At the Google I/O event in California this week, the Silicon Valley giant announced intentions to update privacy controls in its Chrome browser in a move some commentators have described as the “cookie apocalypse”. While more control seems great for consumers, the decision has left advertisers up in arms and raises serious ethical questions about Google’s anti-competitive dominance.

In a move initially reported by The Wall Street Journal, the changes will allow users more control over third-party cookies storing their data. Cookies are small files stored by the browser that record user activity, including recent website visits and login information. For advertisers, cookies allow the implementation of ad retargeting and behavioural advertising, displaying ads to those who have visited a website previously, or have displayed preferences that indicate they may be more likely to convert to sale.

So what does it all mean?

Google’s latest update means that users will be able to see and delete cookies that are tracking them, as well as choose to automatically delete them after a minimum of three months. These options, it is revealed, may also extend to location history in the future. While Safari and Mozilla have already taken similar, if not stricter, anti-cookie steps, Google’s large market share means the decision will have a profound impact on advertising. Previously, the improved relevancy enabled by cookies has provided a major revenue stream for many companies, who will no doubt take a big financial hit on the back of these changes if they fail to act now.

The update raises serious questions for web users and advertisers alike. Are cookies really as insidious as these changes suggest? In truth, they can actually be very useful for consumers, with many people using them to store passwords and shopping cart information. In addition, not only do reputable sites offer the choice to accept or decline cookies anyway, Chrome already offers the option to delete them, albeit on a mass scale.

For some, it may seem a little “Big Brother” knowing that companies can build a picture of their wants and needs and promote products and services to them accordingly. But if we are honest, is it not preferable to see something you might actually want rather than something completely irrelevant? There is no doubt that the changes will offer consumers more choice and reinforce an “opt-in” culture. But, as with the changes brought about by GDPR, I think many people are likely to continue opting in if they receive something beneficial in return.

Back to the drawing board

For marketers, we may be panicking a little too prematurely, particularly if we already adopt an omnichannel approach. Now is a great time to go back to basics and review our marketing strategy:

• Effective use of first-party data in the form of social media followers, newsletter subscribers, and customer lists must be a primary focus. After all, these are ready-made listeners, waiting to hear what we have to offer.
• Great content, including user-generated content, provides organic (often unpaid) reach as it will likely be shared with relevant individuals more naturally inclined to support your brand.
• There are many effective long-term strategies to increase visibility aside from advertising, including SEO, PR and social media.

The questionable motives of Google’s updates

Ultimately, the recent news invites a massive elephant into the room that many leading experts have only briefly acknowledged. Google is already a behemoth in the market. According to LiveIntent, these changes will increase cookie-challenged browser share to 82% from just 19%. While Google has not yet announced a new toolkit for advertisers, it is only a matter of time before the company takes this next step towards online monopoly.

As with any monopoly, there are negatives for companies and consumers. With Google holding sole control over data, the firm can set prices for access as it sees fit. If the bar is set too high, many smaller companies, start-ups and non profits could be priced out of the online advertising market as they struggle to compete with wealthier firms. For consumers, such a move could mean a restriction of the very concept these privacy changes look to protect: choice. Web users will only see adverts paid for by the very largest companies, reducing the range of products and services they were exposed to in the past. So who wins?

The lesson for consumers is to continue being vigilant about organisations’ use of personal data, but to not overlook Google’s own responsibilities. While we all reap the benefit of the company’s investment in new technologies, there is something a little bit terrifying about the amount of power it has over our decisions.

For marketers and advertisers, it is important that we do not see the “cookie apocalypse” as a death sentence. There are many tried and tested approaches to reaching and engaging consumers and we should see this as an opportunity to re-examine and reinvest while the opportunity remains.