WABG scope clarification

Colleagues – 

 

Apologies as I was only able to participate sporadically on last week’s call due to connectivity issues. As I understand it, the Chrome team provided much needed clarification re: the current scope of the WABG. Personally, I think it would be helpful to have the scope written down somewhere to maximize efficiency and minimize confusion. In my view, it is not clear that someone outside this group reading about the WABG on the W3C website would understand what this group is trying to accomplish.

 

I’m sharing this via email so as to avoid taking up additional group discussion time defining scope as that seems to have become a point of frustration for some. I invite others to share their perspective, but here’s how I’m understanding things. 

 

Given that 3rd party cookies will be depreciated in Chrome, the Chrome team is seeking consultation with the marketplace as Chrome creates an alternative mechanism to enable the marketplace to advertise via Chrome. The primary role of the WABG is to provide input into what Chrome is creating, and the final decision on what gets created will be made by Google/Chrome. FWIW, I applaud Google for allowing input – in sharp contrast to Apple’s recent announcement re: IDFA.

 

That said, I’d encourage us all to be clear about what the WABG is - and what is not. The WABG is currently NOT setup to create a standard based upon industry consensus. Rather, it is primarily a forum for industry participants to provide limited input into an advertising platform being created by and ultimately administered by Chrome. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – and I certainly hope the Chrome team will consider additional proposals such as they’ve done re: Sparrow. But as noted by Wendall and a few others on the call, Chrome is driving this process and the rest of us are providing feedback. Please note that the success or failure of many in the WABG are already contingent upon maintaining a good relationship with Google. As such, there is likely to be some perceived risk to being openly critical of the dominant market player in a public forum. And that is likely to color some of the feedback provided.

 

There are implications to choosing this direction. I’m probably stating the obvious here – but it’s worth noting that WABG participants will have limited insight into how decisions will be made re: Turtledove and nobody really knows how Turtledove fits into Google’s long-term strategic plans for its advertising business. Will all or part of Google’s adtech stack be subject to these same rules? Will Turtledove encourage innovation or serve to limit innovation? Will this benefit publishers or consumer privacy interests over the long term? What is the marketplace impact down the line if or when Chrome opts to create a fully integrated ad platform within Google’s tech stack?

 

I hope someone is willing to raise these questions – even if the WABG is not.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Alan Chapell

Chapell & Associates

917 318 8440