketing. Target your existing customers. Your cohort needs to be a certain size and can't just put one person in the ad target.
- cj 4y agoThe problem is remarketing used to work great without sharing email addresses with ad platforms. Now without cookies, you typically want to share email, phone, zip code, etc in order to do remarketing without 3rd party cookies. No ephemeral 3rd party cookies = ad platforms rely on user data that never changes (email addresses, phone numbers, etc)
- jefftk 4y agoI agree with your general comment, and would add fingerprinting to the list. Many ad networks now fingerprint users to generate an identity for tracking when cookies are not available, which didn't used to be worth it before the phase out. And of course clearing your cookies doesn't clear your fingerprint. > Google has even gone as far as adding a setting to their AdWords tracking tag that automatically scrapes the HTML of a page in search of anything that resembles a user’s email address or phone number to make it easier to collect first party data automatically. Really? Link?
- cj 4y ago“Automatic enhanced conversions” https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10763826?sjid=17033421343827426595-NA#zippy=%2Cwhy-is-automatic-setup-not-available https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/10763826?sjid=1... The help docs are a bit cryptic, but the UI within Google Ads is a lot more straightforward in how it works. It searches the landing page for an email address to automatically pair with a conversion event. All the advertiser needs to do is accept some privacy policies and enable the feature.
- jefftk 4y agoThanks! They write "sending hashed first party conversion data from your website in a privacy safe way" but it's just hashing (https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9888656 https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/9888656) the email address etc, which really does not deserve that description.
- RubyRidgeRandy 4y agoNow you can just not have an account or any first party data given to a customer, or with tools like anonaddy and fake people generator, you can spoof first party data that won't be matched when hashed and compared across different platforms. I'm curious, would you purchase a membership to youtube if it included absolutely no tracking, sharing of first-party data, or advertising at all?
- rkagerer 4y agoWho the hell is giving my name, email, mailing address, zip code, etc. to Google? I'd like to have my lawyer get in touch with them. I definitely did not consent, in fact I go out of my way to tell companies I give such information to not to share it with anyone.
- jorvi 4y agoSorry but this just sounds like victim blaming. If a guy threatens you with a stick, and you take his stick away and he pulls out a gun and goes “look at what banning my stick led to!”, it’s not the banning that’s the problem.