It’s a similar concept to FLoC, Google’s plan for a post-third-party cookie internet, where individuals are assigned labels describing what kind of things they might buy instead of being tracked individually. Ads can still be targeted, without advertisers having to keep track of everything everyone does. Some developers have admitted, though, that they also try to make predictions about what users do after seeing ads based on info they receive from ad companies. The Financial Times also says that some personalized data, like IP address, location, and screen size, still makes its way to advertisers, to help ensure that ads fit properly and show up in the right language.Īccording to the report, Facebook and many other companies are planning on selling ads using aggregated or anonymized data. While Facebook partially blamed Apple’s policies for it missing its earnings goals last quarter, it’s estimated that the ads affected by the rules only made up 5 percent of its annual ad revenue. In other words, Apple’s ad tracking permissions were never going to destroy Facebook’s ad business. None of this is to say that there are no privacy benefits to hitting the “Ask app not to track” button - a previous Financial Times investigation found that Snap, Inc, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube lost $10 billion combined after the feature was implemented, so there was obviously a market for ads driven by that data. But it’s good to remember that even Apple, a company that prides itself on “standing up” for its users, can’t stop companies from collecting your data with a single switch.In mid-October Snap chief executive Evan Spiegel noted that the company was caught off guard by how disruptive the impact on advertiser tools proved to be. He sounded genuinely beleaguered as he explained that Apple’s new privacy policy (App Transparency Tracking feature, was wreaking havoc on his business. The Financial Times writes that Spiegel added that the rules had "upended" the digital advertising industry, he said this month, causing a "frustrating setback" that would push revenue from the Snapchat app well below expectations. Snap’s shares promptly dropped by more than a quarter.įacebook, Twitter, YouTube and Snap have seen an estimated $9.85bn in expected advertising revenue vanish since April, when Apple started requiring app developers to seek explicit permission to track users for advertising purposes. Since then, most people have opted out, making it harder for the platforms to target audiences. Advertisers are shifting their spending elsewhere. This has hit Facebook (or Meta as it has renamed itself) and Snap particularly hard. In some ways, the companies damaged by the privacy rules have only themselves to blame. The $400bn digital advertising market has historically relied on an intrusive and unpopular business model. If Apple customers were genuinely unconcerned about tracking, they would not be saying no. There is also something unsavory about the way these changes have boosted Apple’s profits. The services business, which includes advertising, set records this quarter for both revenue of $18.3bn and profit margin of 70.5 per cent." Like Google, it gathers granular data directly and its ad business has gained market share as rivals struggle. Yet the difference is clear between Apple and Google.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |