3 ms·
This plus the third-party cookie apocalypse means advertisers are going to need to seriously reconsider the entire approach of personalization and targeting. Fo
by ramesh31 3y ago
This plus the third-party cookie apocalypse means advertisers are going to need to seriously reconsider the entire approach of personalization and targeting. For all of the billions and billions of dollars poured into ad-tech, I really don't buy that this stuff is any more effective than manually chosen or page contextual display ads. Maybe for juicing a few short term points on an A/B test, sure. But has anyone seriously verified that any of this stuff is effective versus control over the long term?
- vundercind 3y agoI suspect it’s very valuable for a small proportion of campaigns that very carefully use its features and are thoughtfully designed, and the same or worse than traditional advertising for the rest. I further suspect a whole lot of the ones it’s very-good for are scams, or scam-adjacent.
- cassianoleal 3y agoEven for those campaigns it might be cheaper to cast a wider net using a non-personalised ad scheme.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago>the third-party cookie apocalypse Expand?
- rchaud 3y agoMost browsers now do not allow 3rd parties to set cookies when you visit a first-party site. By end of 2024, Google Chrome will block all 3rd party cookies completely. https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd
- rchaud 3y agoCookies are as good as dead already, and have mostly been replaced with: - native apps with device-level Mobile Advertising ID exposed - login walls (e.g. Twitter) - browser fingerprinting
- ramesh31 3y agoFirst party audiencing has indeed been used for a long time now. It works... to an extent. But it requires significant opt-in and will never replace what cross-site cookies could do. Same for fingerprinting.
- withinboredom 3y agoCookies are very much alive (still the best way to do CSRF protection). I think you mean 3rd party cookies?