It’s happened again, and this time it’s for good. Google’s most dramatic cookies U-turn yet is set to be its final one as the bumbling tech giant confirms that it won’t be axing third-party cookies after all.
This is despite several years of intense wrangling with regulators and the global marketing and advertising industries, which have sunk countless billions into contingency plans and new ways of working.
More importantly, has anyone paused to consider the consumer? After all was it not a greater desire for data privacy that led to the sweeping decision to phase out third-party cookies in the first place?
While this decision will no doubt please marketers and advertisers in the long run, many will be left questioning the wisdom of Google’s endless toing and froing over the last few years, with this final decision confirming the tech giant’s own mental paralysis over the issue.
Dazed and confused
The reasons for this final nail in the coffin will be obvious to many. Coming under increasing pressures from all sides – notably dissatisfied competition regulators who deemed Google’s Privacy Sandbox a potential backdoor to global market domination – it isn’t entirely surprising that this rigmarole has finally come to an end.
The most overwhelming pressures will of course have come from marketers and advertisers themselves, with their ongoing dissatisfaction with the process evident for all to see. When we see that more than three quarters (76.6%) of Google Q1 revenue this year came from advertising – we begin to understand the decision a little more clearly.
“Google’s decision to delay the phase-out of third-party cookies likely stems from a combination of regulatory pressures and advertisers’ squeamishness about its Privacy Sandbox,” OpenOcean general partner, Tom Henriksson explains.
“With ongoing investigations from the CMA and ICO, Google’s replacement is under intense scrutiny, and it may have tried spinning too many plates at once: replacing such a foundational technology while maintaining market dominance. The industry’s concerns around interoperability and the potential monopolistic implications of Privacy Sandbox have further complicated the transition.”
For Greenpark chief strategy officer, Ian Colvin, the issue stems primarily from Google’s desire to preserve its bottom line, calling the decision “a reflection of the potential impact on its ad revenues”.
He adds: “The ‘Privacy Sandbox’ alternative to third-party cookie tracking seemingly offered advertisers less granular data, so potentially lowering profits for advertisers. Google wants to protect its lucrative advertising revenues at all costs, even if that potentially compromises privacy.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for FREE
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Won’t anyone think of the consumer?
Let us not forget that at the heart of this issue – and the reason why third-party cookies were being phased out in the first place – is the need for more concrete privacy guarantees for people browsing the internet. After all, who would genuinely want advertisers to know their every move online – even if it did mean fantastically relevant, personalised ads?
Many marketers would point out that the scenery has changed dramatically over the last decade, not least with the implementation of GDPR just over six years ago, but also because of the many contingencies put in place to deal with the expected death of cookies.
While cookies might now be here to stay, customers can (in theory) reject them entirely – although as Colvin points out, this process isn’t always as simple and transparent as it should be.
“Informed choices are unlikely to happen in practice,” he says.
“You often have to dig around to find those settings, not all websites make it easy to get onto the site without accepting cookies. So, it is valid to expect many consumers may not have adequate privacy protections.”
For Henriksson, Google’s decision to gloss over these privacy concerns may end up costing it dear in the long run, as both customers and advertisers seek alternatives to its monopoly.
“This decision is more about market control than consumer protection. While Google frames this as giving users more choice, the reality is that consumers are increasingly turning to privacy-preserving browsers and open-source alternatives.
“This shift could create a fertile ground for startups focused on ethical data collection and privacy-first adtech, offering advertisers a more balanced, transparent solution that aligns with evolving consumer expectations.”
Was it all for nothing?
While this decision might feel like a monumental waste of time to many – especially marketers who have spent years crafting contingency plans and developing alternative ways of working – they are ostensibly the winners in this scenario. If there even are any winners, that is.
The amount of money and man-hours sunk into projects designed to diversify how marketers collect and use data is eye-watering at this point, and frankly wasn’t a bad thing for the industry at all.
The monopoly that Google has on online advertising is not a good thing, but it is sadly a reality – and however you want to dress it up, it is clearly stifling competition and innovation.
“This decision underscores a larger issue – the risks of over-reliance on Big Tech ecosystems. Google’s U-turn may offer short-term relief, but it also highlights the need for more diversified, innovative solutions,” Henriksson warns.
“Startups and open-source platforms can capitalise on this moment by developing alternatives that not only work within the current framework but also push the boundaries of what’s possible in a more open, interoperable tech landscape.”
This need for greater market diversity is echoed by Colvin, who spotlights a need for marketers to do more than just rely on the same tired strategies.
“While it’s good news for advertisers, it shouldn’t stop marketers leveraging more long-term solutions. Brands must take things into their own hands and focus on building stronger owned media presences, rather than relying solely on cookie-based approaches.
“To future-proof their brand presence, marketers need to focus on providing incredibly engaging, highly authoritative content across search and social to earn audience trust, leveraging the power of omni-channel search insights to build brilliant brand experiences.”
This is the inherent issue with Google’s inertia, which has now been compounded for the foreseeable future – for a time, marketers were in the cusp of genuine innovation, with the easiest, laziest option off the table.
While the market isn’t exactly back to square one – after all, users now have the power to decline all cookies and websites are require by law to seek consent – it is potentially a step back in the wrong direction.
Whether the industry reverts to type is yet to be seen, but – despite Google’s intentions – there has been too much progress in the hunt for alternatives to the third-party cookie for things to ever fully return to what they were before.
