Connect with us

GOOGLE

Will Google Address Advertisers’ Transparency Concerns?

Published

on

An overwhelming majority of Hanapin’s State of PPC and Machine Learning survey respondents said that lack of transparency and lack of control were their biggest worries for the role of AI and Machine Learning in advertising. Below are a number of other worries from survey respondents:

Machine learning fears infographic

Some of the other worries are also correlated to the transparency and control piece, further proving how skeptical we are of machine learning and/or ‘smart’ features.

Personally, I don’t think Google is going to give advertisers more transparency and control when it comes to machine learning.

As we’ve seen in the past, the algorithms tend to improve over time. When the algorithms improve, the performance gets better. When performance is on par with what we were manually producing previously, we adopt more of Google’s automation, despite the lack of transparency and control. That process has worked for Google in the past, so why try anything new?

Where did this strategy come from?

I’ve never worked for Google, so this is purely an educated guess.

I believe Google has 2 main options here:

  1. Give advertisers more transparency and control with smart features while ALSO improving machine learning to drive better performance from ‘smart’ features.
  2. Continue giving us broad descriptions of what ‘smart’ features are doing on the back end (requiring no extra work/money) and focus SOLELY on machine learning to improve the algorithms as fast as possible.

Think about how much time it would take to explain to advertisers how the algorithm on the back end of every “smart” feature is working (transparency). My assumption is that it’s MUCH faster, and cheaper, to focus ONLY on machine learning, improve the algorithms, and drive acceptable performance faster than if Google’s focus was split. When the performance reaches the point where it’s on par with what we’re able to achieve manually, there’s no good business reason for advertisers to not adopt that feature. It’s achieving the same or better performance, minus all of the extra work on our end. So we put down our pitchforks and adopt smart bidding, for example. Google wins, but we’re not mad anymore because the ‘smart’ features are working. Transparency and control are now moot points, at least when it comes to smart bidding.

The same goes for giving advertisers more control. We could NEVER process as many data points as a modern-day machine. So why, in the short-term, would Google invest time and money in a dozen levers we can pull to influence bids when in a few months or years the algorithm will get better results than humans can achieve? At that point, we’ll be okay adopting a feature with fewer controls because it’s hitting our performance goals. It just doesn’t make business sense, from a purely financial standpoint, to invest time and money in levers that advertisers can control.

Sure, Google may lose trust or loyalty from hundreds of advertisers by using this strategy. But have we stopped using Google’s advertising platforms as a result? I have yet to meet an advertiser that has stopped using Google Ads in order to make a point about transparency. And even if they exist, their ad spend was probably a drop in the bucket for Google.

All of that being said, I wonder if we’ll reach a tipping point? Will Google introduce a feature that’s lacking so much transparency that the majority of advertisers refuse to use it, at all?

Do you think something like this has already been introduced?

Food for thought!

PPChero.com

GOOGLE

Google to pay $391.5 million settlement over location tracking, state AGs say

Published

on

Google to pay $391.5 million settlement over location tracking, state AGs say

Google has agreed to pay a $391.5 million settlement to 40 states to resolve accusations that it tracked people’s locations in violation of state laws, including snooping on consumers’ whereabouts even after they told the tech behemoth to bug off.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said it is time for Big Tech to recognize state laws that limit data collection efforts.

“I have been ringing the alarm bell on big tech for years, and this is why,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said in a statement Monday. “Citizens must be able to make informed decisions about what information they release to big tech.”

The attorneys general said the investigation resulted in the largest-ever multistate privacy settlement. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a Democrat, said Google’s penalty is a “historic win for consumers.”

“Location data is among the most sensitive and valuable personal information Google collects, and there are so many reasons why a consumer may opt out of tracking,” Mr. Tong said. “Our investigation found that Google continued to collect this personal information even after consumers told them not to. That is an unacceptable invasion of consumer privacy, and a violation of state law.”

Location tracking can help tech companies sell digital ads to marketers looking to connect with consumers within their vicinity. It’s another tool in a data-gathering toolkit that generates more than $200 billion in annual ad revenue for Google, accounting for most of the profits pouring into the coffers of its corporate parent, Alphabet, which has a market value of $1.2 trillion.

The settlement is part of a series of legal challenges to Big Tech in the U.S. and around the world, which include consumer protection and antitrust lawsuits.

Though Google, based in Mountain View, California, said it fixed the problems several years ago, the company’s critics remained skeptical. State attorneys general who also have tussled with Google have questioned whether the tech company will follow through on its commitments.

The states aren’t dialing back their scrutiny of Google’s empire.

Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was filing a lawsuit over reports that Google unlawfully collected millions of Texans’ biometric data such as “voiceprints and records of face geometry.”

The states began investigating Google’s location tracking after The Associated Press reported in 2018 that Android devices and iPhones were storing location data despite the activation of privacy settings intended to prevent the company from following along.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich went after the company in May 2020. The state’s lawsuit charged that the company had defrauded its users by misleading them into believing they could keep their whereabouts private by turning off location tracking in the settings of their software.

Arizona settled its case with Google for $85 million last month. By then, attorneys general in several other states and the District of Columbia had pounced with their own lawsuits seeking to hold Google accountable.

Along with the hefty penalty, the state attorneys general said, Google must not hide key information about location tracking, must give users detailed information about the types of location tracking information Google collects, and must show additional information to people when users turn location-related account settings to “off.”

States will receive differing sums from the settlement. Mr. Landry’s office said Louisiana would receive more than $12.7 million, and Mr. Tong’s office said Connecticut would collect more than $6.5 million.

The financial penalty will not cripple Google’s business. The company raked in $69 billion in revenue for the third quarter of 2022, according to reports, yielding about $13.9 billion in profit.

Google downplayed its location-tracking tools Monday and said it changed the products at issue long ago.

“Consistent with improvements we’ve made in recent years, we have settled this investigation which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said in a statement.

Google product managers Marlo McGriff and David Monsees defended their company’s Search and Maps products’ usage of location information.

“Location information lets us offer you a more helpful experience when you use our products,” the two men wrote on Google’s blog. “From Google Maps’ driving directions that show you how to avoid traffic to Google Search surfacing local restaurants and letting you know how busy they are, location information helps connect experiences across Google to what’s most relevant and useful.”

The blog post touted transparency tools and auto-delete controls that Google has developed in recent years and said the private browsing Incognito mode prevents Google Maps from saving an account’s search history.

Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees said Google would make changes to its products as part of the settlement. The changes include simplifying the process for deleting location data, updating the method to set up an account and revamping information hubs.

“We’ll provide a new control that allows users to easily turn off their Location History and Web & App Activity settings and delete their past data in one simple flow,” Mr. McGriff and Mr. Monsees wrote. “We’ll also continue deleting Location History data for users who have not recently contributed new Location History data to their account.”

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.

Source link

Continue Reading

DON'T MISS ANY IMPORTANT NEWS!
Subscribe To our Newsletter
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

Trending

en_USEnglish