The saga of Google and cookies: theories, opinions, and revelations

  • The delay occurred due to Google's confidence in the poor report from the CMA.
  • The delay occurred due to uncertainty about the security of its own profits.
  • Nobody likes the Privacy Sandbox

It seems that third-party cookies are not going anywhere yet. And now we see a stream of very important opinions about what Google actually planned.

#Digiday has gathered the most interesting theories and added a bit of additional context.

The third (last?) delay of third-party cookies deactivation in Chrome was due to the regulator

#Google hit the brakes because it felt that the British regulator (Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)) has serious doubts. By announcing the delay in advance, Google retains control over the course of events. If the company were confident that the CMA would agree with its plans, the tech giant would have made a statement about the delay.

Google is simply prolonging the final resolution of the third-party cookies issue

According to this theory, all these delays will continue until Google is sure that disabling cookies will not damage its profits or cause dissatisfaction among regulators. To realize this idea, Google needs to get the green light from the regulator to move its advertising business from ad tech into the browser.

If Google's browser plan is approved, then the advertising business will be sacrificed

For many years, Google has held the reins as the world's leading ad seller, as well as dominating as the largest ad server and DSP. All of this, combined with analytics and measurements, makes Google simultaneously the accuser, the defense, and the jury in the world of advertising. It's no wonder that such boundless power had to attract regulatory attention at some point.

In September 2024, the US Department of Justice #USA will attempt to prove in court that Google used its dominant position in ad tech to monopolize the digital advertising market and suppress competition. If the DOJ succeeds, Google may face the prospect of selling its advertising division—a move that would have been a serious blow to the company once, but now it might not be so. It seems that Google's focus has now shifted to the #Chrome browser and cloud technologies.

Google is killing the open internet

This story resembles a Bond movie, and Google plays the role of the villain Auric Goldfinger. Like Goldfinger made the gold at Fort Knox radioactive to raise the value of his own stock, some believe Google stirred up this whole situation around third-party cookies to support its own empire. By making advertising outside its ecosystem more complicated and expensive, Google makes its own platforms—Search, YouTube, and Gmail—more attractive because that's where advertisers can find reliable data for targeting their audience.

Privacy Sandbox

Some skeptics believe that advertisers do not need #AltID. Perhaps they invest in #cookieless not because it's necessary, but because there's nothing better on the market. However, initial tests have not been very promising. And, perhaps seeing the ineffectiveness of AltID, advertisers and agencies will again turn their attention to Google's solution.

The industry dislikes Privacy Sandbox and may never like it

The essence of this argument is that the industry does not want to support Privacy Sandbox because it does not want Google to establish its monopoly there as well.

If third-party cookies are unsafe for user privacy, why is their replacement safe?

It has long been discussed that disabling third-party cookies is a half-measure and only one side of the coin. It's strange that free cookies are condemned, while their paid alternatives, which essentially do the same thing, possibly using even more dubious technologies—these alternatives are somehow considered correct.

Users won't notice the deactivation of third-party cookies

If users dislike all this ad tracking, they won't be thrilled that they will continue to be targeted by ads based on, for example, their behavior. There won't be any fundamental difference for users.

Google's crusade against third-party cookies has revealed the industry's lack of sustainability

This view has been gaining traction lately, especially over the last quarter. The idea is that AltID turned out to be so weak and the option so terrible (in its current implementation) that everyone decided to keep (at least temporarily) the outdated solution with third-party cookies.

Google uses Privacy Sandbox to restrain Amazon

This theory has no evidence, but history shows that unexpected twists are not rare, especially with Google. Perhaps Google is using all this movement for user data privacy to slow down Amazon's growth with new privacy standards.

Google created all the fuss around cookies to distract the industry from AI

Complete conspiracy theory, but perhaps Google is simply distracting the industry's efforts from developments in #AI by addressing a non-existent "problem".

Hasn't the cookie crumbled by this point?

The deactivation of third-party cookies in Firefox and Safari browsers, which happened several years ago, changed nothing and caused no panic. But now, it turns out that marketers were very reliant on Chrome and failed to adapt to the changes.

Nobody cares about the deactivation of third-party cookies

And here are the cynics. There is some truth to this. Everyone is indifferent, but agencies behind closed doors conduct tests, develop contingency plans, basically do something. But they do not move to active actions because it is still not clear how to sell all this new stuff.

To Publishers

Changes are inevitable, third-party cookies will disappear sooner or later. The industry has already set on this path and will not turn back. It is worth looking for solutions now to maintain revenue.

Forecast

Regulators will continue to pressure Google. AltID will grow. Everyone will try to get rid of the dependence on third-party cookies.

Other materials on this topic: