fbpx
Connect with us

Tech

Google’s David Temkin sheds light on the company’s preparations for disabling third-party cookies

Published

on

Google’s David Temkin sheds light on the company’s preparations for disabling third-party cookies

Subscribe: Apple PodcastsStitcherSpotify

Google is keeping to its end-of-2023 deadline for disabling the use of third-party cookies in its Chrome browser, the company’s senior director of product management, ads privacy and user trust David Temkin said in the latest episode of the Digiday Podcast.

Of course, that timeline could still change, as it has before. But part of Google’s decision to extend its previous deadline was to give the company time for testing and tweaking, said Temkin. “We’ve got a pretty good line of sight to the endpoint. We’ve got a good plan to get there, and we’re making rapid progress,” he said.

Much of that plan centers on Google’s Privacy Sandbox, which spans the company’s collection of cookie-replacing technologies. That includes contextual targeting proposal Topics and retargeting tool FLEDGE. And technically, Google has two Privacy Sandboxes: the web-oriented Privacy Sandbox for Chrome and the recently introduced mobile-minded Privacy Sandbox for Android.

Considering the development of the connected TV advertising ecosystem and CTV’s reliance on the cookie-like IP address, CTV would seem ripe to eventually receive its own Privacy Sandbox — a possibility that the Google executive entertained.

“At some point in time, could solutions be delivered on CTV that would deliver the same kind of relevant advertising that you can see on these other identifier-free platforms? Yes,” said Temkin.

Here are a few highlights from the conversation, which have been edited for length and clarity.

Standardizing the sandbox

We do hope that [Privacy Sandbox] becomes adopted industry-wide. There’s two separate steps to that. Do other browsers just take it in? Because they could. Chrome-based browsers — and there are many of them now — could simply adopt it. But ideally, this does become [standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium] W3C. That would ensure interoperability across the board. So that is the intent. It’s part of the browser; it’s part of the browser code base.

How Chrome data fits in Privacy Sandbox

Chrome data is not part of — we don’t use it for targeting, we don’t use it for measurement. There is one thing that we do use it for when it comes to ads, which is fraud detection. That’s it. So it’s not part of, “Well, we’ve got better data to target users.” It’s not along those lines. But it does help with anti-fraud.

Comparing/contrasting the two Privacy Sandboxes

You make an analogy: The trail of a user might be from app to app to app, which is a little bit like what is it from site to site to site; can that be used to determine a user’s interest? But when you’re looking at mobile, a big part of that is app installs. App installs are done based on what apps a user has, and that too is a similar sort of tracking concern. How do you deliver app ads that are driving people to install an app under such an environment? You need a certain amount of signal to do that. And that problem is being solved with Privacy Sandbox on Android. [It] has no direct analog on Chrome.

Fleeing the FLoC for Topics

FLoC would place users into a cohort of users that happened to have similar interests. But the browser was unable to determine — given the methodology that was used — what are your interests. So the user couldn’t go in and say, “Why’d I get this ad? And what are the interests that you think I have? And based on what?” FLoC didn’t provide for that. Topics is a lot better for those things because Topics [operates] within the browser. The browser itself knows what the topics are that are being inferred based on your browsing history. And that can be displayed to the user. The user can be given controls over them. That’s a major step forward right there.

https://digiday.com/?p=450292

Go to Source

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Tech

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 vs. AMD Radeon 6950 XT: Which GPU should you buy?

Published

on

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 vs. AMD Radeon 6950 XT: Which GPU should you buy?

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Tech

Receive near instant feedback on logos, images, text, and more with Helpfull

Published

on

Receive near instant feedback on logos, images, text, and more with Helpfull

Feedback software

StackCommerce

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Tech

Confessions of an in-house creative strategist on feeling unfulfilled, difficulty in returning to agencies as the ‘pay is less’

Published

on

Confessions of an in-house creative strategist on feeling unfulfilled, difficulty in returning to agencies as the ‘pay is less’

The war for talent between agencies and brands’ in-house agencies has cooled. Even so, for adland talent who’ve made the move in-house, some say they are looking to go back to agencies after feeling creatively stifled. It’s not the easiest strategy to execute.

In the latest edition of our Confessions series, in which we trade anonymity for candor, we hear from an in-house creative strategist about their experience, why they want to go agency-side now and how pay is keeping them from doing so.

This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

What’s the in-house experience like?

I’ve been in-house for about a year. It’s very one-sided. The difference between agency and in-house is that with agencies, there [are] a lot of opinions and ideas [outside of the brand message] that go into creative. With in-house, you have the brand’s message and all creative is reflective of the brand’s message. With in-house, regardless of trends in the market, it’s a lot of ‘we’re going to stick to this one way of doing things’ mentality. It’s a lot of opinions about what the creative should be based on what it has been before. It makes it hard to introduce something fresh. It makes it hard to hire or be a new hire. If you’re not actually going to adhere to advice from new hires, what’s the point in getting new people? Are you just bringing people on board for a second opinion? That’s what it feels like.

Sounds like you don’t have the creative control you desire.

It feels like more of a second opinion role than to get something to manage or control. [Where I am now] it feels like we’re leaning more into what [our strategy] used to be than thinking about what we could be. That’s a big issue with in-house. With agencies, like I said, there’s a lot more trial and error. With in-house, a lot more of this is what we’re doing, these are the funds we have and this is what has worked in the past. In reality, a lot of what worked in the past, when you put it back into the market, it’s not going to work anymore. 

Why do you think it’s more challenging to get to a new creative strategy in-house?

With agencies, you have multiple perspectives. You’re working on multiple brands. You can see something working for another brand and talk to your client about it. You can pivot. You have the background and perspective to [pitch that pivot]. When you’re in-house, you only have the knowledge of your brand and what’s working for you. 

Are you looking to go back to agencies? 

Personally, I am looking to go from in-house to agency but I get paid a lot more being in-house than what I’ve been offered at agencies. I’ve been in interviews with agencies where they’re telling me that I’ll be learning [programs I already know how to use] so that’s why the pay is less than what it should be. There are agencies I’ve interviewed with who ask me to move to New York for less than what I make now and make that work. [With inflation,] there’s no reason why salaries aren’t also increasing. 

So you’d like to make the jump creatively but it’s hard when the compensation isn’t up to what in-house offers? 

It’s hard. I’ve been lowballed, too. They’ll post a salary for a position, go through the interviews and then offer less than what’s listed on the salary description. What was the point of putting the salary range there? I feel like people are putting salary ranges on job descriptions just to attract people with the experience that they are looking for but by the time they make the offer, it’s not what they said it would be. It’s offensive.

https://digiday.com/?p=452660

Go to Source

Continue Reading
Home | Latest News | Tech | Google’s David Temkin sheds light on the company’s preparations for disabling third-party cookies
a

Market

Trending