Tag Archives: data stewardship

Part I – Keeping Big G Out of The Digital Cookie Jar

Part 1 – Introduction

This will be a multi-part post about recent developments that should be of concern for serious digital marketers. In particular, large digital advertisers that use Adobe Analytics (or other non-Big G Analytics platforms) and whose media agencies (or internal digital media buying teams) also use Big G Ads/Search/AdWords beware.

The Problem

Apple’s most recent Safari release in September 2018, which effectively blocked all 3rd party tracking cookies is being blamed for what amounts to a clandestine behavioral data land grab by Big G. In going along with this charade, digital marketers everywhere risk the de facto relinquishment of digital measurement and customer behavioral data to others with different and not non-transparent interests that create a competitive disadvantage.

Through major brands’ own media agencies, Big G has been cannily pushing everyone to use a new kind of Web site tracking tag that circumvents Safari’s strict privacy features.  The new code snippet replaces the legacy DoubleClick Floodlight tags that have been historically appended the brand’s destination Web site on key actions, e.g. order thank you page. The loading of that page and associated 3rd party tags signal a successful “conversion” event for analytics and ad targeting optimization purposes.

Who Has the Behavioral Data?

Floodlight 101

The DoubleClick Floodlight tag was created as an adjunct to the agency ad server (a/k/a 3rd party ad server) which was initially developed to enable ad impression delivery in the user’s browser to be associated with later events on the advertiser’s Web sites. In this way, a kind of campaign measurement could be performed showing cause (ad delivery) and effect (purchase event). However, the method relies a 3rd party cookie from doubleclick.net set at time of ad delivery to be safe and secure in the user’s browser and recognized by the Floodlight tag when the user subsequently interacts on the advertiser Web site.

Additionally, the Floodlight tag has the capability to piggyback other tags from media vendors like ad networks so that they could also measure and optimize their campaigns in flight based on actual performance, e.g. order confirmation pages firing. Similarly, ad analytics uses include brand lift studies and multi-touch attribution. Not surprisingly, over the years Big G has shoved more and more back-end server-side functionality into the Floodlight tag to help their other businesses like AdWords, Bid Manager and Dynamic Creative Optimization.

The problem with the new code snippet is that the tag is no longer the kludgey Floodlight but the much more powerful Big G tag manager. The latter was engineered to sending data back to Big G faking 1st party even though it is not really (similar to Big G Analytics). Compounding the challenge for digital marketers is the aggressive recommendation to install the new GTM code snippet onto *all Web site pages* instead of just swapping out existing Floodlight tags.

The Bait and Switch

Within the new code snippet itself, note that the comment text still says “DoubleClick” but the actual server being called is not doubleclick.net anymore but is googletagmanager.com. Big G’s timing of the recent name change dropping the DoubleClick brand from everything is interesting and has further caused confusion with the site operations and ad operations team that work with these technologies.

Before: Legacy Floodlight code snippet
After: New global gtag.js code snippet

Major digital advertisers that are not already using Big G Analytics/Tag Manager are particularly susceptible to the false sense of urgency in this crafty switcheroo. Especially those from industries with limited digital competency. In the end, Big G gets better clickthrough conversion tracking for search and client-owned Web site analytics platforms like Adobe Analytics, Webtrends, IBM Digital Analytics or Matomo remain as is.

Clients should consider pushing back on what amounts to a digital behavioral data cookie grab.

COMING UP: Part II – Victim-blaming with Apple ITP.

Trouble in the Advertiser Ad Server Market

It may be getting rough for the advertiser/agency ad server marketplace with recent developments squeezing viable independent alternatives to Big G. Digital marketers and their media agencies would do well to think through the impact on their ad tech stack instead of the usual.

Independent Ad Servers vs. Big G and Typical Agency Lassitude

These challengers (and others) could still be a worthwhile alternative to Big G’s near monopoly on advertiser/agency ad serving. With the heavy hand of GDPR and CCPA looming regulators are looking to score political points and have a real need to fund overstretched governments with fines.

The bad news is that Sizmek is entering bankruptcy proceedings which itself is a roll-up of many companies. Formerly known as MediaMind, it is made up of Pointroll, Eyewonder, Eyeblaster, RocketFuel/x+1, Peer 39, StrikeAd and others. From the outside, it looks like self-inflected wounds are the cause and not a problem with the quality of their technology products per se.

According to AdExchanger, Sizmek owes around $26MM to various ad exchanges/networks. Missed revenue targets on the tech-side at the same time that they were trying to consolidate operations is mentioned. It would not be the first time that a lack of operational savvy by the financiers caused problems. Just because combining a media business model and technology model works for the dominant player in the market does not mean it is a good strategy for challengers. Mashing up a challenger technology product company with an overglorified ad network is usually a bad idea.

TrueEffect does not seem to be making much progress and is rumored to be having trouble. That would be unfortunate as their unique and innovative approach first-party ad serving would improve measurement of KPIs like reach, frequency and viewthrough measurement. It is too bad that more advertiser’s and their agencies choose ad servers based on expedience without considering the hidden costs.

Next, there is Flashtalking with their nascent relationship with Adobe. In 2018, it was announced that the two would collaborate on integrating the Flashtalking ad server with the Adobe Media Optimizer DSP (demand side platform) which would together improve identity management in part of the ad stack. On the heels of Adobe Summit 2019, there is not much new to get excited about. For their part, Flashtalking brings a novel approach to identity management with their ad server leveraging probalistic machine fingerprinting methods to boost targeting and analytics efficacy. Limited reliance on 3rd party tracking cookies seems to be a good proxy for first-party browser tracking.

Managing Technology and Advertising Media Businesses

The Atlas ad server is history. In 2013, Baby G acquired the Atlas ad server technology from Microsoft (an early funder of Baby G) and then ran it into the ground. Briefly, there was potentially big funding around and it was all about people-based ad serving with an obvious identity management benefit. Alas, the towel was thrown in by Baby G in 2016. Riding two different horses is hard. Prior to Microsoft it was part of the aQuantive group which also included the DrivePM and the Razorfish agency. Microsoft also let the Atlas ad serving technology go to waste which is thought to be a me too move and also to prevent Big G from getting another DoubleClick.

Guess Who Has Your Web Site User’s Behavioral Data Went!

Meanwhile, it is all sunshine and rainbows in Mountain View. Big G continues to scam advertisers/site-owners for more data with the old DoubleClick Flooglight for Google Tag Manager switcheroo (more on this soon). Conveniently, they and their media agency lackeys blame Apple Safari ITP for the land grab under the auspices of: it is to improve measurement [theirs primarily it seems].

Response: Did Google Just Kill Independent Attribution?

Response to Martin Kihn of Gartner’s piece at AdExchanger, Did Google Just Kill Independent Attribution?

———————–

Interesting. Digital advertisers relying on those IDs for MTA sacrificed quality for expedience a long time ago. That cookie and anything relying on its stability is the poster-child for unreliable 3rd party tracking, i.e. bogus measurement and imprecise targeting.

#1: I’m glad you brought up trust which hopefully advertisers are paying attention to now in the post-ANA world. Best approach is also “to verify”.

#2: It is hard to believe that advertisers willingly uploading their data to ADS.

#3: Well-said. Some media agencies may be conflicted about this, while others are moving their clients away from the expedient choice.

#4: It should now become more clear: digital advertisers that chose expedience have lost the competitive advantage. Worse, they have been measuring and targeting with garbage data for years.

My recommendation to clients is to run from reliance on this dirty bird and find point solutions where they can leverage 1st party methods/do quality control and own their own destiny.

Stepping Over Data Dollars to Save Pennies