FTC investigates surveillance pricing, accountability culture, cookies here to stay, Oracle Advertising shutters business
The usual suspects are in play with Google, once again, threatening to steal the spotlight, but not without a fight from Oracle Advertising, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and OpenAI. Each had their own share of news that made it an interesting July.
If you thought we were done talking about cookies, think again. In a not-so-unpredictable-yet-still-somehow-surprising fashion, Google announced it had abandoned its plan to kill third-party cookies. For years, advertisers have been testing Google’s Privacy Sandbox in preparation for a cookie-less future. The self-imposed deadline for cookie deprecation was pushed on three separate occasions, yet many maintained a sense of certainty that the day would come, and they would need to be prepared.
A statement from Google cited a transition to the Sandbox requiring “significant work” as the impetus for the “updated approach.”
“Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. We’re discussing this new path with regulators, and will engage with the industry as we roll this out.”
Since the announcement, there have been mixed reactions from the AdTech industry ranging from acceptance to disappointment, skepticism to frustration. Here are a few hot takes:
Digiday, Ronan Shields and Seb Joseph: “Google’s sudden U-turn on its plan to scrap third-party cookies, after years of promising otherwise, is like a TV show hyping up an epic twist, only to reveal it was all just a dream. No surprise, ad tech leaders are pulling their hair out in frustration. But they’re also trying to keep calm — they can’t afford to lose focus. Especially when it’s still uncertain if Google’s pivot will render all their efforts and investments for a third-party cookie-less Chrome world obsolete.”
Adweek, George London: “By deciding to keep third-party cookies in Chrome, Google delivered the latest punchline in its years-long comedy of errors. And no one is laughing.”
AdExchanger, Amanda Martin: “You can’t produce an industry-acceptable solution if you aren’t collaborative from the start. It’s time Google commits to competing with the rest of the industry rather than dictating terms.”
AdAge, Garrett Sloane: “We’re not going to see Google completely deprecate the third-party cookies, but the consumers will,” said one ad tech executive, who has worked closely with Google on its post-cookie ad tech changes and spoke on condition of anonymity. “And so what that basically means is that nothing has really changed, only I think Google has masterfully removed their hands from the accountability bin [with regulators].”
What will the future hold for the cookie? Who’s to say? One thing we do know: We’ll be hearing a lot more about this and its implications in the near future.
This month, the FTC launched a study to examine products that could allow companies to raise prices using consumer surveillance data such as location, past purchases, and other individual shopper traits.
Eight companies are being looked at: Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase, Accenture, McKinsey & Co., Pros Holdings Inc, Revionics, Bloomreach, and Task Software. None of the companies have been accused of wrongdoing; however, they are being asked to provide information about targeted pricing products, what data they use and its effect on pricing.
FastCompany, Reuters: “FTC Chair Lina Khan said the study will illuminate a shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen. Firms that harvest Americans’ personal data can put people’s privacy at risk. Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices.”
Wall Street Journal, Dave Michaels: “Price discrimination among different consumer groups is a common strategy in marketing. Companies try to maximize profits by offering prices that are acceptable to different groups of consumers, defined by attributes such as age, socio-economic status and their affinity for certain goods and services.
But online advertising and data analytics have made it easier to target smaller groups of consumers. The FTC’s reference to ‘surveillance pricing’ suggests it believes that consumers don’t understand how their personal information may be used to tailor prices to them.”
Price discrimination isn’t new. Surveillance pricing just takes it to the next level. Price increases driven by a spike in demand is one thing, but targeting the individual is where things get tricky. That, and the addition of AI to gather even more information and at an incredibly rapid pace. There are equity and ethical implications that must be considered.
On a similar note, AdAge reports that Gen Z is demanding brand accountability, honesty and accountability after Poppi, a soda alternative, is being sued for misleading consumers over health benefits.
Citing a slew of other consumer brands who have earned distrust, Grace Dunlavy, writes, “As each new product, brand or service is exposed online for unethical practices, fake offerings and misrepresented benefits, the term ‘cancel culture’ becomes a bigger part of our world. But while some think it’s about canceling people and brands on a whim, it’s actually about accountability: holding people and brands accountable for being truthful about what they’re conveying to consumers and shining a light on the pitfalls of late-stage capitalism.”
The desire for authenticity is at an all-time high. Consumers don’t want lofty promises or deceit. They want the truth, and they value brands that are guided by a strong moral compass and an underlying commitment to bettering the world. Brand loyalty is directly informed by trust and transparency. Gen Z won’t settle for less, so marketers need to remove the smoke and mirrors if they want to earn a devoted generation of brand champions.
In a surprising turn of events, Oracle, once a top advertising data seller, announced it “has determined that the Advertising business is not consistent with its current strategic vision.” This came with no warning, though there were, perhaps, some signs.
In 2023, Oracle reported that its advertising revenue dropped from $2 billion in 2022 to $300 million in fiscal year 2024. But they also grappled with increased competition and regulatory changes that had been years in the making.
Digiday, Ronan Shields and Seb Jospeh: “Privacy concerns have been a thorn in Oracle’s side since 2018, following the Cambridge Analytica scandal when Facebook cut certain data deals with companies like Oracle. By 2020, Oracle had shut down AddThis and ceased offering third-party data targeting services across Europe due to GDPR. Two years ago, it faced a class action lawsuit for allegedly using third-party trackers without consent to build profiles.”
Forrester breaks the collapse down further and cites, in addition to new privacy regulations, growing consumer privacy awareness, the clamping down of walled gardens, and the anticipated death of the third-party cookie.
As for its implications on the advertising and marketing ecosystem? Forrester says there aren’t a lot. “Oracle was never an AdTech behemoth […] The open question in Oracle’s case is whether its intellectual property will find new ownership and enjoy a second life.”
Courtney is a seasoned communications and public relations professional with 17+ years of experience working in both the public and private sectors in diverse leadership roles. As Data Axle’s Senior Public Relations Manager, she is intently focused on elevating the company’s media relations presence and increasing brand loyalty and awareness through landing coverage in top-tier media outlets.