After the announcement that Google was dropping their controversial, cookie-replacement project, FLoC, I've been mulling over what browser tracking really means and whether there might be a better way of doing it.
The issue with tracking cookies is they are, quite frankly, an invasion of your privacy whatever way you look at it and so it's surprising they lasted as long as they did.
However, a multi-billion dollar industry has been built up around them and so the big players are of course flapping hard about finding something to replace them. I mean, without targeted, paid advertising Google would be nothing. Same goes for Facebook.
The problem
The problem is that any technology that analyses your browsing history and uses it to present targeted advertising to you without your knowledge and approval, irrespective of where that data is processed, is an invasion of your privacy (according to GDPR, CCPA and the various other data protection laws that have been introduced across the globe over the last few years).
Imagine if you went into Tesco for your weekly shop and you noticed a bloke following you around taking notes. One of things you looked at was a roast chicken. The bloke was very interested in this particular product. Then over the next week, everywhere you went, roast chicken salespeople followed you about trying to sell you different versions of roast chicken related products; roast chicken cook books, roast chicken serving plates, carving knives etc etc. You would pretty narked I'm sure! The digital advertising industry model is no different really, it's just a bit creepier because the bloke is invisible but still watching you.
We've become accustomed to this behaviour over time, it's become normalised because it's just how the Internet has always worked. It doesn't make it any more acceptable though.
This is a fundamental flaw in the digital advertising model that wasn't addressed with FLoC, hence it's early demise. Reading about their replacement, Topics, I'm not sure that really addresses the issue either. The problem? It is still an opt out technology, which in the eyes of GDPR, is not good. Unless you opt out, Topics will target advertising towards you based on your browsing habits.
Google claim they get around privacy concerns by processing the browsing data on your own device. However, the data is still being processed in their software for the purposes of showing you targeted advertising. Under GDPR, if advertisers are going to use your data in this way, they need to obtain explicit permission from you first.
But what if they made Topics opt-in instead, how many users would actively grant permission for a platform to analyse their browsing history and use it to target advertising towards them? Maybe 0.5%? There is nothing in it for the end user user apart from 'better ads'. We all know they are kidding themselves if they think that is something that people actually want.
As such, my prediction is that Topics is also doomed. In fact, any targeted advertising technology that tries to avoid the requirement to opt in will be doomed.
The solution?
If Google, Facebook and the other big players in the advertising industry want to continue printing money the way they have done over the last two decades, they are going to have come up with a solution that incentivises users to opt into these targeted ads.
As a cycling nerd I spend a lot of time on websites like Wiggle, Merlin Cycles and Sigma Sports, drooling over the latest bike tech. Despite my loyalty to these brands though, I still don't appreciate them monitoring my behaviour then following me around the Internet with ads without my permission.
However, I am subscribed to all of their mailing lists. Why? Because I get value from them; they write interesting articles and they give me the first scoop on the latest offers.
If these brands were to give me something back in return for allowing them to track me, then I would probably allow it.
My idea is a technology that would operate in a similar way to a mailing list. A user would 'subscribe' to being tracked by logging into the vendor's website and specifically enabling tracking. In return for this the website could provide all sorts of benefits; exclusive content, discounts, early access to sales, additional features etc etc.
For this technology to work, the browser makers would need to introduce a kind of cookie V2, which fundamentally works in a similar way to the cookies we know and love, but with a key difference; it would be the user requesting a tracking cookie by 'subscribing', rather when the website.
The technology could work in a similar way to OAuth 2.0, in that when the user attempts to subscribe to tracking, they would be presented with a dialog requesting a number of specific permissions, which they would then approve. Upon approval, a tracking cookie would be set; achieved.
If the user 'unsubscribed' then the website would be notified and their associated benefits would end.
The technology should also be platform agnostic in that, once a website has obtained permission to track you, it should be able to use this permission across a range of different advertising platforms such as Google, Facebook, Bing, LinkedIn etc etc.
In Summary
As it stands the digital advertising industry has an uncertain future. It is staking all of its hopes on Google coming up with a solution that will allow it to continue operating in the way it has done over the last few decades.
Unless Google pursue an opt-in solution however, they are on a hiding to nothing. And to get people to opt-in, they'll need to be properly incentivised.
