Google is further integrating the Publisher Provided Identifier into its Ad Manager, aiding publishers' first-party tracking in lieu of third-party cookies
>advertiser identity resolution. https://twitter.com/... @jbrouet : Google drew a line in the sand on March 3rd, when it said it wouldn't build or support cross-site identifiers. But single-site identifiers, specific to an individual publisher, are fair game - and something Google wants to encourage. https://www.adexchanger.com/ ... @AdExchanger Ari Paparo / @aripap : Google is totally against cross-site IDs, but is totally fine with per-publisher IDs: https://www.adexchanger.com/ ... Ashkan Soltani / @ashk4n : So sneaky: Google clarifies their “privacy-first approach” While they “will not build new identifiers to track individuals as they browse across the web” Google announced today that they are *expanding* how publishers use existing identifiers (PPID) to track and target users... https://twitter.com/... See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
On March 3rd Google declared it would neither build nor support cross-site identifiers — a stance that drew 'so sneaky' reactions from privacy researchers like Ashkan Soltani and ad-tech veterans like Ari Paparo alike. The PPID integration in Ad Manager is the other half of that policy: Google is fine with identifiers scoped to a single publisher, and it is building them directly into its own ad stack.
That positioning lands mid-arc: Google's earlier cookie-replacement work like trust tokens framed the company as pro-privacy, but sources reported the plan boosted the US antitrust probe, with publishers arguing it tilts the field toward Google. Now the same company restricting third-party tracking is supplying the first-party alternative — inside its own tooling.
First-order effects
- Publishers using Ad Manager gain native support for their own first-party identifiers, letting them sustain audience targeting and frequency capping on a per-site basis as third-party cookies wind down.
- Independent cross-site identifier vendors lose their viability on Chrome inventory, since Google has explicitly ruled out supporting anything that tracks across sites.
Second-order effects
- Because the sanctioned identity path runs through Ad Manager, publishers' first-party data deepens their dependence on Google's stack rather than freeing them from it — the same leverage behind reports that Google threatened to cut off European publishers who blocked its data harvesting.
- Advertiser identity resolution consolidates into whichever platform controls the inventory: Apple's IDFA restrictions already showed how platform-level privacy changes reshape bidding and measurement, and Google's per-publisher model extends that dynamic to open-web display.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, the post-cookie web fragments into platform-scoped identity silos — each gatekeeper defining which tracking is 'private' while keeping the resolution layer in-house — giving antitrust enforcers a concrete self-preferencing case to examine.
- Publisher coalitions pushing interoperable alternatives face a structural disadvantage: competing with an identifier regime set unilaterally by the dominant seller-side platform.
The trend: Identity in digital advertising is shifting from shared third-party infrastructure to platform-defined scopes, where each gatekeeper decides what counts as privacy-preserving — and supplies the replacement itself.