The encryption key sputtered. Revenue didn’t.
Here’s the thing about alternate IDs: they’ve been peddled as the savior of ad targeting since forever. Email-based. Browser-based. Whatever-based. The promises have been loud. The reality? Less so.
This week, a CTV publisher accidentally provided a masterclass in just how little clout these so-called solutions actually have. A flubbed encryption key on their UID2 implementation rendered all their alternate IDs useless. For months. And guess what happened? Crickets. The Trade Desk, the grand administrator of UID2, apparently didn’t notice. Or perhaps they didn’t care. Either way, when the publisher finally fixed it, their revenue remained stubbornly unchanged. Zero impact. Zip. Zilch.
This isn’t just a minor technical hitch. It’s a glaring indictment. It shows that for all the breathless pronouncements, the industry has stubbornly refused to force adoption. Buyers aren’t clamoring for them. Sellers aren’t seeing the benefit. It’s a solution looking for a problem that barely exists, or at least, not one that alternative IDs can solve meaningfully.
Are Alternate IDs Still the Future?
This accidental A/B test provides more concrete data than a thousand industry whitepapers. It confirms what many suspected: the emperor has no clothes. The Trade Desk pushed UID2 for years. The publisher obliged. And when it was broken, nothing happened. This should be a wake-up call. If your alternate ID solution doesn’t move the needle on revenue when it’s broken, what good is it when it’s working? It suggests the entire value proposition is built on sand.
The change made zero impact to their revenue.
That quote, stark and simple, should be plastered on every ad tech company’s wall. It’s a natural experiment, the kind of which marketers only dream, and it landed with a thud. It suggests the demand side—the buyers—simply aren’t prioritizing these identifiers. They’re either content with current methods, or they’ve realized the privacy implications outweigh the supposed targeting benefits. The whole premise of a universal, trackable ID seems to be crumbling under its own weight, propped up by vendors rather than genuine market demand.
Kochava’s FTC Settlement: A Regulatory Reckoning?
And then there’s Kochava. Battling the FTC for nearly four years over allegations of sharing sensitive location data. Data that could, you know, pinpoint visits to a doctor or a place of worship. Now, they’ve settled. The terms? They won’t share that kind of sensitive location data without explicit consent. About time.
This isn’t just about Kochava. It’s a sign of the regulatory times. The FTC, often seen as a lumbering giant, is finally showing some teeth. Especially when it comes to location data. This settlement is a clear signal to every ad tech company that handles this kind of sensitive information: get consent, or face the music.
Allison Schiff, our data privacy guru, rightly points out that this is happening within a broader context of increasing regulatory scrutiny. We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto. The days of assuming you can collect and share whatever you want are numbered. Companies that built their business models on the free-for-all of location data are going to find themselves in an increasingly difficult position. This settlement is less of an endpoint and more of a starting gun for stricter enforcement. Expect more of this.
The implications for ad tech are profound. If location data requires explicit consent, that drastically shrinks the pool of available data and limits the granularity of targeting. This forces a fundamental reevaluation of how these companies operate and make money. It’s a harsh but necessary correction.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: AEO Hype: 4.4x Conversion Traffic Reality Check
- Read more: TelevisaUnivision Goes Self-Serve: Hispanic CTV Push [Analysis]
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is an alternate ID?
Alternate IDs are identifiers used in digital advertising to track users across different websites and apps when third-party cookies are unavailable. They often rely on data points like email addresses or device IDs that are provided by publishers or data providers.
Did the CTV publisher lose money when their UID2 implementation failed?
No, the publisher discovered that their revenue remained unchanged after their UID2 implementation was broken, indicating the alternate ID had no discernible positive impact on their earnings.
What does the Kochava settlement mean for data privacy?
The Kochava settlement with the FTC signifies a tightening regulatory environment for location data. It mandates explicit consent for sharing sensitive location information, warning other ad tech companies about potential enforcement actions.
