- Marketecture
- Posts
- DoorDash interview, plus the sandbox strikes back
DoorDash interview, plus the sandbox strikes back
It's impossible! Actually it is possible if you read the spec.
Ari Paparo
February 20, 2024
Another exciting week for Marketecture. We’ve got our in-depth vendor interview with DoorDash, our podcast focusing on deep tech and open source with Mike Driscoll, and Ari’s POV on the tree-killing documents from the IAB and Google.
Vendor interview: DoorDash
Hungry? Hungry for advertising, that is.
Commerce Media (nee Retail Media) is the new hotness with eye-popping growth rates. Last week we heard about Uber speed-running to a billion dollar run-rate and this week had rumors of Wal-Mart getting into the TV business with a Vizio buy.
Well, we’re here to deliver (get it?) on the promise of commerce media with an in-depth interview of Toby Espinosa, Vice President of Ads for DoorDash. In this interview we learn about ad offerings to merchants (like restaurants) and brands/manufacturers (like CPG companies).
Reminder: Vendor Interviews are always free for 1 week, then are subscribers-only. Subscribe for only $39/month.
 | Marketecture is sponsored by Adelaide |
Podcast: Tech and open source in advertising
Ad Tech is to technology innovation what porn is to media innovation
Would Hadoop have existed in Google hadn’t struggled with counting clicks? In this fascinating interview we talk to Mike Driscoll, creator of the Druid open source database and long-time ad tech nerd, about the forces that bring advanced technology to life in the advertising world.
We also tell a very complex tale about the corporate history of Metamarkets and how Ari tried to buy the company like four different times.
Listen to the pod now:
The Privacy Sandbox strikes back
In last week’s newsletter we went through the IAB Tech Lab’s critiques of the Privacy Sandbox from their 120-odd page doc. This week, Google strikes back with 30-ish pages of their own doc. And, as is the motto of this newsletter, we read them so you don’t have to.
The thrust of the IAB doc was that many expected functionalities of digital advertising are not currently supported in the Sandbox. The theme of Google’s response is that the functionality is totally available but in the most complex and convoluted way possible.
…the [IAB] analysis contains many misunderstandings and inaccuracies … the report appears to ignore the broader objectives … to enhance user privacy while supporting effective digital advertising
Will Not Fix
One of the IAB’s themes is that many of the current functionalities critical to advertising are not supported in the Sandbox. Google agrees, writing:
“[The Sandbox proposals] are not designed to offer 1:1 replacements for third-party cookies… In order to deliver meaningful improvements to user privacy, it’s not viable to recreate every marketing tactic as it exists today.”
Based on Google’s responses we’ve create a list of what functionalities are not supported and aren’t going to be. Here’s our list:
IAB request | Google response (paraphrased) |
|---|---|
Create and modify an audience across sites | Each site puts the user into a group, no visibility across groups |
Advertisers can’t see existing interest groups | You can put the user into the groups and bid on them, but you can’t interrogate a user’s groups to do things like boolean logic. |
Avoid bidding against myself | You can see multiple groups on the same site but not across sites, so while Google says this is possible, my reading says it is not. |
Bidding on multiple groups for same user | If a user is both in the “shoes” and “boots” group you will bid on both and potentially 2nd price yourself. Google says this is a feature not a bug. |
Competitive exclusion | Doesn’t work with 3P cookies so STFU |
X-device (targeting and reporting) | Doesn’t work with 3P cookies so STFU |
Running a 2P auction | No one wants this, go cry about it |
Cannot bill on CPA | No one wants this, go cry about it |
Deal IDs reporting | Since Deal IDs are arbitrary strings if we supported this reporting it could be misused to identify individual users |
Buyer macro reporting | Would enable identification of individuals, so no |
Campaign-level frequency capping | Freq cap works at the interest group level only |
Go ask Alice … how to serve my ads
A large category of responses from Google fit into the theme of “supported, but in a way that will require you to take pharmaceuticals to understand”. Dear reader, I am doing my best here.
IAB request | Google response (paraphrased) |
|---|---|
Creatives must be associated with interest groups at the start so you can’t build audience in advance | There’s an API for updating creatives/campaigns once per day per group. (This is a common misconception i’ve heard from a lot of people) |
DSP “No bid” reporting | This can be done with the Private Aggregation API and the IAB Tech Lab should create a standard way to do it (natch!) |
Add a user to an audience outside the browser | “We acknowledge that coordination is required between parties…” Basically very difficult. |
VAST Tag | Supported, RTFM |
Creative pre-registration with SSPs | Honestly I didn’t understand Google’s response |
Runtime data for brand safety | Actually the Sandbox verifies the browser contextual information so it is more accurate than current systems, STFU |
A lot of stuff about security, fraud detection, etc | I have no idea, read it yourself |
Concerning…concerning…
Some of Google responses actually made me a bit more concerned than I was previously. Like a kid listening to his parents quarrel, I gleaned some tidbits, which I will leave to the reader:
Second price auction reporting is only provided to the seller and the winner, no loss data sent to other bidders
Viewability measurement is totally TBD (seems important!)
Link decoration changes for tracking click-through attribution — not now but maybe in the future
The key-value service published by DSPs and SSPs is not secure, potentially third parties could glean budgets and creatives
The spicy bits
You know I love the drama. The vibe of the Google response is RTFM. But my favorite side-by-side is regarding whether protected audiences will use more resources, to which the IAB says:
This is a simple physics problem - if you ask a system to do more work, it will require more compute, network and power.
Google’s response:
This overlooks the possibility that removing cookies from the traditional programmatic auction could reduce compute and costs.
Next steps
I imagine the IAB is now going to respond with a 100 page paper that I’ll be forced to read. But we’re hitting some level of diminishing returns. The reality is that the biggest problem with the Sandbox right now is the density of technology documentation, and until tutorials, sample code, and production testing is widespread we’re going to be talking past each other.
Reading list
Here are some of last week’s stories, especially those referenced on the pod.
Google’s response to the IAB Tech Lab
DoubleVerify is classifying sites in tiers of MFA-ness
The Trade Desk is working on a whitelist of the top 500 sellers and publishers. There’s more to this story, me thinks…
Trade Desk is also making progress bringing OpenPath to CTV with Cox and Vizio on board
Deep dive profile of Adalytics
Wal-Mart rumored to be looking at buying TV manufacturer Vizio in a deal that would accelerate retail media
Ari joins the board of French CTV company Vibe.co (with funny illustration)
Reply