RE: [web-adv] February 1 agenda

One consequence of work to reduce data sharing between different internet domains, such as Privacy Sandbox or GPC, is to significantly increase the value of directly identifiable personal data such as email addresses and telephone numbers.

“Authenticated Marketing” could best be described as “personalised marketing to people using directly identifiable personal data”.

See slide 12 of the IAB Tech Lab<> deck on addressability [1] and the supporting data from Jounce Media<> [2] for forecasts and market share concerning authenticated addressability.

Since the IWA BG meeting on Tuesday we have Facebook [FB] and Google’s [G] quarterly results. These indicate Facebook claiming a $10bn hit to ad revenues from Apple’s withdrawal of IDFA and Google’s 30%+ quarterly growth to ad revenues to provide hard evidence of the impact of recent changes to the economics of digital marketing.

Movement for an Open Web (MOW) produced a short animation<> to explain the problem, how products like Google’s Customer Match benefit from the situation, and what the W3C should do to genuinely improve privacy whilst supporting competition. [3]

Finally, Lina Khan (Chair of the FTC) summarises the macro level situation in this interview with the BBC<> from a few weeks ago. [4]

The vast majority of web advertising is “Authenticated Marketing” as anonymous advertising is of lesser value to advertisers. This will either be via the walled gardens of big tech, or those web sites that can persuade people to part with directly identifiable personal data. It is for that reason I believe most of the discussions this group is having results in a net negative impact to the open web and as such are not compatible with the goals of W3C. Had we established agreed upon success criteria for improved web advertising and aligned the work of the group to the rules of the W3C and laws this would have been less likely.

It is now indisputable that privacy and competition are related and that we cannot improve privacy without also considering competition, or vice versa.

The antitrust guidelines of W3C<> [5] (and also other trade and standards bodies like the IAB and IETF) prohibit discussion of subjects among competitors which have a commercial impact on markets and their commercial positions – like Topics – by contrast with technical standards for the common good. It was confirmed on 1st February 2022 that the W3C Antitrust guidelines apply to this group and the discussions whether via virtual F2F or asynchronously via email, GitHub, Slack or any other medium. In the case of Topics the W3C guidelines include the following sentence:

“For example, participants should not discuss product pricing, methods or channels of product distribution, division of markets, allocation of customers, or any other topic that should not be discussed among competitors.”

The Topics proposal<> [6] added to the meeting agenda and hosted on a GitHub web page that is not within the scope of the W3C, states:

“The intent of the Topics API is to provide callers (including third-party ad-tech or advertising providers on the page that run script) with coarse-grained advertising topics that the page visitor might currently be interested in.”

This statement has the effect of interfering in the “methods or channels of [digital advertising] product distribution”. It presupposes that the web browser has all end user data and is passing on only “a subset” to competitors. As such the competitive disparity is clear. The web browser operator will not itself use Topics. The Topics proposal is clearly designed to support web browser self-preferencing and discrimination against third party competitors. This would allow it to manage the market and divide it between itself and its competitors (putting the web browser in an advantageous position). Any agreement or support for such a proposal could be regarded as a collective agreement and is a highlighted example in the antitrust guidelines.

For my part I have sought legal advice, as recommended by the W3C antitrust guidelines for all participants, and will not participate in any discussion concerning Topics. As these matters relate to my commercial interests, I will attend only to observe having clearly highlighted the risk of violation both during the meeting and subsequently via this email. I sincerely hope W3C and all trade and standards bodies will enforce their own rules to ensure that members are operating in compliance with the law without further delay. To do otherwise is to risk allowing the W3C and this group to provide a veil of legitimacy for anti-competitive practices.










[FB] Extracts for Facebooks earnings call -

“On measurement, there were two key areas within measurement, which were impacted as a result of Apple's iOS changes. And I talked about this on the call last quarter as you referenced. The first is the underreporting gap. And what's happening here is that advertisers worry they're not getting the ROI they're actually getting.
…I do want to caution that it's easier to address this with large campaigns and harder with small campaigns, which means that part will take longer, and it also means that Apple's changes continue to hurt small businesses more. The second area underneath the measurement challenge is really -- are really data delays. As part of the iOS changes, we and many other ad platforms, we receive less granular conversion data on a delayed basis.
And what advertisers shared with us that this makes real-time decision-making, especially difficult, and that's particularly important during the holiday period, where people are often spending a lot and really monitoring their ads and adjusting spend, you know, not even on a daily basis but often on an hourly basis. And that was one of the challenges we faced during this holiday quarter….

E-commerce was an area where we saw a meaningful slowdown in growth in Q4. And similarly, we've seen other areas like gaming be challenged. But on e-commerce, it's quite noticeable -- notable that Google called out seeing strength in that very same vertical. And so given that we know that e-commerce is one of the most impacted verticals from iOS restrictions, it makes sense that those restrictions are probably part of the explanation for the difference between what they were seeing and what we were seeing.

And if you look at it, we believe those restrictions from Apple are designed in a way that carves out browsers from the tracking prompts Apple requires for apps. And so what that means is that search ads could have access to far more third-party data for measurement and optimization purposes than app-based ad platforms like ours. So when it comes to using data, you can think of it [that it's] not really apples-to-apples for us. And as a result, we believe Google Search ad business could have benefited relative to services like ours. It takes a different set of restrictions from Apple. And given that Apple continue to take billions of dollars a year from Google Search ads, the incentive clearly exists for this policy discrepancy to continue.”

From: Nick Doty <>
Sent: 03 February 2022 22:26
To: Kris Chapman <>
Cc: Katherine Wei <>; Wendy Seltzer <>;; Sam Goto <>; Beri Lee <>; dan sinclair <>; Heather Flanagan <>; Tim Cappalli <>
Subject: Re: [web-adv] February 1 agenda

Katherine, Kris or others -- could you explain a little more what the authenticated marketing use cases are? I'm not familiar with "authenticated marketing" as a term of art and I don't see it included in the "advertising 101" or "advertising use cases" documents that the group has compiled so far.

I appreciated the presentation on the last call, but still wasn't entirely clear on why federated login was an advertising topic. But perhaps these use cases can help me draw out that connection. If a user is logging in using an identity provider, is the goal for that identity information to be re-used, by either the relying party or the identity provider, to target or deliver advertising to them?


On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 2:05 PM Kris Chapman <<>> wrote:
Hi Katherine -

To try and answer your question here, I would say FedCM is not going to support authenticated marketing use cases *if* the use cases involve going across domains.  I'm adding in a few folks too, for the visibility and so they can chime in too if they'd like - but here's my reasoning.  If a user logs in to a site using an identity provider, the browser is going to do it's best to steer the user towards using a directed identifier that is specific to the site/service, instead of a global identifier like a user's email address.  So the site could personalize their user experience and market to the user while on the site.  If the user chooses to give the site their email address too (by doing something like signing up for a newsletter), then the site's going to be able to use that information in the way the user has agreed to - but that's outside of FedCM.

I know this might be a confusing answer.  I will be in the next meeting, though, and can do my best to explain there - or answer any other questions folks have, too.  This time, though, I say we let Josh go first so I don't eat up all the poor man's time!

- Kris

Kristen Chapman

Salesforce Marketing Cloud<>

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 2:54 PM Katherine Wei <<>> wrote:
Hello W3C Web Adv group,

Thanks to Kris and Josh for presenting at the last meeting. I want to confirm we will also have time next meeting for follow-up questions about FedCM and Topics in the Privacy Sandbox.

In particular, Zeta Global is interested in whether FedCM will support authenticated marketing use cases via third party identity providers.

Thank you,

Katherine Wei
Principal Product Manager
a: 3 Park Ave, 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10016
e:<> w:<>
[cid:image002.png@01D819DD.79B39A30]<>  [cid:image003.png@01D819DD.79B39A30] <>   [cid:image004.png@01D819DD.79B39A30] <>   [cid:image005.png@01D819DD.79B39A30] <>

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. You may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone, the message, or any information contained in this message for purposes not intended by the sender. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.
From: Zucker-Scharff, Aram <<>>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 9:50 AM
To: Wendy Seltzer <<>>;<>
Subject: Re: [web-adv] February 1 agenda

This email was sent from/by an external system unknown to IT/Information Security. Before clicking on any links or submitting any forms, please confirm with the sender that these are safe and as intended. If this email has any attachments, ensure that the attachments are from a known sender before opening. If you're not sure, click the "Report Message" button and choose "Phishing" so Information Security can review.
Hi all,

Wanted to add to our agenda three things from the GitHub issues:

  *   A quick report on PATCG Progress
  *   A note on a need for GeoIP use cases
  *   A review of the state of First Party Sets and request for feedback from the group on the current state of the proposal vs use cases.

-- Aram Zucker-Scharff
The Washington Post

From: Wendy Seltzer <<>>
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 5:07 PM
To:<> <<>>
Subject: [web-adv] February 1 agenda

Hi Web Adv BG,

We have two items proposed for our 1 February meeting, Federated
Credential Management (FedCM) and the Topics API.

Agenda, 1 February (Tuesday, 11am Eastern / 1600 UTC)

agenda+ Introductions and Agenda Curation
agenda+ Federated Credential Management and the FedID CG (Kris Chapman);!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJKzffuCE$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJKzffuCE%24&>
agenda+ Topics API (Josh Karlin)<>
agenda+ Dashboard, planning upcoming agendas;!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJMEzLI6I$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJMEzLI6I%24&>;!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJpcjSlRQ$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJpcjSlRQ%24&>
agenda+ AOB

Calendar and join information:;!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJ57bPfIE$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJ57bPfIE%24&>

Join us on irc,;!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJjlnOfto$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJjlnOfto%24&>  channel #web-adv


Wendy Seltzer --<> +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Strategy Lead and Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C);!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJRPU0H9o$<!!M9LbjjnYNg9jBDflsQ!SLdMP0DWWkGgBdCqm9MNbX_b7dLwdAnPgsXP7BekoUA80HfcWjJ11E0rTZMSPsl91WJJRPU0H9o%24&>         +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, use, store or copy the information contained herein. This is an email from Limited, Davidson House, Forbury Square, Reading, RG1 3EU. T: +44 118 328 7152; E:; Limited t/as 51Degrees.

Received on Friday, 4 February 2022 15:40:27 UTC