Ad-tech providers have historically used third-party cookies for conversion measurement, and for attributing conversions to ad interactions. Conversion measurement is critical for evaluating the performance of ad campaigns and automated bidding strategies. Now, with technology changes and privacy regulations on the rise, traditional ad-measurement systems must change in order to remain effective while protecting user privacy.

Chrome’s Attribution Reporting API (ARA), part of the Privacy Sandbox initiative, offers a new path to conversion measurement after Chrome’s planned third-party cookie deprecation in the second half of 2024, subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Google's ads teams plan to use the ARA for measurement, including on Google-owned inventory such as Search and YouTube, as well on third-party inventory available via our advertising technology products. We have made significant investments in learning to use the ARA more effectively for both, to help advertisers achieve more accurate measurement.

In a previous post, we provided a high-level overview of the approach Google’s ads teams are taking to effectively blend the ARA event-level and aggregate summary reports to maximize accuracy. A key point is that your configuration determines what data you query, and how you query it. It’s crucial for ad-tech providers to effectively configure the ARA for their use cases. Google’s ads teams have found that configuring specific ARA settings can lead to notable accuracy improvements. We encourage other ad-tech providers to integrate with the ARA to retrieve the conversion data they need, and process the ARA's output to help maintain accurate measurement in a post-third-party-cookie world.

The ARA is flexible to support various use cases. Google’s ads teams use this flexibility to configure unique ARA settings for each advertiser. This way, ARA-based measurement adapts to each advertiser’s specific needs. For example, we’ve noticed that when advertisers differ in conversion volume, it’s better to have advertiser-specific configurations related to the granularity of aggregation keys and the maximum observable conversions per ad interaction.

Google’s ads teams’ approach

Here's how Google's ads teams use the ARA to ensure the raw data we receive is as useful as possible for downstream blending. We configure ARA settings as explicit mathematical optimizations by defining objective functions to represent data quality, then choosing settings to optimize those functions. Ad-tech providers can choose their own approach. Google’s ads teams plan to continue sharing insights we learn from our own optimizations with the ad-tech community.

Please see our detailed technical explainer for more information about our approach to ARA configuration.

Background

Ad-tech providers have historically used third-party cookies for conversion measurement, and for attributing conversions to ad interactions. Conversion measurement is critical for evaluating the performance of ad campaigns and automated bidding strategies. Now, with technology changes and privacy regulations on the rise, traditional ad-measurement systems must change in order to remain effective while protecting user privacy.

Chrome’s Attribution Reporting API (ARA), part of the Privacy Sandbox initiative, offers a new path to conversion measurement after Chrome’s planned third-party cookie deprecation in the second half of 2024, subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Google's ads teams plan to use the ARA for measurement, including on Google-owned inventory such as Search and YouTube, as well on third-party inventory available via our advertising technology products. We have made significant investments in learning to use the ARA more effectively for both, to help advertisers achieve more accurate measurement.

In a previous post, we provided a high-level overview of the approach Google’s ads teams are taking to effectively blend the ARA event-level and aggregate summary reports to maximize accuracy. A key point is that your configuration determines what data you query, and how you query it. It’s crucial for ad-tech providers to effectively configure the ARA for their use cases. Google’s ads teams have found that configuring specific ARA settings can lead to notable accuracy improvements. We encourage other ad-tech providers to integrate with the ARA to retrieve the conversion data they need, and process the ARA's output to help maintain accurate measurement in a post-third-party-cookie world.

The ARA is flexible to support various use cases. Google’s ads teams use this flexibility to configure unique ARA settings for each advertiser. This way, ARA-based measurement adapts to each advertiser’s specific needs. For example, we’ve noticed that when advertisers differ in conversion volume, it’s better to have advertiser-specific configurations related to the granularity of aggregation keys and the maximum observable conversions per ad interaction.

Google’s ads teams’ approach

Here's how Google's ads teams use the ARA to ensure the raw data we receive is as useful as possible for downstream blending. We configure ARA settings as explicit mathematical optimizations by defining objective functions to represent data quality, then choosing settings to optimize those functions. Ad-tech providers can choose their own approach. Google’s ads teams plan to continue sharing insights we learn from our own optimizations with the ad-tech community.

Please see our detailed technical explainer for more information about our approach to ARA configuration.

Experiment #3: Exchange-enforced frequency capping

The RTB protocols have been updated to enable an experiment for the exchange-enforced frequency capping proposal, which intends to support the critical frequency capping use case for the inventory provided by a single exchange without reliance on user identifiers provided in bid requests. A FrequencyCap message has been added to the BidResponse in the Google RTB protocol, and as an extension of the Bid object for Google’s OpenRTB implementation. The message is structured as follows:


  message FrequencyCap {
// An ID that can represent a bidder's use-case for frequency capping; for
// example, it could represent their campaign, ad, line item, etc. It should
// not contain any user-specific information or identifiers.
optional string fcap_id = 1;

// The time units for which frequency caps can be enforced.
enum TimeUnit {
UNKNOWN_TIME_UNIT = 0;
MINUTE = 1;
DAY = 2;
WEEK = 3;
MONTH = 4;
// When INDEFINITE is used, time_range will be ignored. INDEFINITE means
// the frequency cap will be applied for a long period of time, (longer
// than a month) but not necessarily forever.
INDEFINITE = 5;
}

// The unit of time used to specify the time window for which a frequency
// cap applies.
optional TimeUnit time_unit = 2;

// The length of the time window, in units specified by time_unit, for which
// the frequency cap applies. For instance, if time_unit=WEEK and
// time_range=3, then capping is applied for a three week period. If the
// time_unit=INDEFINITE, this will be ignored.
optional int32 time_range = 3 [default = 1];

// The maximum number of impressions allowed to be shown to a user for
// the provided frequency_cap_id within the time window described by
// time_unit and time_range.
optional int32 max_imp = 4;
}


Additional information about this experiment can be found in the proposal, and we encourage participants to leave feedback in the issue tracker.

Mark Saniscalchi, Authorized Buyers Developer Relations