Publishers understand what they’re up against. They’ve done the math. They know they need to engage audiences across social video, YouTube, audio platforms, and emerging AI interfaces, environments where discovery is driven by algorithms, not direct visits. Every day they work to balance maximizing short-term revenue while maintaining the user experience that builds and keeps an audience over time.

But execution is hard. And it’s getting harder.

To operate across more platforms and environments requires people and know-how that most publishers no longer have. Short-staffed teams can’t juggle dozens of disconnected tech vendors. Data doesn’t flow where it needs to flow. And the operational debt from years of patching together point solutions is making it harder to move fast.

Create. Transform. Distribute. Engage. Monetize.

To compete in a market now dominated by platforms, creators, and AI-driven discovery, publishers need to reorganize their operations around a clear set of functions: creating content, transforming it for different environments, distributing it effectively, driving engagement, and monetizing it across channels.

Create

Every successful content creator–from influencers to the best known media brands– has their secret sauce; their unique style or point of view. Many are rightly concerned that unconstrained use of AI will commoditize quality content, or that a torrent of AI slop will drown out the good stuff. This is why publishers have to be maniacal about quality and authenticity to create real consumer engagement. 

Transform

But how do you scale that quality content across today’s fragmented consumer landscape?  Here is where AI finds purpose. It turns out that AI is really good at taking content and adapting it to different environments and formats. With some expertise and guidance, it can maintain brand standards of quality, trust, and authenticity across many surfaces. 

Today, the words “publisher” and “website” cannot be synonymous. Content has to be created to meet the consumer where he/she lives. That includes the social platforms where the goal to drive traffic back to the publisher’s website is in opposition to the platforms’ imperative to keep the audience within their walled garden. The content then has to do double duty; yes drive traffic, but also maximize monetization programs that encourage customer engagement within even if the audience is experiencing your content outside of your site or app. 

Distribute

Once you’ve got content that’s tailored and transformed, the next problem is getting it everywhere it needs to be really fast. You cannot brute-force this. There aren’t enough hours in the day and there aren’t enough people on your team.

The market for consumer attention shifts constantly. The lifespan of a piece of content is finite: hours or days for news and longer for evergreen, explanatory, or enthusiast content. You need a real-time feedback loop telling you what’s still relevant, what’s gaining traction, and what’s already dead. Without that, you’re flying blind. And a piece of content that could have driven real revenue at hour two is worthless by hour six.

Speed isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the whole game.

Engage

The goal of distribution is to drive engagement, because engagement drives revenue. The challenge is that the best format to engage with you may not be the same as what’s needed to engage with me. Some in your audience will prefer long-form video, some will prefer audio, some still prefer reading, and others will opt for short-form video. Other consumers will respond to more interactive experiences, like community boards, polls, quizzes, and games. Getting that right, at scale, for each individual is the engagement opportunity. And the publishers who solve it  are rewarded with more content consumed, more time spent, and more frequent repeat visits. 

Monetize

Let’s be honest about something. The platforms were not designed to make publishers rich. They were designed to keep audiences inside their walls, and they’re very good at it. For years, the monetization math outside your owned-and-operated properties was ugly, and most publishers knew it.

But something has shifted. Not because the platforms suddenly became generous. But because the pressure on them to attract and retain quality professional content has forced them to open doors they used to keep firmly shut.

YouTube now offers monetization models that generate real revenue for creators who treat their channel like a full-scale media business, not an afterthought. Its dynamic ad insertion tools give serious content owners the ability to operate more like TV networks, swapping sponsored segments in and out, extending the lifespan of sponsorships, and unlocking new monetization opportunities within existing content. Last year, Facebook made meaningful changes to its creator program, and publishers who wrote it off are quietly revisiting that math.

None of this is a windfall. The platforms will always take their cut. But “the platforms take a cut” and “there’s real revenue to be captured” are not mutually exclusive statements. The publishers extracting value from these channels aren’t doing it because the platforms are benevolent. They’re doing it because they’ve built the operational infrastructure to move fast, transform content for each environment, and actually work the monetization programs available to them.

That’s the opportunity. 

Shifting Thinking

While most publishers know they need expertise to help them extract value from their content wherever it is experienced, most are looking at the current moment with a clear-eyed view to extract as much value as they can. They are adapting to the current circumstances and are seeking out new partners who help them succeed. The partners who can consolidate data flows, simplify workflows and harness AI to automate processes will be their best friends. 

The post The new publisher challenge appeared first on Digital Content Next.

The challenge is no longer simply producing quality content at scale; it’s demonstrating accountability in a marketplace where buyers face growing uncertainty about audience authenticity, data practices, and automated media supply chains. Publishers that can operationalize transparency through stronger audience systems, clear governance, and independent validation will reduce friction in the buying process and create meaningful differentiation.

Research shows that 50% of newly published web articles and one-third of YouTube shorts are now AI-generated and the trend will accelerate. For advertisers, this flood of low-cost synthetic inventory increases pressure to distinguish between high-quality, accountable media environments and commoditized, harder-to-verify placements.

In an outcomes-driven marketplace, publishers must treat audience identity and engagement as managed business assets, not just byproducts of traffic. Here are three steps publishers can take to turn this authenticity into a competitive advantage.

Step 1: Authenticate audience quality across channels

Advertisers are moving away from volume-based metrics like pageviews and impressions toward outcomes with real and engaged audiences. Publishers can stand out by proving that their audiences are authentic and verified by:

• Providing a clear picture of their audience across platforms instead of in silos, so buyers can understand total engagement across touchpoints
• Sharing how audiences are identified and maintained over time with signals such as subscriptions, registrations or verified attendance data
• Being transparent about the underlying data and disclosing the methods used to report audience claims

When publishers provide cross-channel transparency, they give buyers the necessary clarity to compare partners, assess reach, and invest with confidence.

Step 2: Establish clear AI governance

Many organizations have adopted AI policies as this technology becomes increasingly embedded in publishing operations. Implementing a comprehensive AI governance framework ensures transparency and authenticity are maintained when AI is used. This framework should include:

• Clear accountability for AI-assisted processes, making ownership and responsibility explicit
• Defined roles for human oversight to review, validate and approve AI-assisted outputs
• Transparent disclosures supported by clear policies, so partners and audiences understand where and how AI is used
• Ongoing review as AI tools evolve to ensure governance keeps pace with innovation

For many publishers, this means defining where AI can improve efficiency, such as summarization, translation, or content optimization, while keeping human oversight non-negotiable in editorial decision-making and audience-facing outputs.

Step 3: Demonstrate a commitment to trust and transparency

Advertisers facing greater pressure to justify spending and reduce risk are increasingly looking for media partners with sound governance practices. Consumers are concerned about the collection and use of their data and are cautious about the use of AI in media. Publishers must balance the needs of both.

One way to achieve this is through independent assurance. Independent validation can serve as a practical business tool: it standardizes expectations with advertisers, reduces scrutiny during the buying process, and provides a defensible foundation for audience and data claims. In a crowded marketplace, assurance helps publishers separate themselves from unverified inventory by offering buyers a clearer basis for comparison, and a lower-risk path to investment.

Third-party verification serves advertisers, consumers and publishers by providing validation that audience data is collected, managed and used responsively, results are reported accurately and AI is employed ethically. It helps address questions from advertisers and audiences alike, reinforcing confidence in audience authenticity.

Authenticity as a competitive advantage in a changing market

Advertisers are seeking media partners that align with brand values, deliver engaged audiences, and produce measurable results.

Publishers that provide transparency and validate their audiences are better positioned to:

• Support premium pricing by proving audience quality and engagement
• Accelerate the buying process by reducing questions about authenticity
• Build long-term relationships grounded in transparency and trust

When publishers can clearly demonstrate who their audiences are, how they are reached across channels, and how data is collected and maintained over time, transparency becomes more than a principle. Audience quality becomes a competitive advantage that helps trusted media companies compete, grow, and lead in an increasingly automated marketplace.

The post Making authenticity a competitive edge for publishers appeared first on Digital Content Next.

• The Wall Street Journal | News Sites Are Getting Crushed by Google’s New AI Tools (5 min read)
• AP | With reporters shot and roughed up, advocates question whether those covering protests are targets (5 min read)
• The New York Times | Los Angeles Protests Amplified by Influencers and Online Creators (4 min read)
• The Wall Street Journal | The Media and Entertainment Deal Machine Is Revving Up (5 min read)
• Deadline | Why There Is So Much Worry In Public Media That Donald Trump Will Win Fight To Defund NPR, PBS And Local Stations (6 min read)
• CBS News | Appeals court allows Trump to ban AP from smaller spaces for now (2 min read)
• Fast Company | Why digital-native publishers like Business Insider are most exposed in the AI era (5 min read)
• The New Yorker | Can Public Media Survive Trump? (9 min read)
• Adexchanger | New US State Children’s Privacy Laws Continue To Reshape Digital Marketing (4 min read)

The post DCN’s media industry must reads: week of June 12, 2025 appeared first on Digital Content Next.

• The Guardian | Back UK creative sector or gamble on AI, Getty Images boss tells Sunak (4 min read)
• Journalism.co.uk | Trust is not a “useless metric” – we just need to understand it better (4 min read)
• PressGazette | While New York Times litigates over AI, many media companies will liquidate – US Congress warned (1 min read)
• 404 Media | Google Search Really Has Gotten Worse, Researchers Find (3 min read)
• Adobe | Using TikTok as a Search Engine (5 min read)
• The New Yorker | Is A.I. the Death of I.P.? (25 min read)
• The New York Times | A Few Words About Netflix’s Success: Vivid. Snappy. Tags. (6 min read)
• Reuters | Five things news media can do to respond to consistent news avoidance (21 min read)

Want to be sure you don’t miss any must-read stories in the digital media industry?

Subscribe to the InContext newsletter to get a curated list delivered to your inbox every week.

Click to see the latest newsletter.

The post DCN’s must reads: week of January 18, 2024 appeared first on Digital Content Next.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The GDPR is an EU data privacy law that went into effect May 25, 2018. It is designed to give individuals more control over how their data are collected, used, and protected online. It also binds organizations to strict new rules about using and securing the personal data they collect from people, including the mandatory use of technical safeguards like encryption and higher legal thresholds to justify data collection. The law applies to organizations that handle such data whether they are EU-based organizations or not, known as “extra-territorial effect.”

Canada’s Consumer Privacy Protection Act (CPPA)

The CCPA, which went into effect June 2022, falls into two parts, which focus on the law and enforcement capabilities.

Part 1: Enacts the Consumer Privacy Protection Act to protect the personal information of individuals while recognizing the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities. Like GDPR, CPPA requires businesses to be transparent about the use of automated decision systems – such as algorithms and artificial intelligence – to make predictions, recommendations, or decisions about individuals that could impact them. Individuals also have the right to request an explanation as to how information about them was obtained as well as how any prediction, recommendation or decision was made by an automated decision-making system.

Part 2: Enacts the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, which establishes an administrative tribunal to hear appeals of certain decisions made by the Privacy Commissioner under the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and to impose penalties for the contravention of certain provisions of that Act.

China’s Personal Information Protection Law

The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) is China’s first comprehensive legislation on personal information and data privacy. While similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation in many ways, China’s PIPL notably contains a number of ambiguities that have yet to be interpreted, thereby generating regulatory uncertainty. It remains to be seen how stringent the PIPL will truly be and the extent of its impact.

China’s Data Security Law

Aimed at protecting national security interests in the usage, collection and protection of data, China’s Data Security Law came into effect on September 1 2021. Data protection experts said that there are a number of areas that remain murky in the new law, such as guidance on which regulatory bodies are in charge of the new law and what data processing activities may trigger national security review requirements.

India Personal Data Protection Bill — proposed; as of March 2020, the Bill was being analyzed by a Joint Parliamentary Committee; scrapped as of August 2022, with a promise to introduce new legislation soon.

India’s Personal Data Protection Bill is intended to provide for protection of the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data, specify the flow and usage of personal data, create a relationship of trust between persons and entities processing the personal data, protect the fundamental rights of individuals whose personal data are processed, to create a framework for organizational and technical measures in processing of data, laying down norms for social media intermediary, cross-border transfer, accountability of entities processing personal data, remedies for unauthorized and harmful processing, and to establish a Data Protection Authority of India for the said purposes and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto.

New Zealand Privacy Act

The Privacy Act 2020, which went into effect December 1, 2020, provides the rules in New Zealand for protecting personal information and puts responsibilities on agencies and organizations about how they must do that. While New Zealand’s new privacy legislation is not as comprehensive as some international privacy laws, such as the GDPR, it still introduced significant changes including:

• mandatory data breach notification;
• new investigative and regulatory powers for the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner; and
• new criminal offenses and penalties, including fines of up to $10,000.

Overseas businesses are required to comply with New Zealand’s privacy laws as the Privacy Act 2020 has extraterritorial effect.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Update: As of July 2024, twenty states had passed privacy legislation.

California (CCPA)

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which went into effect January 1, 2020, gives consumers more control over the personal information that businesses collect about them and the CCPA regulations provide guidance on how to implement the law. This landmark law secures new privacy rights for California consumers, including:

• The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared;
• The right to delete personal information collected from them (with some exceptions);
• The right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information; and
• The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights.

Businesses are required to give consumers certain notices explaining their privacy practices. The CCPA applies to many businesses, including data brokers.

California (CPRA)

In November 2020, California passed the CPRA which amends and expands the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). This California state privacy law, which is being phased in through July of 2023, clarifies existing provisions of the CCPA, creates new consumer rights, imposes additional obligations on businesses that collect personal information from California consumers, and creates a new enforcement agency called the California Privacy Protection Agency.

The CPRA will affect large businesses and organizations the most. Any company that engages in the data collection, analysis, and storage of any person located in California is subject to CPRA they fit under the following criteria:

• For-profit companies that do business in California
• Over $25 million in annual revenue
• Companies that buy, sell or share personal information (PI) of over 100,000 consumers or households
• Derives at least 50 percent of annual revenue from selling or sharing of consumer PI

Note that even if a business isn’t physically or legally located in California, that company is still subject to CPRA as long as they have users or conduct business in the state.

Colorado Privacy Act

The Colorado Privacy Act creates personal data privacy rights and:

Applies to legal entities that conduct business or produce commercial products or services that are intentionally targeted to Colorado residents and that either:

• Control or process personal data of more than 100,000 consumers per calendar year; or
• Derive revenue from the sale of personal data and control or process the personal data of at least 25,000 consumers; and
• Does not apply to certain specified entities, personal data governed by listed state and federal laws, listed activities, and employment records.

Under the bill, consumers have the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data; access, correct, or delete the data; or obtain a portable copy of the data. The bill defines a “controller” as a person that, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of processing personal data. A “processor” means a person that processes personal data on behalf of a controller.

The bill:

• Specifies how controllers must fulfill duties regarding consumers’ assertion of their rights, transparency, purpose specification, data minimization, avoiding secondary use, care, avoiding unlawful discrimination, and sensitive data;
• Requires controllers to conduct a data protection assessment for each of their processing activities involving personal data that present a heightened risk of harm to consumers, such as processing for purposes of targeted advertising , profiling, selling personal data, or processing sensitive data; and
• Specifies that a violation of its requirements is a deceptive trade practice, but the bill may be enforced only by the attorney general or district attorneys.

Connecticut Data Privacy Act

The Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) protects the privacy and security of Connecticut residents’ personal data by requiring businesses and organizations to be accountable for safeguarding it. The CTDPA applies to entities that handle personal data, including sensitive data like genetic or biometric information. 

The CTDPA gives Connecticut residents the following rights:

• Access their personal data
• Correct inaccuracies in their personal data
• Delete their personal data
• Obtain a copy of their personal data in a portable format
• Opt-out of the sale of their personal data
• Opt-out of the processing of their personal data for targeted advertising 

The CTDPA also imposes strict requirements on data handling, security, breach notification, and consent. For example, controllers must limit the collection of personal data to what is relevant and necessary for the purpose it is processed for. They must also create and maintain security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of data.

Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024

The Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 (MODPA) establishes a regulatory framework to protect Marylanders’ personal data. The law imposes requirements on businesses to protect personal information, such as:

Data security

Businesses must implement and maintain security procedures to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use, modification, or disclosure

Sensitive data

Businesses cannot collect, process, or share sensitive data unless it’s strictly necessary to provide or maintain a specific product or service

Data collection

Businesses cannot collect, process, or sell a consumer’s personal data for targeted advertising if they know or should know the consumer is under 18

Anti-discrimination

Businesses cannot collect, process, or transfer personal data in a discriminatory manner

Data subject requests

Businesses must respond to data subject requests within 45 days, with a 45-day extension if necessary

The Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act

The Montana Consumer Data Privacy Act (MTCDPA) establishes consumer rights and requirements for businesses that collect and process personal data. The law goes into effect on October 1, 2024. 

The MTCDPA applies to businesses that:

• Operate in Montana
• Produce products or services for Montana consumers
• Control or process personal data for at least 50,000 Montana consumers
• Control or process personal data for at least 25,000 Montana consumers and earn more than 25% of their gross revenue from selling personal data 

The MTCDPA requires businesses to:

• Provide consumers with a way to opt out of data collection and processing
• Implement reasonable security and protections to safeguard collected data
• Conduct and document a data protection assessment for each activity that presents a heightened risk of harm to a consumer
• Obtain prior consent from a parent or guardian before processing the personal data of any known child under 13
• Obtain consent from a known consumer who is at least 13 but under 16 before processing their personal data for targeted advertising or sale 

The MTCDPA also gives consumers several rights, including:

• Confirmation of whether a controller is processing their data
• Access to the data a controller has collected
• Correction of inaccuracies in personal data
• Deletion of collected data
• A copy of the data a controller has collected
• Opting out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising, sale, or automated profiling

Nevada Online Privacy Law

Nevada’s Online privacy Law is an ACT relating to Internet privacy that went into effect May 30, 2019; prohibiting an operator of an Internet website or online service which collects certain information from consumers in Nevada from making any sale of certain information about a consumer if so directed by the consumer; and providing other matters properly relating thereto. Under the law, sales are defined as exchanges of personal information for monetary consideration by the online operator to a person for the person to license or sell the personal information to additional persons.

Nevada’s bill does not add include new notice requirements for website operators but does require them to post certain items of information in their privacy policies, including the categories of information collected, the categories of third parties with which the data is shared, a description of the process consumers may use to review and request changes to their covered information, a disclosure that third parties may track consumers’ online activities and the effective date of these notices.

Utah Consumer Privacy Act

The Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA) is a law that went into effect on December 31, 2023, that protects Utah residents’ personal information and gives them control over it. The UCPA grants consumers rights and imposes obligations on businesses. 

The UCPA gives consumers the right to:

• Know if their personal data is being processed
• Access their personal data
• Delete their personal data
• Obtain a copy of their personal data in a usable format
• Opt out of the sale of their personal data
• Opt out of targeted advertising 

The UCPA also requires businesses to:

• Protect personal data
• Provide consumers with information about how to exercise their rights
• Disclose how consumers can opt out of the sale of their data and targeted advertising 

The UCPA applies to businesses that process data of a certain scale or target Utah and have more than $25 million in annual revenue. Government entities and non-profits are exempt from the UCPA. 

Tennessee Information Protection Act

The Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA) is a privacy law that gives Tennessee residents rights over how businesses collect, use, and sell their personal information. It was passed in April 2023 and will take effect on July 1, 2025. 

TIPA imposes obligations on businesses and penalties for violations. It requires controllers to:

• Limit data collection to what is necessary for the disclosed purpose
• Get consumer consent before processing data for other purposes
• Establish reasonable data security practices
• Conduct and document data protection impact assessments before certain processing activities 

TIPA also requires processors to cooperate with controllers to comply with the act, including consumer rights requests and data security. Processors must also be governed by a contract with the controller that outlines relevant consumer privacy provisions

Vermont Data Privacy Act

The Vermont Data Privacy Act is considered to be one of the strongest data privacy laws in the country. The bill includes:

• Data minimization: Limits the amount of personal data companies can collect and use
• Sensitive data: Prohibits the sale of sensitive data, such as social security numbers, financial information, and health records
• Civil rights protections: Prohibits digital discrimination
• Private right of action: Allows consumers to hold businesses accountable for violations of sensitive data rules
• Consumer rights: Includes the right to opt out of targeted advertising, profiling, and the sale of personal data
• Data security: Requires controllers to establish, implement, and maintain reasonable data security practices
• Data breach notification: Requires data collectors to provide preliminary notice to the AG or DFR within 14 days of discovering a breach 

Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act

Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) establishes a framework for controlling and processing personal data in the Commonwealth. The bill applies to all persons that conduct business in the Commonwealth and either (i) control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers or (ii) derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers.

The bill outlines responsibilities and privacy protection standards for data controllers and processors. The bill does not apply to state or local governmental entities and contains exceptions for certain types of data and information governed by federal law.

The bill grants consumer rights to access, correct, delete, and obtain a copy of personal data and to opt out of the processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling of the consumer.

The bill provides that the Attorney General has exclusive authority to enforce violations of the law, and the Consumer Privacy Fund is created to support this effort.

The bill directs the Joint Commission on Technology and Science to establish a work group to review the provisions of this act and issues related to its implementation, and to report on its findings by November 1, 2021. The bill has a delayed effective date of January 1, 2023.

For more information, see:

• State Laws Related to Digital Privacy
• Privacy Laws of the United States
• US State Privacy Legislation Tracker
• Privacy Laws Around the Globe

The post Digital advertising data: legislation and regulation appeared first on Digital Content Next.

As a result, an increasing number of organizations have begun to examine their use of cookies for tracking. In particular, a number of browsers are phasing out the use of cookies, and have disabled “default consent” around the placement of cookies by consumers. Here is a timeline of the major announcements regarding cookie deprecation and the elimination of default tracking.

Google Chrome

April 23, 2025 | The industry’s response to Google’s third-party cookie u-turn: ‘endless millions have been wasted’

July 23, 2024 | Google gives up trying to eliminate cookies

July 22, 2024 | After years of uncertainty, Google says it won’t be ‘deprecating third-party cookies’ in Chrome

April 23, 2024 | Google Delays Cookie Phase-Out Following Regulatory Pushback

April 23, 2024 | Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

January 16, 2024 | Digiday’s definitive, if not exhaustive, 2024 Google Chrome third-party cookie deprecation glossary

January 4 2024 | Google Chrome’s Cookie Phase-Out: What You Need to Know

July 20, 2023 | Google will switch on its cookie-replacing tools for Chrome developers next week

April 11, 2023 | Inside Google’s Plan to Kill the Cookie

July 27, 2022 | Google delays when Chrome will phase out third-party cookies to 2024

January 25, 2022 | Google introduces a new system for tracking Chrome browser users.

June 24, 2021 | An updated timeline for Privacy Sandbox milestones

Mar 03, 2021 | Charting a course towards a more privacy-first web

January 25, 2021 | Building a privacy-first future for web advertising

January 14, 2020 | Building a more private web: A path towards making third party cookies obsolete

September 3, 2019 | Today’s Firefox Blocks Third-Party Tracking Cookies and Cryptomining by Default

August 22, 2019 | Building a more private web

May 7, 2019 | Improving privacy and security on the web

Apple iOS/ Safari

June 10, 2022 | Apple’s Lack Of New Anti-Tracking Rules Leaves Advertisers ‘Shocked’

April 29, 2022 | The winners and losers of Apple’s anti-tracking feature

September 1, 2021 | This fall, tech companies will try to push private browsing into the mainstream

June 7, 2021 | Apple advances its privacy leadership with iOS 15, iPadOS 15, macOS Monterey, and watchOS 8

January 27, 2021| Data Privacy Day at Apple: Improving transparency and empowering users

Mozilla Firefox

December 13, 2022 | Firefox Now Offers Universal Opt-Out Tool

June 1, 2021 | Firefox 89 blocks cross-site cookie tracking by default in private browsing

February 23, 2021| Firefox 86 Introduces Total Cookie Protection

January 26, 2021 | Firefox 85 Cracks Down on Supercookies

August 4, 2020 | Firefox 79 includes protections against redirect tracking

June 4, 2019 | When it comes to privacy, default settings matter!

January 28, 2019 | Defining the tracking practices that will be blocked in Firefox

October 23, 2018 | Firefox 63 Lets Users Block Tracking Cookies

The post Tracking cookie deprecation: a timeline appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Orchestrated acquisitions 

Google generates the most revenue and retains the most profit in the ad industry. DCN has long espoused the viewpoint that Google is able to do this because of its market power and ability to see large amounts of data on consumers’ online interactions. This data and market power wasn’t achieved through superior service and innovation but instead through orchestrated acquisitions beginning with the purchase of Doubleclick in 2007.  

Now, a little over a decade later, 95%+ of DCN’s member publishers use Google’s ad platform when selling their ad space on real-time electronic exchanges. These exchanges primarily target audiences (using cookies as their proxy) while mostly dismissing the value of the publisher brand and the quality of the content ushering in the user (cookie). They intermediate scale but diminish the value of what differentiates it. No doubt there is a lot of profit in marrying the data exhaust with cheaper inventory rather than having to subsidize the expense and liability of the content itself. 

Google wins out most often, on all sides of the market, simply because it knows more about the audience, the advertiser, and the transaction to be made. With Google’s machines looking into all parts of the supply chain, Dina Srinivasan rightly compares this to insider trading in a recent report. In the securities trading market, the intermediaries that trade on behalf of third parties and on behalf of themselves must manage their conflicts of interest. These same competitive principles must apply here and assure other exchange entities to the fair access to data and speed that Google currently controls.

Muddying the waters 

The good news is that antitrust regulators also appear to be on the right track as press reports and global investigations release preliminary findings that investigate this intersection of market dominance and data. Make no mistake though, Google is also ramping up its efforts to muddy the waters. This includes documenting for the press and regulators the long history of re-brands and repackaging of Google’s various platforms along with the incredibly complex market that is “adtech” in a way that favors their chosen narrative of market efficiency for all.  

In a recent filing In a recent filing in Australia, Google attempts to argue that the entire adtech ecosystem really isn’t even that important for the company by pointing out that most of its ad revenue is derived via Google Search. This may be true in terms of direct dollars. However, this entirely discounts the value of the data that Google collects across nearly 80% of the web, which bolsters the value of Google’s owned and operated businesses along with the value of its own inventory. The German Federal Cartel Office decision against Facebook, which was reinforced by a court earlier this week, is relevant to how this data across the web ties back to the value of the core platforms. Google plays the same game as Facebook. 

It’s not the money but the impressions

In the same Australia filings and Google blog posts earlier this week, Google also tries to dismiss the value of the adtech ecosystem for publishers. Google implies that this type of advertising is a very small percentage of the revenue for publishers: At only 15% of their revenues, they suggest that there’s “nothing to see here.” Google even invented a new term “intermediated open auctions” to describe it. (And, as everyone knows, any antitrust investigation deeply depends on defining the market).  

Readers of Google’s filings need to ask 15% of what? Who falls into this new market definition set by Google?  You’ll soon find out that it includes social networks that operate their own private, closed markets including, significantly, Facebook.

More importantly, DCN’s own benchmark analysis shows that a whopping 75%^[1] of the impressions across its medium to large premium news publishers are sold in these same auctions.

So yes, we agree that these auctions end up being a minority of premium news publishers’ actual revenues but a significant majority of their inventory.  Google has devalued the inventory for premium publishers using its data and pipes underlying the buying, selling, serving, and measuring of ads across the open web. Google has essentially made the point for regulators. 

^[1] DCN 2019 Benchmark Report, Proprietary Analysis.

The post Google antitrust heats up appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Let’s put match rates into context (pun Intended)

Some of the new DMP start-ups are presenting publishers with a playbook to perform a match test that will show how their platform delivers higher user match rates.

These DMP’s ask: “How many of your users are invisible for targeting in your DMP?” Then, they answer with:

• Create an “Everyone” segment in your current DMP (all users with 1+ pageviews)
• Run an adserver (i.e., Google Ad Manager/DFP) ad impression query against this “Everyone” segment
• Run a second ad impressions query without the “Everyone” segment (e.g., untargeted)
• Divide the “Everyone” segment by the untargeted segment

And, according to them, that’s your match rate of targetable users.

I’ve seen match rate used in many ways throughout my 20+ year marketing career. But this is the first time I’ve seen a company purposely confuse and conflate ad impressions with users, adservers with DMPs, and devise a testing methodology that mixes up contextual targeting with audience targeting. Oh, and it actually distracts from the unique benefits that DMPs can provide to publishers.

Some of these new DMP’s present contextual targeting solutions as if they are audience targeting solutions. The fact is that publishers need to better understand the differences in order to make informed decisions.

First there was contextual targeting…

It’s said that modern advertising began to take shape with newspapers and magazines in the 16th and 17th centuries. Most advertising relied on the associated content to aggregate an audience with certain attributes (demographics, interests, etc,). This is contextual targeting. The early days of digital advertising were remarkably similar. Whether advertising on dial-up services or the emergence of the web, advertising “banners” were contextually aligned with digital content.

Today, contextual targeting is still incredibly effective and compelling for marketers to access relevant groups of consumers in digital environments. Technologies have evolved and improved to provide everything from semantic content analysis to transmitting content categories and keywords into programmatic bidding exchanges.

One of its key benefits is that it does not have direct dependencies on cookies or other identifiers in order to target and deliver advertising. With increasing challenges persisting cookies/web identifiers and expanding privacy regulations, contextual targeting continues to be important for publishers. 

DMPs can play important roles supporting publishers and marketers in their contextual targeting initiatives. DMPs with strong inter-platform connectivity are excellent tools for providing analytics and insights on consumers that visit certain web pages or consume certain content.

For example, if a publisher would like a 360-degree view of the interests and attributes of consumers that read certain content, then a connected DMP can provide valuable insights by overlaying 1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd party data segments onto content reader segments. This can help publishers and their marketer partners better understand whether certain contextual media buys will provide a material volume of consumers that fit the marketer’s criteria.

However, there are also important shortcomings to contextual targeting as a standalone approach. Modern marketers are increasingly using their own 1st party data and select 3rd party data sources to help drive media planning, activation, and analytics. While pure contextual targeting is important to access consumers in certain channels, and in premium contexts at scale, there’s a significant need to more precisely access data-driven consumer audience segments for better efficiency and efficacy. Enter audience targeting.

Audience targeting and consumer addressability

About 10 years ago, the first generation of DMPs came on the scene to provide publishers with the ability to create 1st party audience segments, and then activate those audience segments through the publishers’ adserver. This afforded publishers and marketers with a set of audience targeting tools to augment their existing contextual targeting tools.

One way to think about the differences between contextual targeting and audience targeting is that contextual targeting reaches all consumers in the context of particular content, with no ability to distinguish one consumer from the next. However, audience targeting can more granularly reach individual consumers irrespective of context. Simply put, audience targeting can be thought of as “addressable” consumer targeting.

It’s important to note that in early audience targeting, the DMP-to-adserver integration technique of choice was to pass audience segment IDs as in-page key-values. Subsequently, that technique shifted to server-to-server integrations. A simple ID-sync (a.k.a. “pixel sync”) allowed each party to access their own Profile IDs (PIDs) for those users and easily translate that PID across platforms. So for example, the DMP accesses its PID  from a cookie and sees it as DMP_123. An adserver such as DFP accesses its PID from a cookie and sees it as DFP_456. By syncing the PIDs between platform partners, both parties would know that DMP_123 = DFP_456.

If 3rd party cookies are blocked — and only 1st party cookies or local storage are available to store Profile IDs (PIDs) — then it’s very challenging to sync PIDs for server-to-server audience segment transfers from DMPs to adservers. Therefore, as a result of Apple Safari ITP and Mozilla Firefox ETP blocking 3rd party cookies, publishers have reverted to the classic in-page key-value passing of segment IDs from DMPs to adservers. DMP start-ups feature the in-page key-value integration method with adservers.

There’s something these so-called “next gen” DMPs don’t tell publishers about their match test methodology. If you are currently using a pixel-sync server-to-server method with your current DMP, then it will only return addressable consumers (and media avails) that are associated with persistent PIDs stored in 3rd party cookies or Mobile Ad IDs.

Their supposed test is designed to convince publishers that they have a deficiency in their DMP’s capabilities. Instead it highlights that publishers should examine their DMP-to-adserver integration techniques and augment/replace server-to-server integrations with in-page key-value integrations. Established DMPs all feature in-page key-value integration options for publishers.

Knowledge is power

It’s troubling that DMP start-ups are purposely providing a match test methodology to publishers that purports to point out how a publisher’s current DMP is technically deficient. Really, they are taking advantage of a lack of knowledge around differences in adserver integration techniques.

They know that regardless of which DMP you use, the in-page key-value method for an “Everyone” segment will always return more users (and media avails) than the pixel-sync server-to-server method due to the absence of PIDs stored in 1st party cookies and local storage in the latter technique. When using the same in-page key-value integration technique, a full-featured DMP platform will return the same number of “Everyone” users and media impressions as the new breed of contextual targeters.

This match rate methodology focuses on the specific use case of transforming contextual targeting avails into audience targeting avails. Is this a more important metric than ROI? Not by a long shot. A modern day connected DMP will provide publishers with ad products and solutions to assist with audience development, content development and personalization, consumer marketing and subscriptions, and open up new revenue streams such as data licensing.

The post Fact check series, part two: contextual targeting, audience targeting, and match rates appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Platform algorithms selectively guess what information a user would like to see. By filtering content, these platforms sort out news that we may disagree with or dislike. Filter bubbles narrow the opportunity to learn from differing perspectives and that’s cause for concern. Richard Fletcher at the Reuters Institutes explores these concerns in his study, The truth behind filter bubbles: bursting some myths.

Further, with heightened interest in Corona news, consumers seek platforms (e.g. Facebook, Google, Twitter) for their daily updates. It implores us to try to understand the impact of filter bubbles created by socially curated and algorithmically driven news content.

Personalization

Fletcher’s study contends that offline news sources, without algorithms, provide a natural filter effect. Offline readers self-select their new sources. The report refers to this as self-selected personalization. It’s the personalization we do by selecting what newspapers to buy, what TV channels to watch, and at the same time which ones to avoid.  

In contrast, online news consumption is often about pre-selected personalization, where choices are made for consumers by algorithms, without the consumer’s knowledge or understanding. Social media includes both self-selected personalization and pre-selected personalization. We know that people may choose to follow certain news outlets and not others. Algorithms offer no choice; they are not exposing people to news items outside of their interests or likes.

Polarization

Significantly, Fletcher’s research investigates the level of polarization that exists in online news consumption compared to offline news environment. The research looked at 12 different countries and found in general, online news environments are more polarizing than offline.

It’s important as consumers continue to receive their news on social platforms, that they actively seek out a range of news brands. Further, platforms are changing the way they serve news to people each day. It’s essential for the media industry, consumers and social advocates to critically examine the effects of algorithmic selection on news impact on society. Social platforms effort to ensure accurate information on the Coronavirus is easily accessible is a step in the right direction.

The post On the alert for filter bubbles appeared first on Digital Content Next.

• AdExchanger | Publishers Are Wary Of New Tech That Wants To Use Their First-Party Cookies (5 min read)
• Digiday  | Coronavirus climbs up keyword block lists, squeezing news publishers’ programmatic revenues (4 min read)
• NiemanLab | How much danger does coronavirus pose to the battered U.S. news industry? (6 min read)
• Variety | Show Stopper: Coronavirus Sends Hollywood Into Unprecedented Crisis (17 min read)
• The Financial Times | Women struggle to reach the top in global news outfits (3 min read)
• The New York Times | Cruise Line Ads Get Caught in a Coronavirus News Cycle (5 min read)
• TechCrunch | Adtech giant Criteo is being investigated by France’s data watchdog (6 min read)
• BBC | Budget 2020: VAT on e-books and newspapers scrapped (2 min read)

The post DCN’s must reads: week of March 12, 2020 appeared first on Digital Content Next.