If you're having trouble viewing this email, you can see it online.
July 26, 2024
That’s the way the monopoly fumbles
Well! That was a week. After four years of yelling, “We’re going to stop supporting third party cookies!” Google said, “lol, jk. unless??”
Maybe the company that’s desperately trying to prove it’s not a monopoly in an upcoming antitrust trial figured that it’s a bad look to be solely dictating the course of an entire industry. But it’s too late, as Arielle Garcia told Mi3 Australia:
“It's very clear that this move is not independent of the fact that Google knows that this [DOJ antitrust] trial is starting and that minds and eyes are starting to turn to what real remedies might actually look like.”
On the surface, this looks like a good thing. Google’s saying they will (finally) give users “informed choice” over whether they want to be tracked.
But Google has a history of playing by its own set of rules at the expense of brands, publishers, and all of us. That includes a nasty habit of secretly tracking people for its own benefit.
We’ll be watching to make sure that “informed choice” means “informed choice” for everyone.
Sadly, a lot of news outlets end up being shunned because of the difficult topics they cover. Even G-rated stories like how cool Taylor Swift is can have ads stripped away due to bad brand safety tech.
As a reminder for everyone who needs to hear it (GroupM’s CEO, apparently): an IAB report found that “the vast majority of consumers (84%) feel that advertising within the news either increases brands trust or maintains it.”
Advertisers shouldn’t trust keyword blocklists or opaque category exclusions to keep brands and their investments safe. They should use inclusion lists and work with trusted partners to make sure that their ads appear next to quality content people care about.
Claire apparent (At some point I’m going to run out of Claire puns, but that day is not today, friends!)
There were some recent grumblings on Capitol Hill that advertisers choosing not to run ads on certain sites was censorship. Let’s be extremely clear on this point: That is absolutely backward.
Advertisers have a First Amendment right, too, and they exercise it by demonstrating what sites they do — and do not — wish to support.
Bonus Claire: Vanessa Morcom interviewed Claire as part of her series on female disruptors. Give it a read!
That’s all for this week. Rachel and I have been working hard on our latest report on a particularly vile spam scam, which we’re going to send your way next week. See you then!
