Tag: mobile number database

Although they already seem very old news – that is the effect that the intense beginning of the year has had on the news news – the judicial crises of Facebook and the other giants of the network are not such old news. Facebook has been accused of monopoly in a judicial maneuver that Netherlands Mobile Database involves most of the US states, which portends complex problems for this year and the immediate future that lies ahead. But in addition to that is added an accusation launched by a group of attorneys general against Google. It has not achieved as much consensus as the attack on Facebook – in this case ten states are behind the lawsuit – but it does start from the same base and becomes an equally clear sign that the authorities are increasingly focused on the dominant role of big tech.

The accusation indicates that Google is a monopoly and that it has used anticompetitive practices in the field of online advertising, controlling prices and reducing the power of maneuver of small players. In addition, and this is where Facebook has become a collateral guest in the process, the plaintiffs also accuse them of having closed an agreement with Facebook when it entered the advertising market, an agreement that goes against free trade and in the they used – so they say – their power as a dominant player. Of course, Google defended itself against these accusations at the time and the process is still in the early stages, but the documentation that is becoming the epicenter of the judicial process is serving to see from the inside how the online advertising market works and the role of the big ones.

The New York Times has had access to the documents on which the prosecution bases its criticism of the agreement between Facebook and Google. Facebook was going to compete directly with Google for part of the digital advertising market but backed down, staying in its own area of ​​maneuver and  Brother Cell Phone List not encroaching on the terrain where Google dominates. It did, the documents now say, because the two giants struck a preferential deal. Google eliminated a potential competitor and Facebook achieved very advantageous conditions when managing ads in Google tools. The data to which the Times has had access paints a very flattering image for Facebook, so much so that its competitors are already talking about unfair treatment for them. They do it, yes, from anonymity, because they do not want it to affect their relationship with Google.

What exactly are Google’s other partners criticizing about the deal data made public in the Times investigation ? For them, the deal gives Facebook a significant competitive advantage over them. In general, the terms of the agreement with Facebook are much better than those of the general agreements that Google closes with its advertising partners. Thus, Facebook made sure thanks to the agreement that it would win a predetermined percentage in all the bids in which it participated. The other players did not know that this happened and, according to the accusations in the lawsuit, Facebook always won, regardless of whether another player bid higher than them (as a Google spokeswoman explained to the Times this is not true: Facebook had have to beat the highest bids to win them).

It is not the only benefit. It also had better bid times (300 milliseconds versus 160 or less for everyone else) and advantageous data terms. Facebook could directly bill the sites where its ads appeared, giving it access to pricing data (and taking it out of Google’s absolute control of pricing data), and it also had access to better data to understand. how the market works. According to the data collected by the Times , Google agreed with Facebook to help it better understand where ads should be displayed, something that does not happen with other partners.

When the coronavirus crisis erupted nearly a year ago, advertisers quickly made decisions about their advertising budgets and advertising actions. Some suspended the announcements entirely, in a kind of waiting time to see what the next weeks would bring. Others, although they kept Nepal Mobile Database the hype, made decisions about what to launch, where and when. Pandemic ads appeared, certain types of messages were paused, and new parameters were added to programmatic advertising. In this last area, the advertisers – hoping to recover in health – blocked all those keywords that linked to the disease and that were negative. Fearing brand safety and seeking to shield it as much as possible, marketers tried to prevent their ads from appearing in all the news items that touched on the virus. It was a way of not appearing on dubious sites that were taking advantage of the issue, but also a way to prevent their positive and bright ads from accompanying especially dramatic and tragic news.

And this was a very big problem for the media and for advertisers: for the former, all the news ended up being about the coronavirus and, for the latter, this meant that they were left out of content with a large audience and reference media. A June study found that 43% of the media recognized that keyword blocking had clearly become a problem . 23% even pointed to it as something “strongly” problematic. With the blockade, revenues were falling and the content that readers wanted the most at the time they were looking for it more and more was not being monetized. Estimates indicated that most online media had lost their programmatic advertising revenue.

Possibly, moreover, the advertisers had been overly cautious. Studies at the time noted, in general, that consumers did not reject advertising during those especially dramatic months of the pandemic. They understood that Brother Cell Phone List he had to go on because the world went on too. But, in addition, in general, marketers are mistrustful when it comes to media and programmatic advertising. That is, brand safety is a problem and an important one, but they are making the media pay for debts that do not belong to them. Internet users do not see the content served by social networks the same as those served by the media and what in one case is a complicated and toxic keyword is not in the other. That is what can be concluded from a recent British study .

The study was carried out by Reach, who studied how ads are perceived and what consumers believe. In general, Internet users trust the media more than they do other online channels. Thus, 73% acknowledge that they expect to see unreliable content on social networks, 43% on sites with user-generated content and 19% – much less – on news sites. The same happens with violent content and those that generate shock. 52% expect violent content on social networks and 44% on user-generated content sites, compared to 9% in the news media, and 59% do so with content that impacts on social networks and 47% in the generated by users, compared to 14% in news sites. In other words, the contents that weigh down the image of the brand and that become toxic do not usually appear in the media.

Millions of articles have been written since Apple’s announcement of the launch of its new iOS14 operating system. In these months, a kind of impenetrable forest has been built, as if there were no alternatives that respect that capital binomial on which the digital advertising industry is based, respecting the privacy of users, on the one hand, and optimization of digital campaigns through personalization, on the other. At the beginning of this entire journey, the ominous voices Namibia Mobile Database focused on the problems that the new operating system would bring to the digital advertising industry by positioning Apple as a leading brand of privacy and transparency of user data. In this sense, for example, Facebook, before the launch of iOS14, had anticipated a 50% drop in the revenue generated by its Audience Network, since it considers that a relevant part of iPhone users will prefer not to be tracked. Which would lead to a decrease in the use of data for commercial reasons, with the consequent damage to advertisers. But also for consumers themselves, since it would be more difficult for them to receive advertising for products or services that interest them.

The reality is that with iOS14 Apple has reinforced the Limited Ad Tracking function with which data collection is restricted, thus following a slogan that it launched in early 2019, and that it published in giant letters on an advertising poster that said : What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone . The consequence is that now, expressly, each user has to accept that they can be tracked, making use of the consumer identifiers in the Apple environment, known as IDFA and which are prepared according to the use of the apps and tastes of consumers. This consent allows brands to collect data and generate profiles with which to better segment their campaigns.  At the same time, there are a couple more elements to take into account and perhaps less talked about. I am referring, first of all, to the nutritional label or labeling of each app with which Apple shows the user the type and volume of data that a given application collects from it. As well as if these are linked to them or if they are used for tracking. And along with this, the fact that developers, for updates to their apps or uploading new ones in the App store, have to provide information about the privacy practices used by each app, which must be absolutely respectful of the regulations in force.

To facilitate this entire process of adaptation to the new operating system, the digital advertising industry has taken important steps and is implementing solutions. Some top playersFor example, they are paving the way for brands that use their platform so that they are not adversely affected by the change. And it recommends, on the one hand, that they implement Brother Cell Phone List a new SDK (app development software). In this sense, he remarks that, if possible, always use the latest version published, since it is necessary that it supports the requirements of iOS 14 and adapts to the limits set by the Apple SKAdNetwork API in terms of monitoring and measurement. of the campaigns. As well as for another, create a separate account for campaigns targeting iOS 14 users. This mitigates the overall impact that iOS 14 limitations may have on performance.

For its part, Google has issued some recommendations for adapting brands to the new reality. Among them, update the latest versions of their SDKs: Google Analytics for Firebase SDK, Google Mobile Ads SDK and Interactive Media Ads SDK so that the integration with Apple’s SKAdNetwork is effective. At the same time reducing the number of campaigns in apps to less than a hundred, and that when these are app installation (ACi), they are between 10-20 in total. As well as prioritizing the scope of the campaigns over the return on investment, thus changing the objective of these and directing them to CPA (Cost per Acquisition).

The relationship between advertising and childhood is complicated. Different studies have shown the links between the content of advertisements and children’s eating habits. If the little ones have an increasingly less healthy diet and abuse so-called fast food products, such as snacks, it is, in part, because advertising has surrounded them with messages related to it. In addition, the advertisements do not always respect, as other analyzes have shown, protected schedules and certain child protection measures.

But, equally, the ads have a significant problem in respecting gender stereotypes. Advertising, in general, has tried to correct the way it represents both women and men in recent years. Ads have become more diverse and presentations less skewed. Thus, in recent years, they have become fashionable from the advertising of female empowerment or the one that Mexico Mobile Database represents parents without falling into the cliché of the ‘clumsy father’ who does not even know how to change his baby’s diaper. Several giants in the consumer products industry have already made public statements about how they want to change ads and how to destroy stereotypes. Unilever did even a couple of weeks ago a public promise to improve diversity and representation in their advertising. In addition to avoiding gender stereotypes, you will also increase diversity among the population groups your ads represent. They seek to be more inclusive at all levels.

But while all this is happening in advertising in general and especially in adult advertising (adults who, let’s not forget, are making consumer decisions based on how brands engage with different causes), what is happening with advertising for children? ? Are children’s products and their advertisements making decisions to bet equally on diversity and on eliminating gender stereotypes? There are success stories and concrete examples. The last Barbie campaigns have shown diverse Brother Cell Phone List profiles of women and have included children, going viral. The Toy Planet catalogs are also viral, which has been making catalogs for eight years away from stereotypes and which are going viral. “It is about breaking the sexist clichés in the toy sector and promoting the happiness of the little ones through play. Let them feel free to choose what to play with, what to play and who to play with!”, He explained this Christmas to El País Ignacio Gaspar, general director of Toy Planet.

These success stories, however, coexist with a less optimistic reality in the sector. Toy advertisements and the product presentation itself (and anyone who has entered a toy store in recent months will have seen it) continue to repeat gender stereotypes. A recent study by the Consell de l’Audiovisual de Catalunya (CAC), which has analyzed online toy advertisements, not only confirms the trend but also provides data that makes things even worse. Thus, almost 70% of the toy video advertisements published on the Internet not only perpetuate gender clichés, but also do so twice as much as they do on television. The investigation has focused on the toy ads served on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter and has taken the Christmas campaign as a brand. 68% of those ads repeated sexist views: 35% were on linear television. The data is also worse if you focus on just one scenario of online advertising. In videos featuring child influencers, 9 out of 10 pick up gender stereotypes.

Thus, these ads sell girls motherhood, care and a universe of pink and pastel colors, while for boys they sell worlds of action. The study has even noticed a divergence between how the protagonists of the ads are presented. If they are girls, they are overwhelmed by emotions (they laugh or cry). If it is them, they are ‘doing things’ (“they prepare, activate and win”). All this happens, they point out from the CAC, because of the control of what happens in internet advertising is much more relaxed than what happens in traditional media. “We see how advertising is moving from highly regulated media, such as radio and television, to a new digital environment,” says the president of the CAC, Roger Loppacher. “The result is that minors inadvertently receive an advertising impact of high intensity and a high presence of gender stereotypes, a fact that also has consequences in the perception that they may have in relation to male and female roles in our society, “he denounces. The analysis of the Catalan body is not the only one that has reached these conclusions. The Institute for Women has also presented a recent study that reaches very similar conclusions . In toy commercials, boys are policemen or pilots while girls are hairdressers. Boys are warriors and girls caregivers, repeating a classic gender cliché.

The regulatory changes that the European Union has implemented in recent years have made things more difficult for targeted advertising on the internet. Until now, the great success of these types of ads was in the fact that they used large amounts of information about consumer behavior patterns to offer them the ads that best suited their interests. The ads followed online browsing, crossed it with various data Malta Mobile Database sources, and very efficiently matched messages to consumer profiles. However, changes in privacy regulations began to make that more complicated. European data protection law limits what companies can do with information. Consumers must give their consent to receive messages from brands and they also have to ask for permission to collect information. That has put cookies, for example, under threat, but it has also limited how and how much the information can be used.

But the truth is that the limits on what can be done in online advertising are not going to stop there: it seems unlikely. The European Union is working on two regulatory packages that will affect what happens on the internet and what big technology companies can do . This can mean changes in areas such as payment for copyrights and what is considered subject to those rights, but also have effects in areas such as digital advertising and what brands do with them. For the giants of the network, personalizing as much as possible and segmenting everything possible could be destined to disappear.

The idea is not exactly new: a few months ago, it became known that the European Union was analyzing behavioral ads , to determine what impact they have. The European Parliament supported a petition in its legal affairs Brother Cell Phone List committee to ask for the regularization of these types of advertisements. What they wanted was for the rule to be much clearer and to limit what advertising can do with microtargeting. That is, they want it to be less obtrusive and less intrusive. Now, the European Data Protection Supervisor, Wojciech Wiewiorówski, has called for a ban on targeted ads based on monitoring consumer habits. It is the answer to the consultation of the parliamentarians of the Union and, as they point out in TechCrunch , it can become one of the starting points for one of the most important changes in European regulations in the digital field.

As they point out in the technological environment, the recommendation is a placeholder. That is, it is to position itself clearly and hard against the weight of the big tech lobbyists and their fight against the new regulations. The final rule may not be that harsh, but the supervisor’s conclusion serves to create context. The supervisor asks that the measures go beyond demanding transparency. “Those measures should include a phasing out leading to a ban on targeted advertising based on pervasive tracking, as well as restrictions on the categories of data that can be used for targeting purposes and the categories of data that they can be communicated to advertisers or third parties to allow or facilitate targeted advertising “, the supervisor points out in its conclusions.

To this must be added that the EU member states themselves have just shortened “a negotiation mandate for the revision of the regulations on the protection of privacy and confidentiality in the use of electronic communications services”, which will address privacy online in general and that will also have an effect on online advertising. The Portuguese presidency will now begin to negotiate with the European Parliament on what the new rule will look like, which will apply to all online services when their end users are in the European Union. All data will be confidential. The list will include information such as some metadata such as the location or time of the user, which they consider “may be as sensitive as the content.”

What makes the image of a cow “overtly sexual”? The question seems somewhat ridiculous, but it is one that you can end up asking once you follow the reasons why Facebook has closed the advertising campaigns of some other SMEs. An image of a cow walking through a meadow was considered too sexy by the systems that control and authorize Malaysia Mobile Database advertising on the social network and banned. For the photographer who had launched the campaign, and who depends in his business on advertising on social networks and Google, the decision of the social network was one more in a long list. The photographer insists that there is nothing daring in his photos, but even so he has seen how Facebook closed campaigns with a neon sign that said “disco” (they accused him of promoting alcohol), with some photos of fireworks ( for breaking the regulations on gun advertisements) or an office skyscraper (like the cow, it was overtly sexual). His account came, directly, to be blocked for advertising. 

The story of the British photographer is one of many, one that in this case includes an article from the BBC. It is not the first and possibly it will not be the last, because complaints about how ads are managed on social networks and how automated systems profile the information that is uploaded Brother Cell Phone List to them (at least when SMEs do it) are a constant for quite some time. The case of the photographer is similar to the one being denounced by several adapted and inclusive clothing companies, who have seen their ads canceled by the social network for questionable reasons. One of them tried to sell a sweatshirt asking for social distancing and was blocked by Facebook for promoting “medical and health care products and services that include medical devices” (although what they were selling had nothing to do with it). The brand appealed and Facebook ended up agreeing with it.

As published in The New York Times, the story is one example, one of many, of one of the problems that adaptive and inclusive fashion companies face on the social network. Their algorithms – on both Facebook and Instagram – often block their ads. One of the brands the Times spoke to says they usually come across this problem at least once a week. Why? In this case, the bias of the artificial intelligence that manages the automated control of the ads is the problem. “It is the story to be told of the consequences of classification in machine learning,” explains artificial intelligence expert Kate Crawford to the newspaper. The AI ​​tries to create its “standard human” using different sources of information, but as has been shown in the past these sources actually make it have a skewed view of reality.

It happens, for example, with gender stereotypes and it also happens with the perception they have of humans with disabilities. Facebook is not the only company that faces this problem, true, but it is one of the most visible due to the importance of its advertising platform for companies. Likewise, to all this we must add how the advertising standards of online services – almost all of them American – see and order the world. The platforms adopt puritanical measures to avoid sexual content that would suppose a conflict in the US, but that end up having somewhat absurd ramifications. There is the story of the lawsuit in France against Facebook for censoring Courbet’s painting The Origin of the World for considering it pornography, but also all the stories that appear every time some organization tries to campaign against breast cancer. They are directly blocked.

Returning to the experiences of the photographer of the censored cows and what he points out to the BBC, the problem is not only that his ads are blocked but also the fact that they achieve an interlocutor in the tech companies – a human one who is not a machine. – it’s very complicated. You can’t talk to anyone to clear up that mistake, and machines continue to apply their biases and learned rules. And this is a problem that Facebook, for example, has been dragging on for a long time: its automated customer service has angered SMEs , its advertising reserve, who complain about the blocking of accounts and ads without being able to speak to someone real to clarify problems.

One of the big problems with programmatic advertising is where the ads appear and how you control who receives that advertising investment. Since everything is in the hands of the algorithms and that they care about reaching the appropriate targets above anything else, advertising is served interchangeably in one medium or another. What matters is not the support, but who will see that ad. It makes a lot of logic, yes, but it has already put different players in the sector in a lot of trouble. A few years ago, YouTube was in a scandal when it was discovered Macedonia Mobile Database that ads from different brands were appearing alongside extremist content. It has not been the only scandal of these characteristics and, from time to time, programmatic must face this type of situation. For brands, this data reinforces the idea that programmatic advertising can pose a risk to their brand image. Appearing on undesirable sites not only leads to paying for advertising impressions to whom you would rather not, but also for consumers to associate your brand with those spaces.

One of the last workhorses has been in disinformation and fake  news. Advertisers don’t want their ads to appear on such sites, for clear reasons. Consumers do not want their advertisements to support the headlines that publish this type of information, but also those responsible for brands do not want it to affect their brand image and reputation. Appearing in fake news spaces can damage your credibility. The coronavirus crisis has led to the emergence of new threats in this area, as a lot of misinformation and fake news related to the disease have been generated. One of the areas in which this has occurred is in vaccines and, as a study has just shown, brands are economically fueling those spaces with their advertisements.

A NewsGuard study has just shown that between February last year and this year, more than 4,315 brands saw just over 42,000 of their ads appear on sites that publish conspiracy theories and lies about the coronavirus. His estimates indicate that these ads will have generated millions of impressions and, with them, a revenue stream for those media. The impression Brother Cell Phone List data served on disinformation sites is always worrying for brands, but, as recalled in Business Insider , now it is a little more so because of how the market has changed during the year of the covid. Advertisers have taken refuge more than ever in internet advertisements and with this they have achieved that the part that digital advertising takes from their advertising budgets is greater. The problem now is how much of that investment goes to these types of sites.

The problem of misinformation about the coronavirus
The brands affected are many and of all kinds. There are giants of all conditions, but also public organizations and medical companies with campaigns linked to vaccination or prevention of the disease. Thus, the NewsGuard data lists Pepsi, Verizon, Marriott, Walmart, Pfizer or the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) among the brands that have been affected. One of the examples is the CDC campaigns, which the study located, for putting a sample, on an anti-mask site and which defends that taking zinc cures the disease. The study shows that, despite the fact that companies are increasingly active when it comes to controlling in which media their ads appear, with this they do not achieve absolute control and do not avoid the risks of programmatic. Undesirable media for their brands continues to creep in, in part because they continue to use the same advertising tools that legitimate media use. 67% of the ads located on disinformation sites about the coronavirus had been served by Google.

The year we have left behind is unprecedented and the pandemic has shocked our world. The way we interacted, communicated, and worked has been completely transformed. The little things that we took for granted, such as a face-to-face meeting, a hug, or a chat with friends over coffee, have become impractical both to protect ourselves and the people we love. In all this, technology has been a great ally. It has given us tools Luxembourg Mobile Database to share, communicate and work from anywhere in the world. This has led to an increase in the time spent on the Internet, a greater use of mobile devices, as well as the time spent on social networks. Along with this, today the consumer is increasingly concerned about the value that a brand can bring to society and the environment that surrounds it. And this has become the main factor that determines the corporate strategies of companies. The result of all these new consumer trends and changing patterns has been a boost in innovation by brands. Aware of the situation, the media and marketing specialists must take this new context into account in their digital strategies, focus on quality and efficiency, as well as work with technology companies that make transparency and innovation their strengths.

But what are the digital market trends that instill optimism in media and marketers that they should consider in 2021 to successfully develop their advertising strategies? The relevance of the context in which the ads are inserted will continue to be a very important element in 2021. Since it allows to guarantee a personalized and high-quality positioning in Brother Cell Phone List the digital investment in media according to the values ​​of each brand. The depreciation of third-party cookies remains an imminent challenge and marketers need to start working on perfecting new technologies if they want to continue to get the most out of their campaign targeting. On the other hand, a potential result of removing third-party cookies could be that marketers turn their attention to insights based on campaign performance, such as contextual targeting.

In line with the above, I want to highlight a very relevant fact. And it is that almost three quarters of consumers (70%) are more likely to remember an ad when it appears next to content whose context is relevant. This year will see advertisers use contextual targeting on a large scale and with a greater focus on brand suitability. This requires a sophisticated technology capable of analyzing in an atomized and detailed way the content of a web page, as well as its tone and the emotions that emanate from it to determine the most appropriate context for a certain brand. Unlike cookies, contextual analysis considers the content of a page, making it completely safe for a world without third-party cookies. Contextual targeting is a very effective alternative for both advertisers and media. Since the former will be able to increase the efficiency and ROI of their investments in digital. And the latter have the opportunity to monetize their websites with premium inventory in a world without cookie data.

The essence of digital advertising in recent years has been in personalization. Consumers expect ads that are relevant to their interests and not that companies send them content in bulk and with little importance. At the same time, however, privacy and data management concerns have been growing. Citizens do not want companies to have access to so much information about them and the regulations that have been approved over the last few years have been limiting the access that large companies have to information.

Faced with all this, there are the positions that the companies themselves occupy. Advertisers are very responsive to data usage and see it as a powerful asset. The information allows them to segment the campaigns in a very tight way. Rather than launching generalist ads or those that hope to reach a specific consumer niche, the ads are delivering messages that are ‘for you’. They start from what you have seen on the Lithuania Mobile Database internet, what you have bought and from other data sources that accurately and specifically outline what interests you. But that publicity is in jeopardy. After reigning for years in the online advertising market, it is now facing problems, tensions and business decisions that put it at risk. The European Union, for example, is working against microtargeting , to reduce what companies can do in terms of segmentation. The process was still in its early stages last October, but it clearly showed that the EU wants to make internet advertising less invasive.

Even so, the most immediate blow will be the death of the cookies, which is looming and which will change everything completely. The disappearance of cookies has been in the making for a long time and has had different players and peak moments. Google’s decisions have become, yes, the final Brother Cell Phone List shock that will impact its use and its potential when segmenting advertising. Chrome, Google’s browser, announced, with enough time to give the industry room for maneuver, that it would block cookies by default from 2022. The advertising industry has to work to find alternatives, but it seems increasingly clear that the solution will be in a completely different online advertising. That will mean the death of personalized advertising as we know it.

Many industry players expected that the death of the cookie would imply the boom in alternative ID systems that would continue to identify consumers and follow their browsing patterns to determine profiles without using that technology. It is possible to do it: companies like Facebook already do it, in fact. However, Google’s latest decision seems to make dominance of those technologies unlikely. As they point out in Campaign , Google’s latest decision in online advertising has blown away hopes that this would be what was coming. Google has made it clear that it will not create alternative systems that achieve the same as cookies.

And that’s where the key point comes in: what exactly has Google just announced and why can it completely change how the online advertising market operates? Google has just revealed that, when cookies disappear, it will no longer sell targeted advertising based on navigation. That is, it will not focus on the consumer in a personalized way, in order to respect more their privacy. The idea is to launch a kind of group advertising, for which it will use a new tool called Privacy Sandbox. Advertisers will be able to reach like-minded consumer groups, but they will not be able to go to the specifics and the concrete.

Privacy is one of the key issues for all the actors in the advertising industry that IAB Spain, IAB Europe and the rest of the national IABs represent. Following the anun ci or by Google last week on Google Ads, as has pub l i c ad or IAB Europe , a public dialogue will, in the coming days, to address the impact of this announcement and possible Lebanon Mobile Database implications for advertisers, ad tech intermediaries, and publishers. Google’s ad has been positioned as necessary to ensure consumer privacy protection. However, the sophisticated data protection laws of the European Union already guarantee consumer protection and, for IAB Spain, effective consumer protection does not imply that personal data is not processed for the delivery and measurement of digital advertising, rather, it is always done within strict compliance with the European privacy framework.

Along the same lines as IAB Europe, we are committed to an innovative and dynamic future for digital advertising in which advertisers, publishers and consumers have a wide range of providers to choose from : solutions without identifiers, along with others that are based on in an identifier. In this regard, it is relevant to note that important innovations Brother Cell Phone List are taking place in approaches that are equally legitimate from the point of view of privacy and consumer protection. We are confident that all players in the digital advertising environment, including Google, can work on a European cross-industry open source standard developed to ensure compliance. And that this accommodates all existing solutions and those that are developed within compliance with the standard. During the next week there will be a Town Hall, organized by IAB Europe, in which all participants will be able to present their doubts and questions to Google in an open session for IAB EU, IAB Spain and other national IAB associates. Soon we will share more details about it with the IAB Spain associates, so that they can attend and participate in the session.