WTF happened to measurement?

I’m Alan Chapell. I’ve been working at the intersection of privacy, competition, advertising and music for decades and I’m now writing for The Monopoly Report. If you have a tip to share in confidence, find me on Twitter or Bluesky.

Our latest Monopoly Report podcast is out with Omer Tene, Partner at Goodwin. We talk about AI in the ads space and how a lawyer sometimes needs to deliver tough love to a tech founder.

Would you drive a car w/out a speedometer or windshield?

At the end of last week’s article, I shared a recent paper published by competition lawyers Thomas Hoppner and Philipp Westerhoff entitled Weaponized Opacity: Self-Preferencing in Digital Audience Measurment. I encourage you to read it. The paper goes through the history of independent rating mechanisms in media going back a century - and concludes that “measures taken by large companies have degraded the ability of marketers to rely on data, measure their campaigns, understand their audience and attribute results to particular marketing activities.” The paper goes on as follows:

How is this different than buying a car without a windshield or speedometer? 

OK, maybe that’s not a perfect analogy, but I’ve been around long enough to remember when the primary selling point of digital advertising was that it was measurable. Anyone who is a true OG in this space can remember being out there evangelizing digital to the printing press / brick and mortar types on how this new medium would change everything because it was inherently accountable.

Trust but (apparently, don’t) verify

And then I saw last week’s announcement from Microsoft - about some new PET infused set of APIs designed to protect privacy. And I asked a simple question in the comments of LinkedIn. A question that still hasn’t received a response from the good folks in Redmond:

I asked: “Would love to learn how MSFT Edge enables independent ratings/measurement of the efficacy of these tools. Where can I find out more?”

[crickets]

I’m not trying to pick a fight with Microsoft or the Edge browser team. I know lots of really smart and well intentioned people working there. I’m sure the privacy techniques in this set of APIs are both super cool and cutting edge. This isn’t really even about MSFT - it’s about our industry. It’s about our collective willingness to accept less from the walled gardens - which increasingly seems to include browser ad platforms.

For example, my biggest issues with Privacy Sandbox might not be in the way it limits others in ways that doesn’t limit Google. Rather, it’s the fact that Google could change the way the Sandbox operates on a whim in way that preferences Google - and those outside of Google may never even know of the change.

The Google peeps tell you that will never, EVER happen, right? I have two responses: (1) Google’s CMA Commitments (assuming the CMA Commitments are still a thing) are set to expire in 2028, and (2) past behavior is indicative of future behavior (h/t Dr. Phil). The minute it is in Google’s interest to change how the Sandbox works, they will change it - and probably imply that this was “obviously” their plan all along.

Why do we accept someone else’s numbers at face value?

I’ve asked a few people on the TECH side of ad tech who’s opinions I respect. And the response I’ve gotten back to the above question has been some flavor of: “because it’s better than nothing.”

One colleague shared that “PAAPI (Part of the Sandbox tools) does purport to be able to use DV or IAS, but through very convoluted methods that, just like the whole Sandbox thing, I seriously doubt will actually work.”

It seems that transparency and independent vetting of numbers is at best an after thought in far too many ad platforms. And I’m trying to understand why that is - as the following questions come to mind:

• How many of the problems in our industry are directly traceable back to our collective lack of ability to reliably vet the efficacy of media spend. Brand Safety? Ad supporting CSAM?

• Who benefits when interoperability and addressability are removed from the digital media space? (This isn’t just a big tech issue - privacy is also an oft-cited cudgel used by mid-sized incumbents trying to maintain an advantage).

• How valuable are privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) being pushed by big tech if nobody understands how they work or how they can be changed over time?

And how come solving this issue isn’t the number one priority of our industry associations given the downstream chaos that it creates?

What needs to happen?

We need a new rule for our industry. Any new ad platform or solution should have independent measurement and third-party audit features built in. This includes all the new browser ad platforms being created - including Chrome (now that the DOJ has effectively doubled-down on divestiture).

So… if you’re creating some new platform chock full of privacy enhancing tech that fixes all privacy or other societal ills? In my view: if I can’t measure it - and can’t audit it so that I know what’s going on beneath the hood, it shouldn’t exist. Please come back to me when those features are in place.

Realistically, we may not be able to directly influence change to existing ad platforms. Some of us are hoping that the DOJ, EU Commission, CMA and other regulators might force those types of actions. And while there is some reason for optimism, progress has been slow.

What CAN we do?

If we all did this ONE thing, it could change our industry for the better. Next time you see an announcement about some new walled garden product feature, privacy enhancing technology, browser ad platform… you get the idea. Collectively, our first response should be, “what is the name of the entity whom is tasked with independently vetting your campaign numbers and/or privacy claims?”

(Actually, asking these types of questions would be helpful in a number of contexts in ad land).

If we all take that bold step of asking these types of questions (e.g., on LinkedIn, at the next conference event, Etc.)….. and eventually, we get the trade press to do the same, maybe we can start to force some positive change.

Who’s ready to give it a try?

Alan’s Hot Take…

Here are a few stories that hit me over the past week:

• Mozilla opposes the DOJ proposed remedies in Google Search case - Mozilla is not a fan of the DOJ’s proposed remedies - particularly where they would limit or exclude Mozilla’s ability to monetize via Google. In my view, Google makes some compelling arguments when it comes to competition. However, as I’ve mentioned more than a few times, I take issue with Mozilla holding itself out as a champion of interoperability given that it ALSO restricts data use of competitors. And their plea to “let us continue to send search queries to google” seems a far cry from their stance as being privacy-first. I’d love to have Mark Surman or someone else from Mozilla on TMR pod to help me understand how they rectify those two positions.

• Are all adtech acquisitions the same? Great to see so much M&A activity lately. Loc.kr bought by Viant (go Keith!) and Lotame bought by Publicis (go Adam!). Can each of the acquired companies expect to be subject to the same set of privacy rules? Why? Why not? Might be an article in here somewhere. For now - share your thoughts re: this LinkedIn poll.

If there’s an area that you want to see covered on these pages, if you agree/disagree with something I’ve written, if you want tell me you dig my music, or if you just want to yell at me, please reach out to me on LinkedIn.