The crumbling of the third-party cookie has been on the minds of retailers, brands, marketers and advertisers for over four years since Google made its initial announcement to deprecate the cookie. But things have changed quickly.

In the beginning, Google heavily cited consumer privacy concerns as its reasoning for removing third-party cookies. But after repeatedly delaying cookie deprecation over the years, Google recently decided not to crumble the cookie after all.

This is how Google framed the cancellation of third-party cookie deprecation:

“Early testing from ad tech companies, including Google, has indicated that the Privacy Sandbox APIs have the potential to achieve these outcomes. And we expect that overall performance using Privacy Sandbox APIs will improve over time as industry adoption increases. At the same time, we recognize this transition requires significant work by many participants and will have an impact on publishers, advertisers, and everyone involved in online advertising.

“In light of this, we are proposing an updated approach that elevates user choice. Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. We’re discussing this new path with regulators, and will engage with the industry as we roll this out.”

So what does this mean for retailers, brands, marketers and advertisers? We speak with industry experts to uncover their views of the announcement that cookies are here to stay (for now, anyway).

Surprised but not surprised

The decision caught many industry experts by surprise, sending shockwaves across the digital, retail, marketing and advertising ecosystem.

“Surprised, but not surprised,” said Janice Chan, VP Platform and Client Services, APAC at Nexxen. “As a beta partner with Google’s Privacy Sandbox, Nexxen had a close understanding of the developments and concerns that led to this reversal. I expect brands and marketers will continue to move through this cookie-less journey, meeting their marketing and business objectives with scalable and future-proofed solutions. That said, an announcement of this magnitude is always going to send shockwaves through the industry.”

“I was surprised,” added Yang Liu, Marketing and Communications Lead, Pacific at NIQ. “The years-long effort to phase out third-party cookies led me to believe that a cookieless future was imminent. Google’s decision to retain third-party cookies while offering a new user preference prompt is a significant development that, as always, presents both opportunities and challenges. Overall, I’m cautiously optimistic about Google’s commitment to enhancing user privacy through the new preference prompt.”

Liu also highlighted the ongoing availability of third-party trackers, which may offer many a sense of relief, given we can continue to use familiar targeting and measurement techniques.

“However, it also means that the industry must grapple with the ongoing privacy concerns and regulatory scrutiny that come with the use of third-party data,” said Liu. “The proposed user preference prompt may introduce greater transparency and control for users, aligning with the growing and increasingly global demand for data privacy. In the long run, its effectiveness in balancing privacy with advertising activities needs further evaluation.”

Common sense prevails for the cookie

According to Ronny Raichura, Managing Director of Impressive, common sense has prevailed here, as being cookieless was a completely unworkable solution. Raichura sees the news as a huge sigh of relief for retailers, marketers and advertisers unprepared for the cookie crumbling.

“As a result, any temporary data loss of cookie deprecation has been mitigated and advertisers can breathe easier knowing that cookies remain a short term solution to ensure measurement of their campaigns stay in tact,” he said. But regardless of this news, as the world is increasingly cross-device and fragmented, it’s important to be ready for a cookieless environment by continuing to utilise first party data to optimise and measure campaigns.

“We will continue with this approach using the most future-proofed technology – but it’s nice to now have more time without the spectre of the cookie apocalypse looming large,” he added.

Jonathan Reeve, Vice President, APAC at Eagle Eye, agrees. He said although many people will be breathing a sigh of relief today, this change was forcing a shift away from third-party cookies, which is inevitable, even if it’s constantly delayed.

“There are so many performance and privacy challenges with the use of cookies that it seems likely that alternatives – such as Google’s Privacy Sandbox and in-house loyalty programs – will continue to emerge, albeit now at a slower rate,” Reeve explained.

“I’m happy. The move away from third-party data helped Eagle Eye’s sales because of the increased focus on developing in-house loyalty programs. However, many industry players were clearly still unprepared for the change. As noted, the shift away from cookies can’t be delayed forever, but pushing out the deadline gives the poorly-prepared more time to transition.”

Scepticism in a complex digital landscape

For Billy Loizou, Area Vice President at Amperity, the sentiment towards Google’s decision to retain third-party cookies is primarily sceptical. This stems from Google’s move contradicting the industry trend, with competitors like Firefox, Safari, and Apple already abandoning cookies for new privacy-focused approaches, he noted.

“Google’s reliance on advertising revenue explains its reluctance to change, highlighting the tension between business interests and privacy concerns. The phrasing ‘so-called cookie-based advertising solution’ in the content suggests doubt about Google’s stated motivations,” he said. “This decision underscores the complex balance Google is trying to strike between maintaining its business model and addressing growing privacy concerns.”

“Overall, the scepticism reflects a critical view of Google’s motivations, questioning whether this decision truly serves user interests or primarily protects the company’s bottom line. It encapsulates the ongoing debate in the tech industry between privacy protection and profit generation.”