After a year dominated by Google’s cookie u-turn, digital marketers find themselves at a crossroads. Mathieu Roche, CEO and Co-Founder of ID5, makes the case for tech platforms to steer them towards alternative ID solutions.
The ad tech industry found itself at a stalemate after Google made its infamous cookie u-turn this past July. If Google was no longer removing cookies but leaving it up to users to opt in or out, what did this mean for an industry that had spent the past four years exploring alternative solutions? Was this investment wasted?
After Google’s initial announcement regarding the new third-party cookie opt-out mechanism, industry feedback confirmed the efforts of the past four years wouldn’t be in vain. Instead this would be the catalyst the industry needed to tackle addressability challenges head on. With cookie opt-out rates projected to mirror those seen with Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) on iOS, and with additional signals at risk—including Mobile Advertising IDs (MAIDs) and IP addresses—digital advertising professionals are increasingly aware of the need for advanced solutions to effectively identify and engage with consumers across all digital channels.
So when considering the shift to next-generation addressability solutions a crucial question arises: who should take the lead in this transition?
Stalling the transition
A common viewpoint is that the responsibility should fall on buyers, i.e. marketers, and agencies. Many platforms have embraced an “agnostic” approach, waiting for buyers to voice their needs and request the adoption of a specific solution, stalling the transition to next-generation addressability.
In some cases, buyers have been used as scapegoats by some ad tech platforms. Phrases like, “We’re waiting to see what our clients will ask us to use”, have become common justifications for the lack of progress in selecting addressability partners.
But is this the right path forward? Are buyers equipped to or even interested in making these very technical decisions?
Historically, buyers had little visibility into the addressability framework when cookies and MAIDs were the de facto technical standards. They largely trusted technology partners to manage the process and decide how best to leverage this infrastructure on their behalf.
This dynamic shifted dramatically with traditional signals (cookies, MAIDs, and IP) becoming less available and subject to heightened compliance requirements. The addressability narrative became mainstream and everybody became interested in the identity conversation with many companies jumping on the alternative ID solution bandwagon.
Suddenly, buyers found themselves involved in technical ID conversations, expected to comprehend the complexities and select the right options to make their campaigns targeted and measurable in the wake of signal loss.
It’s unfair to put this responsibility on buyers. While some marketers are well versed on alternative IDs, most lack the technical knowledge and access to data needed to make informed decisions, unlike platforms that are specifically equipped to navigate these complexities. And most marketers seem to agree with this notion.
Changing the tires
Let’s consider an analogy to illustrate this: think of an ad tech platform as a car, with alternative IDs as the tires.
Like IDs for ad tech and martech software, tires are not merely accessories, they are indispensable components of the car, and crucial to its performance and safety. In the same way, IDs are foundational to a platform’s ability to deliver, optimise, and measure the effectiveness of data-driven ad campaigns. They help it function effectively within the broader ecosystem and also protect user privacy in compliance with regulations.
Taking the new car tires analogy a step further, buyers are akin to consumers shopping for a car. When purchasing a vehicle, consumers consider factors such as comfort, performance, and energy efficiency. They are rarely asked to decide what type of tires should be mounted on the car. Manufacturers are responsible for selecting the best tires based on the vehicle’s specs, performance requirements, and intended usage.
The selection process requires expertise and involves extensive testing and commercial discussions for the manufacturer to provide the best possible options to its clients. In the same way, IDs, like tires, are just a core component of a bigger product or service, rather than an optional feature that clients can decide to add to their core service.
Just as consumers trust manufacturers to provide a safe, reliable vehicle equipped with the right tires, buyers should rely on technology platforms to make informed decisions about alternative ID adoption. This allows marketers to focus on what they do best: creating successful campaigns and connecting with their audiences in partnership with their chosen platforms.
