In what could only be described as a Hail Mary pass, Google has agreed to cough up $250 million over five years to fund journalism and AI research in California. This deal was announced with much fanfare, and some might say a dash of self-congratulation. But before we start throwing confetti, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on here.

The Big (and Not So Big) Picture

On the surface, this deal looks like a lifeline for local journalism. California’s newsrooms have been on life support for years, hemorrhaging jobs and revenue as the digital era reshaped the media landscape. The fund, administered by UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, promises to inject much-needed cash into these struggling institutions. 

It helps Google paint itself as the savior of the free press while avoiding a dreaded “link tax” that could have forced the tech giant to pay publishers for linking to their content. This brings to mind California’s Journalism Preservation Act, which proposed to make Big Tech pay for news.

But here’s the kicker: $250 million over five years sounds like a lot until you consider that Google’s ad empire rakes in over $200 billion annually. To put it bluntly, this deal is a drop in the ocean for Google — a PR move dressed up as corporate responsibility.

Why It Matters: The Real Cost of Free News

For years, publishers have watched in horror as their ad revenues dried up while Google and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) turned into digital juggernauts. The relationship between tech platforms and news publishers has always been lopsided. Publishers create the content that drives traffic, but the platforms get the lion’s share of the ad dollars. This new deal doesn’t change that dynamic; it merely delays the inevitable. 

The idea of a “link tax” has been gaining traction globally, with Australia and Canada leading the charge. In those countries, Google and Meta were initially resistant, but eventually, they caved — well, sort of. In Australia, Google opted to pay selected publishers, while Meta briefly blocked news altogether before returning to the table. In Canada, Google agreed to pay $74 million annually to keep news content in its search results, while Meta decided to go the nuclear route and block news links entirely. The global push for Big Tech to pay for news mirrors what’s happening in California.

Google’s deal with the state allows the tech behemoth to avoid the more stringent regulations that would have come with the now-shelved CJPA. The CJPA would have forced Google and other tech giants to hand percentages of their ad revenue over to news publishers. Instead, we get a voluntary fund that’s easier for Google to swallow and far less beneficial for the publishers who need it most. The CJPA could have significantly shifted the balance of power, much like similar legislation in other regions.

The AI Angle: A Trojan Horse?

Then there’s the $62.5 million earmarked for AI research. Let’s not kid ourselves — this deal might seem like a bonus, but it’s worth asking whether it is really about saving journalism. Could it be more about Google bolstering its AI capabilities under the guise of public good?  While the idea of using AI to solve “real world problems” sounds noble, including AI funding in this deal is more about securing Google’s future dominance than helping the news industry.

As Google continues refining its AI-driven search features — like its Search Generative Experience — publishers are experiencing a decrease in traffic from organic search results, directly impacting their revenue. The rise of AI in search is reshaping the landscape, with AI-powered engines like Perplexity.ai offering revenue-sharing models that starkly contrast Google’s approach. 

Google’s move to include AI in this deal is less about journalism and more about maintaining its dominance in the search market. As Scott Messer recently pointed out in his analysis of Google’s latest SEO shake-ups, Google is playing a different game altogether. The company is not optimizing for sending traffic to publishers; instead, it’s focusing on maximizing its ad revenues, often at the expense of the very content creators it claims to support.

Critics, including journalists and labor unions, have called out the deal for what it really is: a backroom agreement that benefits Google far more than it does the struggling newsrooms of California. The Media Guild of the West, representing journalists in Southern California, Arizona, and Texas, was notably excluded from the negotiations, leading them to denounce the agreement as a “shakedown.” This isn’t the first time Google has been suspected of using its financial might to navigate legislative pressures.

Connecting the Dots: What Publishers Need to Know

For publishers, this deal is a double-edged sword. On one hand, any funding is better than none, especially in an industry that’s been in a death spiral for years. On the other hand, this deal sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Google to dictate the terms of its support for journalism, California has effectively ceded control to a tech giant with little incentive to change the status quo.

Publishers should be wary of becoming too dependent on these kinds of deals. The digital landscape is shifting rapidly, and while Google’s money might keep some newsrooms afloat for now, it won’t fix the underlying issues that have led to the decline of local journalism. With AI companies like Perplexity.ai and OpenAI entering the scene with revenue-sharing models, publishers might need to start exploring these alternative sources of revenue to stay afloat — or, maybe not. The real solutions could lean more towards finding sustainable business models that don’t rely on the whims of Silicon Valley.

The Bottom Line: Google Wins Again

So, what’s the takeaway? Google has once again managed to sidestep regulation while presenting itself as a benefactor of the public good. The $250 million might help some newsrooms in the short term, but it does little to address long-term challenges. This deal is more of a Band-Aid than a cure.

As the dust settles, it’s clear that Google got the better end of this bargain. By agreeing to a voluntary fund, the tech giant has avoided the much larger financial obligations that would have come with the CJPA. Meanwhile, California’s newsrooms are left to grapple with an uncertain future, their fate still largely in the hands of the very platforms profiting from their decline. 

In the end, this deal is a stark reminder of the power imbalance between tech platforms and the news industry. Until that changes, we’re likely to see more deals like this — ones that look good on paper but ultimately fail to address the real issues at play.

The post Google’s $250 Million ‘Gift’ to California News – Is It Really a Gift or Just a Clever Tax Dodge? appeared first on AdMonsters.

In June, we had an exclusive sit-down with Vegard Johnsen, Chief Product Officer at eyeo, who predicted Apple was brewing something big with its Web Eraser feature.

Fast forward to August, and Apple officially introduced Distraction Control — an evolution of the Web Eraser concept that’s already sending ripples through the industry.

What Is Distraction Control?

Distraction Control is not just a fancy pop-up blocker. It’s a user-empowerment tool enabling Safari users the power to hide distracting elements on websites. While Apple carefully distinguishes this feature from traditional ad blockers, the implications are clear: publishers and advertisers must rethink their strategies to survive.

The feature has sparked controversy, especially among publishers who rely on ad revenue and subscription prompts to stay afloat. Apple’s quiet roll-out of Distraction Control in the latest iOS 18 beta is a stark reminder that the tech giant isn’t afraid to shake things up in the name of user experience.

In this follow-up Q&A, Vegard Johnsen returns to share his insights on how Distraction Control could affect publishers, advertisers, and the broader ecosystem. Spoiler alert: this is just the beginning of a new era where user experience reigns supreme, and publishers must evolve — or risk becoming obsolete.

The Revenue Impact: Are Subscription Models at Risk?

Lynne d Johnson: How do you foresee Apple’s Distraction Control feature affecting publishers’ ability to generate revenue, especially those relying on subscription sign-ups and mailing lists?

Vegard Johnsen: Subscription sign-ups, mailing lists, and similar mechanisms to generate revenue are a numbers game. Most users ignore or dismiss these messages most of the time. There have always been incentives to reach the right user at the right time, with the right message. But for the most part, the cost of being lazy was low, so many were lazy, deploying spray-and-pray tactics. Now, with Distraction Control, being lazy is going to get more expensive because users will have more agency in removing these elements.

However, I do imagine that some kind of crowdsourcing of user action is on the roadmap in the future. The obvious way to go with this feature is to offer users to opt-in to crowdsourced feature removal. In that case, the impact could be quite significant since it wouldn’t be limited to just the individual user.

But perhaps this is good news for high-quality content creators who engage with the user respectfully, at the right time, and with the right message. It may lead to these “good” publishers standing out with more signal amongst the noise. Ultimately, there would be fewer bad apples (no pun intended) to spoil the bunch.

Ad Blocker or Not? Understanding the Fine Line

LdJ: Distraction Control has been described as not being an ad blocker. How does this distinction affect the broader ecosystem of online advertising and content monetization?

VJ: One could easily imagine this feature evolving to better cover dynamic content. The biggest reason for that development is simple game theory — there will now be an incentive to make ‘everything’ dynamic (i.e., adding dynamic elements to subscription sign-ups and mailing list prompts).

Striking the Right Balance: User Experience vs. Publisher Needs

LdJ: What balance should be struck between enhancing user experience by removing distracting content and maintaining publishers’ needs to engage users with necessary overlays like cookie consent and subscription prompts?

VJ: That balance has always been necessary, of course, but Distraction Control takes it to a new level. Now users have more choices if they are not happy — not just by bouncing off the site but by also taking control and removing elements. For elements where data is available and timing is discretionary (such as subscription prompts), it becomes extremely important to show the right message at a time that works for the user. Failure to do so may mean the dialog is gone forever.

For other messages where timing and/or data is not available to customize (such as cookie consent notices), one could expect to see pre-messages (such as the ones that often precede the IDFA dialog box) warming up the user. But, perhaps this is also going to spur the industry to move away from dark patterns — from asking for consent for 900 vendors and instead towards asking for a more reasonable number, thereby making the UX more balanced.

For sites to get signals on what direction to take, it would be great to see some kind of feedback feature for the content owner. This feature could share details on what elements are being removed, so publishers can learn what users have issues with and what they don’t.

Industry Response: Adaptation or Resistance?

LdJ: Given the concerns raised by industry associations about similar features in the past, how do you think publishers and advertisers might adapt to or resist this new feature?

VJ: One obvious way the industry might resist is to start adding dynamic elements to messages to avoid ‘detection’ by this feature. But, that kind of cat-and-mouse game would incentivize Apple to make the feature more blunt and powerful, so this is not a good path. Given that, at least for now, the feature requires users to actively remove the content.

So, the reasonable path will be to ensure that the elements on the page stay below the activation threshold. By having a good ratio of content to other elements, and by reducing and avoiding distractions and interruptions, users will have no reason to take action.

The Future of Content Monetization: Evolution or Revolution?

LdJ: What long-term implications do you see for content creators if features like Distraction Control become standard across browsers? Could this lead to new forms of content monetization?

VJ: To me, this is simply an evolution of users taking control of their online experience. They have plenty of options today, from choosing a browser to suit their needs to installing extensions and apps to improve their visual, privacy, and data experience. Browsers are a competitive space, particularly post-DMA, so I would be surprised if other browsers did not follow suit, particularly if this feature proves to be popular with users.

Fundamentally, users are happy to support content creators, but they want the balance to be right. Given that I don’t see the need for new forms of content monetization or any special action by content creators, when it comes to those publishers with a good user experience already, this is something to celebrate.

Rethinking Ad Strategy: Opportunities Amid Challenges

As publishers and advertisers grapple with the implications of Apple’s Distraction Control, the focus must shift toward more user-friendly ad strategies. One effective approach could be reducing intrusive pop-ups in favor of smaller, more subtle placements that integrate seamlessly with the user experience. There’s also potential value in publishers seeking direct buys with advertisers, which can ensure higher quality placements than those typically filled by programmatic platforms.

Interestingly, the need for users to actively hide ads creates a unique opportunity, as those ads might attract more attention offering useful insights into user behavior. Still, the key to thriving this new thorn in your side is to prioritize user experience.

The post What Apple’s Distraction Control Means for Publishers appeared first on AdMonsters.

Who said cookieless targeting doesn’t scale?

Dotdash Meredith’s cookieless targeting tool, D/Cipher, has propelled the publisher to a 12% increase in digital ad revenue year-over-year, marking the second consecutive quarter of double-digit growth.  

D/Cipher is proving its worth in driving campaigns like the one the media company conducted with Pandora. The campaign resulted in 76% higher foot traffic when compared to other targeting methods. 

But this isn’t just about impressive numbers. It’s about Dotdash Meredith setting a new standard in the industry. With third-party cookies becoming obsolete, their ability to pivot and innovate with tools like D/Cipher is a masterclass in adaptation. 

“The performance is amazing because the industry is always trying to find ways to tie media buys to real results. This proves that Dotdash Meredith can drive national brick-and-mortar sales for a brand without any cookie or identifier,” Lindsay Van Kirk, Senior Vice President and General Manager of D/Cipher told ADWEEK. 

The publisher’s success is part of a broader narrative vividly discussed at the recent AdMonsters Publisher Forum in Boston. Let’s connect the dots between Dotdash Meredith’s achievements and the strategies shared by top publishers.

Connecting the Dots from Publisher Forum

Several sessions highlighted how publishers leverage data to secure ad spend and ensure brand safety, aligning perfectly with Dotdash Meredith’s success story. Conversations weren’t merely about surviving the post-cookie apocalypse — they were about thriving.

Data-Driven Strategies:

Patrick McCarthy, SVP, Programmatic Monetization, Dotdash Meredith, emphasized the importance of big data in ad operations. “We are a very data-driven company. When you go into meetings with our C-suite team, hunches really aren’t acceptable. Our whole programmatic and advertising part of our business is really driven by our CFO and Chief Innovation Officer, who is a former data scientist. Data is absolutely paramount to making your case for new investment, for new products to be rolled out,”  he said.

This reflects D/Cipher’s ability to utilize first-party data and contextual signals to outperform traditional cookie-based methods. He also highlighted the role of predictive analytics and real-time data applications. The publisher is proving that first-party data and advanced analytics are the future.

Echoing the power of data, Jesse Waldele, SVP, Digital Operations and Client Success at Dow Jones, shared how they’ve ditched third-party data in favor of first-party insights, fueling more effective ad solutions. Their “Thematic AI” tool, which predicts the best content placement using AI, has driven noticeable performance lifts for advertisers. Dow Jones’ focus on real-time measurement ensures that advertisers keep rebooking.

While the benefits of big data are clear, reliance on it also comes with obstacles. The high cost of data management and the risk of data privacy issues can be a significant barrier for smaller publishers.

Brand Suitability and First-Party Data:

In her keynote, Jana Meron, Vice President of Revenue Operations & Data, The Washington Post, discussed the power of first-party data in achieving brand suitability and effective ad placements. She noted, “The intersection of deterministic and probabilistic first-party data is where we get our power.”

The Washington Post observed a 3x performance lift when using first-party data compared to third-party data with standard display, and a 5x lift when integrating custom ad units designed for their audience.

While first-party data offers significant benefits in targeting and personalization, the session also highlighted potential downsides, such as difficulties in scaling deterministic data due to the reliance on user logins, which can limit reach. Additionally, there are concerns about balancing privacy with data collection, as overly aggressive data strategies might lead to consumer pushback or regulatory scrutiny.

Still, The Washington Post’s direction is a fundamental shift in how publishers view and leverage their audience data. By focusing on the nuances of their data, publishers can create a more personalized and effective advertising ecosystem, which is essential as consumers become increasingly wary of invasive data practices.

Harnessing Audience Power: Future’s Strategy

Jeff Goldstein, Head of Programmatic at Future, offered a compelling keynote on the importance of understanding and harnessing audience passions. He explained how Future’s approach to audience segmentation — dividing users into “practical intenders” and “passionate intenders” — has allowed the publisher to optimize its content and ad strategies.

Goldstein shared that through their first-party data platform, Aperture, Future has identified high-intent users, leading to a 30% higher purchase likelihood among these users. He emphasized the value of deep audience insights and the role of AI-driven data in refining targeting strategies.

Future’s approach underscores the value of deep audience insights, enabling them to create more personalized and effective media products. By leveraging AI and contextual data, Future exceeds advertiser expectations, driving better outcomes across its 200+ owned and operated properties.

ID Bridging: Navigating the Benefits and Risks

In another session, the topic of ID bridging was explored in depth, highlighting how this technology enables publishers to maintain addressable audiences in a cookieless environment. Ianna Feliciano, Senior Director, Programmatic Advertising, Raptive, and Jasper Liu, Senior Programmatic Yield Analyst, Daily Mail, explained how ID bridging allows for deterministic and probabilistic matching across devices and browsers. While deterministic matching offers precision, it often lacks scale. On the other hand, probabilistic matching provides greater reach but with potential trade-offs in accuracy.

The speakers also explained the risks associated with ID bridging, such as increased complexity in managing multiple ID partners and the potential for data leakage, which can have severe privacy implications. Additionally, the costs associated with ID bridging can be significant, especially when considering the need for continuous vendor management and compliance with evolving privacy regulations.

But when connected with the right partners, ID bridging is becoming essential for maintaining campaign effectiveness in the face of increasing privacy regulations and the decline of third-party cookies. The session emphasized the importance of choosing the right ID-bridging partners and continually testing and adapting strategies to balance accuracy, scale, and compliance with privacy laws.

Innovative Revenue Strategies:

The “One Big Problem” session, a town hall publisher-only conversation, underscored the challenges and strategies in ramping up revenue. One standout solution was monetizing social media audiences. Publishers are turning their social followers into a goldmine, leveraging these platforms to drive engagement and revenue. This strategy, highlighted by some ad ops leaders shows the innovative ways publishers are navigating the post-cookie landscape.

This strategy doesn’t come without its downsides though. Relying heavily on social platforms means publishers are subject to the algorithms and policies of those platforms, which can change suddenly and impact reach and monetization.

Another exciting approach discussed during the Forum was Deal Curation as a Service (DCaaS). This strategy empowers publishers to showcase and monetize high-quality inventory effectively, leveraging first-party data for improved targeting and higher CPMs. Yet, implementing DCaaS can be resource-intensive, requiring significant investments in technology and data management. It can also lead to increased operational complexity, as publishers must manage and coordinate with multiple partners and ensure the integrity of their curated deals. 

In the long haul, DCaaS enables publishers to regain control over their inventory, creating a more curated and valuable marketplace that benefits publishers and advertisers alike. As Scott Messer of Messer Media explained, DCaaS alleviates costs, aggregates sales efforts, and delivers a good product.

The Existential Crisis and Future-Proofing Revenue

Despite Google’s flip-flop on third-party cookies, savvy publishers are already adapting. Our recent Publisher Pulse report, Ramping Up Your Revenue: Digital Publishers Reveal Key Growth Strategies, shows that 71% of publishers are investing in new tools and technologies to drive revenue growth, with the most invested tools including audience segmentation (65%), identity resolution (50%), and AI-driven/advanced analytics platforms (40%).

But this isn’t just about technology for technology’s sake, it’s about addressing the existential crisis of trust and relevance. Publishers like Dotdash Meredith, The Washington Post, and Future are leading the way, demonstrating that investing in first-party data and contextual targeting is key to thriving in a cookieless world.

As Dotdash Meredith’s McCarthy explained, predictive analytics and real-time data are revolutionizing how we approach ad operations, ensuring we stay ahead of the curve. This aligns seamlessly with the broader industry trends discussed at the Forum, showing a unified move towards data-driven, privacy-safe ad tech solutions.

The landscape is shifting, and those who don’t adapt will be left behind. Since many of these approaches may require significant investment in technology and talent, it’s a survival of the fittest scenario, where only the most innovative and forward-thinking publishers will thrive. Regardless of the size of your operation, your best bet is to start small and keep testing iteratively.

Innovation must be balanced with caution — embrace your data, invest in the right tools, and keep innovating.

Editor’s Update 08/14/2024 An earlier version of this article omitted insights from Jesse Waldele, SVP of Digital Operations and Client Services at Dow Jones, and Jeff Goldstein, Head of Programmatic at Future’s keynote.

The post Dotdash Meredith’s Cookieless Conquest and the Publisher Pulse: Notes from AdMonsters Publisher Forum Boston appeared first on AdMonsters.

No pun intended, but the ad tech industry is still hashing out its privacy concerns. With Google essentially pulling the plug on third-party cookie deprecation and instead heading in the direction of an opt-out mechanism, ad tech’s privacy terrain is still in a state of limbo. 

But as publishers and advertisers search for the privacy-compliant tech that works best for them, the FTC reissued a warning about hashed IDs. 

In a recent blog post, the FTC reiterated a critical privacy principle: hashed IDs are not anonymous. Despite some companies’ claims, hashing—a process that transforms data like email addresses or phone numbers into seemingly random strings—does not render data anonymous. 

Data is only anonymous when you cannot trace it back to an individual, according to the FTC. This misinterpretation can lead to significant privacy violations, as bad actors can still use hashed data to identify and track users, potentially causing harm.

Hashing provides a layer of obfuscation but does not eliminate the potential for re-identification. The FTC has highlighted several cases where companies misused hashing, believing it ensured anonymity. Notable instances include the 2015 case against Nomi, which tracked consumers in stores using hashed MAC addresses, and the 2022 case against BetterHelp, where hashed email addresses were shared with Facebook, compromising user privacy. 

A Quick Refresh on Hashed IDs

Companies often use hashing to obscure personal data. Hashing transforms information such as email addresses or phone numbers into a consistent numerical value, known as a hash. 

This process ensures that the same input data will always generate the same hash, making the original data difficult to guess.

The advantage of hashing is that it allows companies to store data without directly revealing identifiable information. A hash appears meaningless and preserves user privacy, as companies cannot easily trace it back to the original data. This is why companies often use hashing when they are reluctant to record or share direct identifiers but still need the data for future matching.

However, according to the FTC, the belief that hashing fully anonymizes data is flawed. Companies and bad actors can still use hashed IDs to identify users, and their misuse can lead to harm. They warn that companies should not claim that hashing personal information makes it completely anonymous. The FTC will continue monitoring and addressing deceptive privacy claims to ensure that companies comply with the law.

Hashing Out Industry Sentiments

The ad tech industry is all in on alternative IDs as a go-to solution for privacy complaints. But, the FTC just threw a wrench in the works by declaring that hashed IDs aren’t truly anonymous. A shift might be on the horizon. This revelation puts universal ID formats like TTD’s UI2 and LiveRamp’s Ramp ID—those that hash and encrypt personal data—under the microscope, suggesting they might not be the ultimate fix we once believed.

Where will the industry pivot after this? 

Third-party cookies and hashed IDs will not stand the test of time, according to Adam Schenkel, EVP of GumGum. Schenkel instead upholds that contextual targeting will be the next wave for privacy-compliant solutions. 

“This news and the FTC’s commitment to safeguarding data privacy for Americans indicates that privacy-invasive targeting tactics like third-party cookies and hashed IDs will not stand the test of time,” said Schenkel. “Instead, advanced contextual advertising emerges as a superior solution once again because not only is contextual respectful of a user’s privacy, but it’s also able to match ad content with a user’s real-time interests and mindset.” 

Publishers Hash Out the Sit-and-Wait Approach

Sam Cheng, Director of Advertising Operations, TeamSnap, noted the uncertainty and potential difficulties ahead when asked about his initial reactions to the ruling. “It’s too soon to know until major publishers start taking an approach,” he said, emphasizing a cautious outlook.

Cheng highlighted the complexities in finding the next ID solution to comply with the FTC’s rules, noting that HashID will likely stick around until a new one surfaces. For now, he’s taking a wait-and-see approach.

He also emphasized the tough challenges publishers face in meeting the FTC’s data anonymity and user tracking guidelines. He acknowledged that implementing a new solution would be a pain, especially for companies lacking the technical bandwidth to adapt quickly. 

“Assuming most companies don’t have the technical bandwidth, it will be challenging to implement a new solution when it does come out,” he explained.

The post The Perils of Hashed IDs: FTC Reasserts They Are Not Anonymous appeared first on AdMonsters.

The race to a federal U.S. data privacy law has been a slow trudge to victory, and the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) is no different. While the supporters and detractors of the act  understand the need for a federal privacy law, some of the minute details cause contention. 

If passed, APRA could significantly impact advertising by defining sensitive data as “online activities over time and across third-party websites,” requiring express consent for its collection or sharing. 

While the bill allows opt-out for targeted advertising (excluding measurement, first-party, and contextual advertising), the inclusion of online browsing data as sensitive means targeted advertising data can’t be used without consent. Publishers focusing on first-party data will benefit if ARPA passes, but the shift from opt-out to opt-in will be disruptive.

If a data privacy law like APRA passes, small businesses may face significant challenges in digital advertising. As you all know, personalized ads play a crucial role in helping SMBs compete with larger brands, reach targeted audiences, and measure campaign success. Still, concerns about data privacy and its impact on small businesses’ data collection and attractiveness to advertisers remain. The federal government and publishers want to craft a law promoting strategic advertising that balances personalization and consumer privacy protection.

Advertiser Perceptions, in collaboration with the Connected Commerce Council and Google, recently released a survey highlighting the impact of personalized digital ads on small to medium-sized businesses in the US. At a virtual press conference some SMBs shared their experiences with data-driven advertising and discussed concerns about APRA. Here’s what they had to say. 

APRA Could Potentially Kill Personalized Advertising, and Ultimately, Publisher Revenue

Advertiser Perceptions, a research firm specializing in advertising, regularly engages with top agencies and brands to gauge market insights. They conducted the survey to understand how the use of personalized digital ads impacts the success of advertisers and publishers.

The study surveyed a wide range of advertisers, including SMBs with fewer than 500 employees and large national advertisers, to understand their current use of personalized digital advertising and the potential effects of not utilizing these ads. The results reveal that 82% of respondents attributed 2023 revenue growth to customized ads. Without these ads, one in five businesses would face closure or layoffs, and nearly half would need to raise prices. 

The results for publishers are even more dire. Data shows that 37% of publishers will face layoffs or closures, 45% might implement paywalls, and two-thirds will increase ad volume. If you read the news, it’s evident that many publishers are already dealing with these issues. These ads are crucial for small businesses to compete with larger brands and measure ad effectiveness.

Personalized digital advertising enables small businesses to reach target audiences and measure the success of their campaigns. According to Advertiser Perceptions, seven in ten businesses use these ads to find new customers, and three in five use them to reach local customers, significantly extending their reach beyond traditional methods. 

Simply Lakita: Will Smaller Publishers Suffer if APRA Passes? 

Lakita Anderson, an online food blogger based in Panama City Beach, Florida, runs a recipe website called Simply Lakita, where she shares modern comfort food recipes with a twist. Since starting her blog in 2013 and turning it into a full-time business in 2016, she has built a significant following with over 700,000 readers and 15,000 Instagram followers. Initially partnering with brands through influencer campaigns, she found the process exhausting and shifted her focus to monetizing her blog through digital ads.

Transitioning to digital ads allowed Anderson to streamline her operations and focus on content creation, significantly reducing the burnout she experienced with brand partnerships. Her blog’s success is closely tied to the ability to show relevant ads to her readers, which is made possible by collecting anonymous data about their preferences and behavior. 

This data is essential for attracting advertisers who want assurance that their marketing efforts reach the right audience. As a result, Anderson’s revenue model relies heavily on effectively using this data to maintain and grow her income.

Recently, Anderson participated in a hill briefing with staff from Representative Neal Dunn and Representative Craig’s offices to discuss the potential impacts of APRA on her business. She argues that APRA could severely hinder her ability to collect the necessary data to attract advertisers, which is crucial for her revenue. 

“While consumer privacy is important, APRA fails to strike a balance that also considers the needs of small businesses,” said Anderson. “Access to this data is necessary to prove the value of ad placements on her website to advertisers, potentially jeopardizing my primary source of income. This legislative change could force me to reconsider my entire business model, threatening the viability of my blog and the livelihood I have built around it.” 

Implementing Privacy-Conscious Advertising Practices

Experts recommend strategies to help small businesses deal with potential data privacy law changes while leveraging personalized digital advertising. 

It starts with educating lawmakers on the crucial role of personalized ads for small businesses and the risks of overly strict privacy laws. Publishers should push for legislation that protects consumer privacy without stifling their ability to target customers effectively. However, if this does happen, businesses should diversify their advertising approaches and explore alternative revenue models, such as subscriptions or paywalls, in case personalized ads face restrictions. 

Still, privacy compliance is of the utmost importance. Data experts like Advertiser Perceptions and publishers like Anderson believe there needs to be guidance around using personalized advertising in a privacy-sensitive manner, like employing aggregated data and anonymized profiles. Additionally, it promotes technological solutions that enable personalized ads without extensive user data, such as contextual advertising or machine learning. 

This is especially important for smaller publishers who do not have the same resources, and possibly even education, about the ins and outs of privacy and personalized advertising. It’s up to everyone in the industry to advocate for small businesses in the data privacy policy discussions to ensure their interests are met and that new regulations balance privacy concerns with business needs.

The post Does APRA Do More Harm Than Good For Personalized Advertising? appeared first on AdMonsters.

This week, Google threw the ad tech industry for a loop by announcing a significant shift in its privacy strategy. Contrary to its long-standing plan to eliminate third-party cookies from its Chrome browser, Google has revealed it will offer users the option to opt out of third-party cookies through a new choice mechanism. This unexpected pivot has sparked a flurry of reactions from publishers, advertisers, and industry stakeholders, many of whom have spent the past few years preparing for a cookieless future.

In a blog post by Anthony Chavez, VP of Privacy Sandbox, Google outlined its revised approach, emphasizing user choice and engagement with industry feedback. This move comes after four years of extensive testing and regulatory discussions, during which Google faced substantial pushback from industry players and regulators like the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). 

The original plan to phase out cookies had been postponed multiple times, with the latest delay pushing the deadline to 2025. Now, Google’s new path aims to balance privacy with the practical needs of the advertising ecosystem.

There are mixed reactions to this news. While some industry leaders express relief at the additional time to adapt, others remain wary of the potential implications for privacy and competition. The ad tech community is now grappling with questions about how Google will implement this mechanism and its impact on the broader industry. Below, we’ve gathered insights and opinions from key figures in the industry, offering a glimpse into the varied responses to Google’s surprising announcement.

Publishers React to Google’s Privacy Pivot: Balancing User Choice and Industry Innovation

In light of Google’s recent decision to let users choose between Sandbox and legacy cookie behaviors, publisher’s reactions vary. Some expect a shift towards user opt-outs rather than forced changes, while others are hopeful for a balanced approach that maintains innovation and effective monetization. There are calls for transparent messaging without fear-mongering and a recognition that Google is grappling with the complexities of balancing user privacy with meaningful ad experiences.

“The news is confirmed. I think we’ll see aggressive messaging pushing users to opt-out, instead of a forced deprecation effort.” – Justin Wohl, Chief Revenue Officer, Snopes.com

“This transition was never going to be easy. Google’s announcement that users will be able to choose between Sandbox and legacy behavior seems to offer the best of both worlds. It places the decision where it belongs, in the hands of the consumer, instead of any large technical organization. 

We’re looking forward to continuing our innovations in both environments, and we’re hopeful this doesn’t imply the CMA will release Google from their commitments in exchange for a small minority of users being able to opt into cookies. We won’t back off our ongoing investment in audience addressability using Sandbox technology so advertisers can reach all consumers, and our publishers will enjoy our industry’s best monetization however the consumer or their browser chooses to consume advertising.” – Patrick McCann, SVP of Research, Raptive

“I think Google’s decision is about removing deadlines and finding solutions that can work (and hopefully be more broadly supported) for the industry. Google already offers users the ability to remove third-party cookies in Chrome, so publishers will need to understand better how implementing this “new experience” plays out to understand the impact of this change.” – Emry Downinghall, SVP, Programmatic Revenue & Strategy Unwind Media

“I’m very interested to see more details come out following Google’s initial announcement.  I’m relieved at the step back, mainly because the proposed alternatives to date weren’t sufficient, and the industry wasn’t ready. The concept of actual damage due to third-party cookies and tracking has gotten overblown – offering a choice makes sense. I’m hopeful that the messaging around that choice won’t be skewed to elicit fear and will present a clear option to toggle them off if the site visitor is bothered by the idea of third-party cookies. Let’s not participate in fear-mongering this time around, a la ATT.” – Catherine Beattie, Director of Programmatic, Weatherbug

“As Google wrestled with balancing privacy and delivering a relevant ad experience to every user, I believe they were forced to identify exactly how much data is too much data. If we are honest with ourselves there are probably about five or so personally identifiable elements that are needed to provide a meaningful experience and meet the request of advertisers. Broad concern that it has passed the point of need to greed drove the push for Google to go cookieless.  Unraveling this invasive practice has become nearly impossible for Google without being completely blind to any user behavior. I’m glad that this forced Google to be honest about the state of advertising and its needs and wants in this ecosystem.” – Terry Guyton-Bradley, Senior Director of Advertising Technology, Fortune

“The news isn’t a shock, but I hope the fact that we still will have 3P cookies doesn’t stall the progress made around targeting without cookies. Preparing for life without cookies forced publishers to think about ways to get closer to their audiences, and I think that is ultimately a good thing. So, I hope they still push for that moving forward.“ – Kevin Antione, Head of Digital Inventory Optimization, Graham Media Group

“I was not surprised to see Google’s announcement that it would pause the deprecation of third-party cookies. Looking ahead, there is no changing the fact that cookies will still be deprecated within Google Chrome, even if a small percentage remains. With at least 60% of the web being unaddressable by cookies at the moment, the focus should be on solutions that work for cookieless environments. I advise my clients to stay the course and continue weaning into a cookieless future. While the sandbox will be an important part of the ecosystem in the future, the short-term focus should be on more immediate and tangible solutions beyond just the sandbox.” – Scott Messer, Principal and Founder, Messer Media

Ad Tech Leaders React: The Impact of Simplified Opt-Outs on Consumer Choice and Ad Revenue

The conversation around third-party cookies and privacy continues to evolve. Efforts to simplify opt-out processes for third-party cookies are a step towards greater consumer control, although the broader impact on advertising and data collection practices remains significant. Industry leaders stress the need for privacy-focused solutions that balance user protection with the realities of digital advertising.

“The CMA needs to be wary of letting Google off the hook by accepting Apple’s dark choice patterns. AdMonsters’ readers need to write to the CMA before 12 August to resist remedies involving user prompts controlled by monopolists. Remedies that enable transparency across data controllers and processors, including within Google’s own data engine, are preferable.

If notices are to be used then they must be applied equally to each of Google’s own services and products to avoid creating disparity. For example; when using sign-in-with-Google to collect so-called first-party data any user prompt needs to be identical to the one used with Chrome for so-called third-party data. CMA has the power to require this in the remedy and policy implementation. It is not a matter for data protection authorities like the ICO.

The industry narrative now needs to move towards quarantining web browsers by restricting them to access and navigation only. Web browsers must be separated from the monopolists’ other interests. W3C has a role in enforcing its antitrust guidelines to ensure fair play and prevent further privacy abuses in standards setting.” – James Rosewell, Co-Founder, Movement For an Open Web 

“Deprecating cookies in the world’s most used web browser was never going to be easy. This effort has been fraught with challenges, from antitrust and privacy concerns to the impact on ad revenue. While this announcement may feel like a reversal, I don’t think we should view it as a return to the status quo. 

Introducing a feature that will allow users to declare their preferences across all browsing activities is significant. This sounds like a global privacy control that consumers may actually use.  If that’s the case, the efforts invested in testing privacy-preserving APIs and introducing alternative identifiers will pay off. The use of third-party cookies will continue to get scrutiny from regulators, and when given an easy-to-use choice, consumers may choose to opt out.  

The data faucet has been slowly turning down, and with or without an official deprecation of third-party cookies, the industry needed a push to consider alternative solutions. Moving towards solutions that can balance the need to protect consumer privacy with the understanding that advertising powers the open web is a worthwhile endeavor, and I hope to see those efforts continue (albeit without the pressure of an impending deadline).” – Jessica B. Lee, Partner, Co-Chair, Privacy, Security & Data Innovations at Loeb & Loeb LLP

“When third-party cookie opt-out is made simple, people overwhelmingly say no, evidenced by the impact of GDPR in Europe, where over 90% of people have opted out. Forty percent of people who use Chrome have already said no, and that is when disabling cookies is hard, let alone easy. Google is using consumer choice as the cloak, killing the third-party cookie without necessarily providing an alternative solution, similar to Apple and ATT.

The vast majority of users online are already unreachable due to signal loss in the open web today, causing publishers’ OMP yields to collapse. For advertisers, this signal loss means bidding on an ever-smaller group of users, pushing up CPMs, and reducing the perceived efficiency of open web buying.

There is another way for advertisers to build brand equity, grow market share, and drive performance in programmatic. It lies in publisher first-party signals and data collaboration between data owners—advertisers, and media owners. When these data owners collaborate, it is not only enormously scalable but also performant, delivering increased yield for publishers, incremental sales, and reduced cost per acquisition for advertisers.” –  Joe Root, CEO & Co-founder, Permutive

“While some might see this as a relief, it’s a clear signal that the industry must diversify its strategies and focus on privacy-first technologies. We shouldn’t view this as a chance to return to old ways but as an opportunity to continue innovating and building a more resilient digital advertising future.” – Yang Han, CTO of StackAdapt

“Consumers are the beating heart of our industry, and I support Google’s decision to elevate consumer choice when it comes to cookies. Google is toeing the line between clients and customers, and they have already made improvements to Privacy Sandbox after many months of work. However, it benefits everyone if they have more time to perfect better identity-protecting strategies without harming Q4 revenues.

Regardless of Google’s decision, privacy regulations are ever-evolving and our industry should remain committed to enabling advertisers and publishers to succeed with privacy-first strategies. Apple has blocked cookies by default from Apple for years, and now that Google is following suit, advertisers should be prepared to meet their audiences where they are. Many consumers will likely choose to opt out of third-party cookies, and protecting the user journey will be key.

Google’s news today sets the tone for a privacy-centric future driven by the consumer, and the industry should continue to work together to leverage alternative IDs and other more privacy-focused solutions like contextual alongside existing signals (e.g., audience, performance). Publishers and advertisers must continue to navigate these transitions and build a strong, privacy-friendly data culture built on collaboration, trust, and a test-and-learn mentality, that keeps the consumer top of mind.” – Jenn Chen, President and CRO of Connatix

“This recent – and hopefully – final decision boils down to placing users in the driver’s seat regarding privacy. But this is a nothing-burger in many ways, as advertisers have already been on a cookie-less road. The digital advertising ecosystem will experience less disruption in the short term. Still, it could face long-term challenges related to privacy concerns, regulatory pressures, and the eventual need to adapt to a more privacy-focused environment. As XR has recently implemented IAB’s ACIF, we’re revolutionizing creative tagging throughout its lifecycle, driving the future of measurement and identity. This leadership positions us decisively ahead as others scramble to understand and adapt to the changing landscape.” –  Jo Kinsella, President of XR Extreme Reach

“Viant has estimated that less than 10% of total ad spend across our platform utilizes cookies today, which is indicative of an industry that has already moved on. The increasing importance of new channels such as CTV, which never relied on third-party cookies, has only expedited their diminishing utility. Ultimately, advertisers want contribution, not attribution, toward their real goals like return on ad spend.” – Jon Schulz, Chief Marketing Officer, Viant

“Google’s decision to create consumer choice with the advertiser use of their own data, signals two things. First, Google needs additional time to get the Privacy Sandbox to perform at a level that reduces disruption to their core business model. Thus far, sparse and unconvincing tests have proven that the Privacy Sandbox is not ready for the big show and they need more time. Second, is that complexity is not a concern. Depending on the functionality, there will be parallel data supply paths. In short, buckle up for more disruption in the coming months and years.”(Read more insights) – Therran Oliphant, Chief Strategy Officer, Hand Raiser Marketing

The post Industry Leaders Respond to Google’s Cookie Deprecation Pause and New Opt-Out Mechanism appeared first on AdMonsters.

Last week, we published an article detailing how the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference will affect the advertising industry. The consensus was that it will infringe on regulatory efforts and cause publishers and advertisers to challenge government agency regulations that affect their businesses. 

But what does that mean for publishers and advertisers still waiting for a federal privacy law in the US? What does that mean for the FTC, who makes many of the federal regulations for the advertising industry? 

We spoke with Jason Gordon, partner at Reed Smith in its Entertainment and Media group, to get a more in depth understanding of how SCOTUS’ decision will impact advertising. 

Andrew Byrd: Can you elaborate on how the Supreme Court’s Chevron decision impacts the advertising industry?

Jason Gordon: The Supreme Court decision marks a significant shift in regulatory authority. Before this ruling, regulatory agencies, including the FTC, were given substantial deference in defining and enforcing what constitutes unfair or deceptive advertising practices. As the primary enforcer of advertising regulations, the FTC and other specific agencies could interpret these practices broadly. 

This deference allowed the FTC to develop guides such as the “Made in the USA” guide, endorsement and testimonial guides, and green guides for environmental marketing claims. These guides provided advertisers with clear frameworks but granted the FTC significant power in interpreting what constitutes false or misleading advertising.

Now, the role of the courts has become more central in interpreting vague statutes related to advertising practices, reducing the FTC’s unilateral authority. This shift implies that while the FTC’s interpretations remain influential, they are not definitive. Courts will now have the final say in disputes over what constitutes an unfair or deceptive act, which could lead to more legal challenges against the FTC’s rulings. This change introduces a new dynamic where advertisers might feel emboldened to contest FTC’s guidelines and enforcement actions, potentially leading to a more litigious environment in the advertising industry.

Additionally, this shift occurs amid an environment of heightened regulatory scrutiny under the current FTC leadership, which has adopted a more aggressive stance on enforcement. The FTC’s focus areas, such as artificial intelligence, privacy, and novel concepts like “junk fees” and “dark patterns,” may face judicial scrutiny as advertisers challenge the agency’s jurisdiction and interpretations. 

AB: Since this will affect the FTC’s regulatory power, do you see opportunities for the advertising community to challenge federal regulators, especially in privacy and deceptive practices?

JG: While this might limit the FTC’s unilateral power, it’s crucial to understand that the broader regulatory ecosystem remains robust. Besides the FTC, states have their own statutes against unfair or deceptive acts. This means state attorneys general, competitors, or class action lawyers can still pursue false advertising claims even if SCOTUS curtailed some of the FTC’s power.

Specifically regarding privacy, the FTC’s diminished authority doesn’t stop states like California from enacting and amending laws like the CCPA and CPRA. Similarly, Illinois continues to enforce its biometric privacy law. Therefore, despite a potential reduction in FTC enforcement, state-level regulations and actions will persist, maintaining pressure on advertisers to comply with privacy and data security standards. 

Thus, even if the FTC’s scope of action is restricted, advertisers must still deal with a complex regulatory environment where state laws and other legal avenues remain active. 

AB: Given the shifting power dynamics from federal regulations to the Supreme Court, do you foresee increased scrutiny from the FTC on advertisers and publishers? 

JG: The FTC stated that its enforcement priorities will remain steadfast despite the shifting power dynamics from federal regulations to the Supreme Court. However, the practical implications of this stance will unfold over the next three to nine months. 

Advertisers might react by adopting more aggressive strategies, believing they have a better chance in court. Trade organizations could also start challenging the FTC’s authority, leading to potential legal battles. If advertisers contest FTC actions in court, they will rely on precedents like the Lanham Act, which governs false advertising disputes between competitors. This act requires proving both the falsity of the advertising and its material impact on consumer decisions, setting a high bar for legal challenges.

AB: In your initial introduction, you mentioned that some in the advertising industry view specific FTC rules as lacking evidentiary support. How does the industry address concerns about these perceived gaps in evidence?

JG: When the FTC updates its rules, it follows a notice and comment period, allowing for public feedback before finalizing conclusions. However, there have been puzzling decisions. For instance, when the FTC updated its endorsement and testimonial guides, it included FAQs advising businesses and influencers on permissible practices. While FAQs aren’t law, they can signal enforcement intentions.

For example, when Facebook introduced influencer disclosure tools to help disclose connections between influencers and advertisers, the FTC updated its FAQ a week later, stating that these tools wouldn’t necessarily be a defense and that the overall message context matters. The FTC provided no evidence for this stance, reflecting a broader issue of issuing guidelines without substantiation. The FTC’s mandate to prevent false advertising should include evidence-based requirements, but such support is often lacking, leading to industry frustration and confusion.

To address these concerns, industry stakeholders engage in dialogue with the FTC, provide feedback during the comment periods, and sometimes seek legal clarification on ambiguous guidelines. They also invest in compliance training to ensure they adhere to the evolving standards, despite the frustration with some of the FTC’s seemingly unsupported mandates. 

AB: How might SCOTUS’ decision affect the FTC’s focus on data collection practices and consumer consent? 

JG: I foresee two primary reactions from the industry. First, trade organizations and data collectors may argue that the current practices are neither deceptive nor unfair and that if Congress wants to impose stricter data privacy laws, it should do so through new legislation rather than through the FTC’s existing framework. They may contend that the FTC is overstepping its authority by trying to impose these new standards.

Second, if the FTC enforces new data privacy measures, some companies may challenge these regulations in court. They could argue that the FTC lacks sufficient evidence or legal basis for such stringent controls. This could lead to significant legal battles as companies seek to protect their current data collection practices and avoid the operational disruptions that new regulations might entail.

The post Decoding the Legal Shifts: Legal Expert Jason Gordon on Chevron Deference and Its Advertising Fallout appeared first on AdMonsters.

HUMAN’s Satori Threat Intelligence Team began noticing that apps that don’t offer advertising were generating an abundance of IVT traffic. Concerned, they began studying the traffic source and, in the process, discovered a massive mobile malvertising scheme that used highly sophisticated tactics.

They named the scheme Konfety, which means “candy” in Russian, in a nod to CaramelAds, the Russian mobile advertising SDK that the threat actors managed to abuse. Konfety is a massive fraud perpetrated against DSPs and advertising networks, and at its peak, Konfety-related programmatic bids reached 10 billion requests per day.

To learn more about the threat, AdMonsters talked with Lindsay Kaye, VP of Threat Intelligence at HUMAN, who was instrumental in uncovering Konfety. For a complete discussion, see the HUMAN Satori Threat Alert: Konfety Spreads “Evil Twin” Apps for Multiple Fraud Schemes.

Susie Stulz: Konfety uses several new mechanisms in malvertising. This scheme uses decoy apps and evil twins. Can you provide an overview of the scheme and how it worked?

Lindsay Kaye: Sure. The threat actors created about 250 decoy Android application package files — or APK apps — which they uploaded to the Google Play Store. These apps don’t provide any sort of fraud when we download and execute them. 

And yet, in the real world, we saw a lot of IVT coming from those apps, so we started investigating. We found that APK apps in the Play Store are decoys and they provide something really important to the threat actors, which is the legitimate identifiers of Google Play Store Apps.

After a lot of research we discovered the presence of evil twins to those decoy apps. Those evil twins are not distributed in the Play Store, they spread through malvertising, and they are the apps responsible for the ad fraud. 

SS: So, the evil twin apps offered “inventory” in the programmatic markets 10 billion times per day?

LK: Yes, and at first glance, it looks like the fraudulent traffic comes from these decoy apps because both the evil twins and the decoy apps use the same Google identifiers. We believe threat actors have developed a new and very sophisticated technique to host malicious apps outside of the Play Store.

SS: Is that what tipped you off that a unique type of malvertising was at work?

LK: We saw no ad fraud stemming from the decoy apps we downloaded from the Play Store itself. In fact, those apps do not show ads, even if they technically can support advertising. However, when we looked at third-party repositories, like VirusTotal and some others, we noticed that there were two APKs with the same name. To dig deeper, we looked at the hashes and saw they were different.

SS: What do you mean by hashes?

LK: Hashes are unique identifiers which are generated when a developer applies a hash function to a file’s contents. They act as digital fingerprints, so that when there are changes to a file, a new hash will be generated. Comparing hashes allows us to determine if two files with the same name are identical or different.

SS: So, were the different hashes the first clue?

LK: Yes, that was the first tip, and we began investigating from there. We thought this was interesting: two APKs with the same name but different hashes. 

But the two APKs themselves were also really different; they weren’t even pretending to be the same app. The decoy APK in the Google Play store may be a car racing app, but its evil twin wasn’t. It was just stealing the legitimate Google identifiers of the decoy to commit ad fraud.

SS: How often were the decoy apps downloaded?

LK: Not very often; they averaged 10,000 downloads per app, which is nothing in the app world. This is one of the things that stood out to us: Apps with a small number of installs were generating a huge amount of IVT. 

SS: Is the CaramelAds SDK inherently fraudulent?

LK: SDK has some vulnerabilities that allow threat actors to abuse it. If you’re looking for an SDK to monetize your mobile app, I suggest looking elsewhere until those vulnerabilities are fixed.

SS: At present, HUMAN has observed ad fraud only stemming from Konfety, but haven’t you noticed other things getting loaded on the user devices, such as a search tool and intent signals? What are the purposes of these things?

LK: To date, we have only observed ad fraud, but in the report, we describe other things, like intent filters, that were loaded onto the devices. These are links that pretend to open other applications, such as Zoom or TikTok. Certainly, those intent links can be used for other frauds that target the user, such as credential stealing or pushing other kinds of malware onto the device. We just didn’t observe that kind of activity to date.

Obviously, this is an ongoing threat, and one that we expect will evolve and we will continue to monitor.

SS: What advice do you have for AdOps teams so they can avoid the Konfety threat?

LK: The most important thing AdOps teams can do is to use an IVT monitoring tool or platform. Obviously, HUMAN offers one, but there are others. Campaigns like Konfety show that the threat actors are getting more sophisticated, making their threats very difficult to detect.

Uncovering the evil twins required an extremely complex investigation that AdOps teams might not have the time or skillset to conduct on their own.

The second thing I’d recommend is for AdOps teams to look at their past traffic. Do you see a lot of ads served to apps that have a small number of downloads? If yes, you might want to investigate it and share your findings with your partners. Sharing insights makes the industry safer.

As I said earlier, avoid using CaramelAds until they’ve fixed its vulnerabilities. 

SS: The challenge, I think, is that fraudsters are often copycats. They see threat actors succeed with one tactic, in this case, decoys and evil twins, and they create their version of it. Does this mean evil twins in malvertising will be with us for a while?

LK: That’s likely, so AdOps teams must choose their SDKs wisely and work with only reputable companies. However, even then, threat actors may find new vulnerabilities to exploit, so monitoring IVT regularly is critical.

Cybersecurity has always been a game of cat and mouse, and Konfety is a great example of this. Threat actors were getting kicked out of the Play Store, so they found a way to commit fraud outside the official app stores.

SS: Final question: the report offers a great deal of technical descriptions, sample code, the domain names, the names of the decoy apps and so on. Where can readers access that report?

LK: It’s available online, at: https://www.humansecurity.com/learn/blog/satori-threat-intelligence-alert-konfety-spreads-evil-twin-apps-for-multiple-fraud-schemes

The post HUMAN’s Satori Team Uncovers Konfety Fraud Operation With New Malvertising Tactics appeared first on AdMonsters.

No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, it’s hard not to watch the Supreme Court since it established its conservative majority. When SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade — there was major backlash from some and celebratory cheers from others — the country knew we were at a major political turning point. 

Now, the dominoes just keep on falling. With the 1984 Chevron Deference precedent overturning, power has shifted away from the executive branch to the judiciary, potentially transforming federal government operations.  

Consequently, the court’s conservative majority has made many regulations vulnerable to legal challenges. This ruling affects executive actions, including plans to install Wi-Fi on school buses, ban non-compete clauses, implement health care coverage rules under Obamacare, and forgive student loan debt. Plus, the advertising industry will have its blowbacks. 

As no industry remains untouched by this, what does it mean for the advertising industry? The consensus is that it will infringe on regulatory efforts and cause publishers and advertisers to challenge government agency regulations that affect their businesses more fervently. 

A Look Into Chevron

Chevron deference was a legal principle established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It required courts to follow administrative agencies’ interpretations of unclear laws, as long as those interpretations were reasonable and Congress had not explicitly resolved the issue.”

For 40 years, Chevron deference played a crucial role in administrative law. However, in June 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to independently judge whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority without deferring to the agency’s interpretation of ambiguous laws.

Previously, Chevron deference allowed agencies to interpret statutes they administered as long as their interpretations were rational and not explicitly contradicted by Congress. This deference did not extend to agencies interpreting their own jurisdiction or statutes they did not administer. 

The overturning of Chevron deference in 2024 reduced the power of administrative agencies and increased the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws. This change will likely impact various sectors, including advertising, by altering how regulatory guidelines are enforced and interpreted.

Chevron Looms Over Advertising

These regulatory changes will compel the advertising industry to become more adaptable and cautious. As regulations, particularly the ones related to privacy, become increasingly complex, companies must remain agile in their compliance efforts. Publishers and advertisers must be flexible and quickly adjust to new rules and interpretations.

The reversal of Chevron could further incentivize brands to challenge FTC decisions through outside agencies, potentially altering incentive structures within the industry. On the other hand, federal agencies may now adopt slower, more cautious rulemaking, and Congress may need to draft clearer legislation related to privacy.

But not everyone sees this as a negative. Ken Nahigian, co-founder of the Balancing Act Project, sees potential benefits for the advertising industry following Chevron’s repeal. Publishers and advertisers may now be able to challenge industry regulations they believe negatively affect them, a feat Nahigian believed impossible before the repeal. 

“After today, the company will be able to challenge the rule and the courts will decide whether the agency had or didn’t have the authority. This will lead to a more thoughtful and collaborative process for regulating the industries,” said Nahgian. 

The Impact On Ad Tech’s Privacy Detox 

Publishers and advertisers will still face heightened legal scrutiny. Legal challenges to regulations, such as the FTC’s privacy crusade, will have substantial implications for the industry.  Additionally, challenges related to using AI in marketing and various consumer protection regulations could generate ripple effects throughout advertising and digital media.

With increased inspection of privacy compliance in ad tech, the Chevron appeal could add to the already stressful privacy detox ad tech is experiencing right now. Especially with the uphill battle of creating a Federal Privacy Law in the U.S. 

Major privacy-related efforts that may be impacted include the FTC’s Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Rulemaking, updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), and inter-agency efforts to prevent discriminatory automated systems in housing and employment.

This will require publishers and advertisers to stay ahead of regulatory developments and adapt their strategies accordingly. But this industry is no stranger to adapting to new regulations at a fast pace. It’s the name of the game.

The post SCOTUS Overturned the Chevron Deference Precedent…What Does It Mean for Advertising? appeared first on AdMonsters.

As much as we hate to admit, misinformation is a plague online. Any social media blogger or user can post a screenshot or salacious news without a fact check, and audiences will run with it. Now, with AI deep fakes becoming even more convincing, this problem is bound to get worse. 

Unfortunately, this has created a space for people to monetize and grow audiences based on the misfortune of others. For instance, Eric Posey, an Idaho drag performer who goes by the stage name Mona Liza Million, was paraded across alt-right media after an edited video made it seem like he was exposing his genitals at a drag show where kids were present. 

The video first started circulating after right-wing blogger Summer Bushnell posted a doctored version of Posey’s performance that blurred out his shorts to make it appear as if he was exposing himself to the crowd. With the rising rhetoric from the far right accusing drag queens of grooming kids at drag performances, this video made waves in right-wing media circles and thus defamed Posey’s characters. 

At the end of last month, the Kootenai County District Court jury unanimously found that Summer Bushnell defamed Posey and rewarded him with a $1.1 million settlement. While this was a clear victory for Posey, he still had to endure months of lies after Bushnell shared the doctored video that could have easily ruined his life. After Bushnell posted her edited version of the video in connection to the arrest of 31 white supremacists who were planning to protest the pride event Posey performed at, the video garnered thousands of views, national news coverage, and a police investigation. 

See how easily misinformation spreads? As ad ops and rev ops professionals who help create digital campaigns and generate revenue for your brands, it’s important that we keep a watchful eye on the spread of misinformation. 

The Plague of Online MisInformation and Advertising’s Contribution 

According to research from Nature, financial incentives often drive the production of misinformation. Websites that spread misinformation, posing as legitimate news outlets, remain prevalent due to the economic benefits.

During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a misinformation site operator admitted that income was their primary motivation. Media reports indicate that companies and digital platforms inadvertently support misinformation sites through advertising. Digital platforms manage most online display advertising, automatically placing ads on numerous websites, including those spreading misinformation. An industry estimate reveals that for every $2.16 spent on legitimate newspapers, $1 goes to misinformation sites.

Chris Kenna, CEO North America & LATAM BA Diversity Media Inc agrees that there are countless examples of publishers and tech platforms monetizing misinformation. 

“Big brands have found themselves funding trolling, hate speech, racism and misinformation about climate change, elections, the pandemic and the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza to name but a few,” said Kenna. 

As seen through Eric Posey’s unfortunate situation, the spread and funding of misinformation can negatively impact people’s lives. Kenna points out that, according to a global UN staff survey, 80% of respondents said harmful information endangers them and the communities they serve. He adds that it’s time that the advertising and media industries ensured that human rights, privacy and safety were at the center of how we run campaigns and the partners that we choose to invest in.  

Efforts to combat online misinformation have mainly focused on reducing demand through fact-checking, crowd-sourced labels, and nudging users toward accurate content. However, addressing the financial incentives behind misinformation is crucial. Experts proposed policies to deter platforms from revenue models that support harmful content. 

Some digital platforms have tried to cut advertising revenue to misinformation sites, yet ads from reputable companies still appear on these sites, funding them. 

How to Regulate and Stop the Spread of Online Misinformation

To effectively combat the spread of online misinformation, it is crucial to address the financial underpinnings that allow these sites to thrive. A significant portion of misinformation websites’ revenue comes from digital advertising, where automated systems place ads across numerous sites without thoroughly vetting the content. This means that well-meaning companies with substantial advertising budgets may inadvertently fund misinformation by having their ads appear on these dubious sites. 

To combat this, Devon Johnson, Co-founder of BOMESI, warns that truth and the active pursuit of it must always be protected. 

“Brands and agencies must take a stand and not just buy ads for clicks and instead shift budgets and support to platforms that are honest, trustworthy and clean,” said Johnson. “Anything else is irresponsible and lazy.” 

Furthermore, digital ad platforms must enhance transparency, allowing advertisers to see where sites place their ads. This would enable companies to make informed decisions, avoiding ad placements on misinformation sites and, consequently, cutting off a major revenue source for these sites.

At BOMESI, Johnson does not partner with platforms that don’t align with the core principle of truth. That is through responsible and honest storytelling. It’s more important for him to align with the right side of history instead of lining his pockets.  

Another effective strategy is increasing consumer transparency about which companies are financing misinformation, knowingly or unknowingly. If consumers know a company’s involvement in funding misinformation, they can boycott these companies, creating a financial incentive for companies to be more vigilant about their ad placements. 

This dual approach of increasing transparency for both advertisers and consumers can significantly reduce the funding available to misinformation sites. By making it easier for advertisers to avoid dubious sites and for consumers to identify and boycott companies that support misinformation, we can work towards a more reliable and truthful online information ecosystem.

The post Misinformation is a Drag and a Threat to Digital Media appeared first on AdMonsters.