Home Data-Driven Thinking Is Google Using GDPR As An Excuse To Restrict Advertiser And Publisher Choices?

Is Google Using GDPR As An Excuse To Restrict Advertiser And Publisher Choices?

SHARE:

Data-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Today’s column is written by Joshua Koran, managing director, DMP, at Sizmek.

As the May deadline for GDPR compliance approaches, many companies have been asking how Google may react.

So when Google recently announced as part of its GDPR compliance efforts that YouTube would stop supporting third-party ad serving on reserved buys in Europe, it raised concerns. It just so happens that one implication of that decision is that Google would be the only ad server that serves and tracks ads on YouTube in Europe.

Google could use its wide reach as a global publisher, leading browser and prominent operating system provider to educate consumers and gather consent on behalf of the wide range of third parties whose services help support the rest of the digital world. Alternatively, Google could use its dominant position to restrict marketers’ ability to easily work with multiple publishers and their preferred technologies.

Marketers have a variety of needs based on their KPIs, objectives and budget. The advertising ecosystem evolved as a symbiotic but competitive network of technologies that deliver insights into advertiser spend and publisher properties. But Google’s decision to restrict third-party ad serving will give agencies and marketers fewer choices, hindering targeting and measurement while giving a major advantage to Google’s own services.

The perception in the industry is that Google is using the upcoming GDPR laws as an excuse to force advertisers into adopting only Google-approved vendors, ultimately stifling competition. There was a general outcry from marketers when Google previously announced it would restrict which objective measurement companies were allowed on Google-owned websites. Google agreed to allow a limited set of vendors to provide third-party services to buyers of Google inventory. Missing from this list were competitors to Google’s own ad server.

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem. Google seems to be picking winners and losers in what was supposed to be a competitive marketplace.

The internet fundamentally transformed many facets of entertainment, communication and commerce precisely because of the competitive startup landscape. Don’t forget: Facebook, Waze and WhatsApp were all once new players. The DMA and IAB estimate $20 billion-plus is spent annually on third-party-supported advertising [PDF]. Yet it appears as if Google is interpreting the new GDPR law in a manner that reduces competition.

GDPR requires companies to have a legal basis to collect and process personal data, including cookies, mobile advertising IDs and IP addresses. The two primary legal bases on which many advertising companies rely are consent and legitimate interest. GDPR recognized the importance of marketing among the enumerated legitimate interests by its explicit mention in the text.

What if Google required all third-party vendors to operate only if they gathered explicit consent, yet simultaneously prevented them from even having a chance to ask consumers for their consent? What if Google went further and suggested publishers not work with vendors who did not agree with Google? Or what if it went even further and told publishers they could only work with Google-approved vendors? In many ways, Google’s recent actions seem to suggest this may be the direction it is heading.

Subscribe

AdExchanger Daily

Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox every weekday.

Obviously, Google has the resources to support a competitive marketplace or lobby for restrictions that undermine its existence. The entire industry should support diverse opinions from independent publishers and the free speech required by vibrant democracies. It would not be a desirable outcome if new policies force independent publishers to rely more on only Google, at the expense of a competitive marketplace. And policies that centralize personal data within even fewer market players seem opposed to the basic tenets behind GDPR.

It is no secret Google makes most of its money from selling consumer intent. Its ability to match content to consumers is core to its success in search. Many consumers, myself included, enjoy the free content and services it provides, all of which are enabled by its ad-supported business model. While once a small search startup, Google’s current dominance of the advertising ecosystem is an impressive feat.

Ideally Google would use its position to educate consumers, marketers and publishers on consent management and stand behind solutions that help meet GDPR requirements for the entire ecosystem. As I said, I enjoy the free services Google’s ad-supported model provides. My hope is we leave our kids a better internet than what we have today. I hope Google wishes this too.

Follow Sizmek (@sizmek) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Must Read

Google filed a motion to exclude the testimony of any government witnesses who aren’t economists or antitrust experts during the upcoming ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Execs Off the Stand In Its Upcoming Antitrust Trial

Google doesn’t want AppNexus founder Brian O’Kelley – you know, the godfather of programmatic – to testify during its ad tech antitrust trial starting on September 9.

How HUMAN Uncovered A Scam Serving 2.5 Billion Ads Per Day To Piracy Sites

Publishers trafficking in pirated movies, TV shows and games sold programmatic ads alongside this stolen content, while using domain cloaking to obscure the “cashout sites” where the ads actually ran.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Thanks To The DOJ, We Now Know What Google Really Thought About Header Bidding

Starting last week and into this week, hundreds of court-filed documents have been unsealed in the lead-up to the Google ad tech antitrust trial – and it’s a bonanza.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Will Alternative TV Currencies Ever Be More Than A Nielsen Add-On?

Ever since Nielsen was dinged for undercounting TV viewers during the pandemic, its competitors have been fighting to convince buyers and sellers alike to adopt them as alternatives. And yet, some industry insiders argue that alt currencies weren’t ever meant to supplant Nielsen.

A comic depicting people in suits setting money on fire as a reference to incrementality: as in, don't set your money on fire!

How Incrementality Tests Helped Newton Baby Ditch Branded Search

In the past year, Baby product and mattress brand Newton Baby has put all its media channels through a new testing regime for incrementality. It was a revelatory experience.

Colgate-Palmolive redesigned all of its consumer-facing sites and apps to serve as information hubs about its brands and make it easier to collect email addresses and other opted-in user data.

Colgate-Palmolive’s First-Party Data Strategy Is A Study In Quality Over Quantity

Colgate-Palmolive redesigned all of its consumer-facing sites and apps to make it easier to collect opted-in first-party user data.