Re: WABG scope clarification

Hi folks -

I see the Web-Adv group advising about our advertising use cases and needs,
but as Wendy and Alan said, we're not setting the standards.  As Ben said
last week, I also see it as a way for the browsers to answer questions we
have, which is also extremely valuable.  I don't think it's just about
Chrome, though - although there's no arguing that, of the browser vendors,
Google is the most engaged in this group  (and thank you very much to the
Chrome folks for that!).

Wendy asked what else would help in making Web-Adv more effective, and my
vote for that would be we accept the data privacy principles, and that the
user experience is the highest priority.  I don't actually think anyone in
the group is against data privacy, but we don't tend to position our
arguments in terms of data privacy.  We talk about a proposal "harming
small publishers", but we don't explicitly say "and if small publishers go
out of business, it means users end up with less choice".  I think our
positions would just be stronger if we did.

Thanks!
- Kris


------------------------------
Kristen Chapman

Salesforce Marketing Cloud
kristen.chapman@salesforce.com
508.282.0807



On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:26 PM Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks Alan,
>
> The BG homepage, https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/ describes the
> group mission:
> "The mission of the Improving Web Advertising Business Group is to
> identify areas where standards and changes in the Web itself can improve
> the ecosystem and experience for users, advertisers, publishers,
> distributors, ad networks, agencies and others, and to oversee liaison
> with existing Working Groups and to create new Working Groups as needed."
>
> As you note, the role of a BG is not to propose consensus standards. or
> to develop consensus policies, but as a forum for industry participants
> to share use cases and needs from the web platform.
>
> Here's a pointer to the backgrounder slides I shared in a new
> participants' call and with PrivacyCG:
> https://www.w3.org/2020/05/WebAdvBackgrounder.pdf
> the last slide describes other kinds of groups and their roles: A
> Community Group such as PrivacyCG can incubate specification proposals;
> and Interest Group can be chartered to develop consensus guidance
> documents; while a Working Group can be chartered to reach consensus on
> specifications as formal W3C Recommendations.
>
> What else would help us to make this Ads BG the most effective place for
> discussing advertising use cases and gaps in the web platform and
> building the case for interoperable solutions?
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> On 7/6/20 11:13 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office)
> Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
>
>
>
>