-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GAM throttling PAAPI even when Chrome has PAAPI enabled #79
Comments
From https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/news/privacy-sandbox-for-the-web-reaches-general-availability:
Given the overwhelming usage of GAM as the publisher ad server -- making this one of the 'key business use cases' -- I'm not sure I fully understand GAM's throttling controls; how can buyers and sellers prepare for 'scaled use' if 90% of the traffic isn't going to included by GAM? Furthermore, beyond the overall testing population percentage, on a per publisher / network ID basis, this also makes integration extremely challenging, not to mention the difficultly in being able to correlate this invisible GAM behaviour with the https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/chrome-testing/ Mode A and B labelling. |
Thanks for the question! We agree that coordinated testing is important, which is why we intend to use Chrome mode A and mode B labels to coordinate when Protected Audience auctions are run. We're still waiting on the details of the mode A labels from Chrome, but will certainly share more information once we have more to share. |
Not grokking the connection, The Publisher wants their partners to be able to testdrive all this nifty new advertising technology irrespective of any specially labeled browsers. |
FYI, @rahulkooverjee-google. DevRel published those details ten days ago. Just Mode A labels? Mode B (the ones without cookies) are also to be labeled when Chrome initiates that phase in 1Q24. |
Thanks for flagging that David! To share an update:
* i.e. Ad Manager won't impose a % traffic restriction like we do for global traffic today, but there may be other reasons an auction is not run such as insufficient user consent. |
Thanks @rahulkooverjee-google.
So on labeled traffic: GAM will permit PAAPI auctions on And not at all on unlabeled traffic, or will GAM "impose a % traffic restriction like we do for global traffic today?"
Should we expect that content on this repo or elsewhere, such as a product update? |
Checking in @rahulkooverjee-google. |
By default, a traffic (labeled or otherwise) will continue as today, where we run PA auctions on a percentage of traffic. The specific changes outside of that default will be:
Please note that this subject to change given feedback from partners on how to best use mode A labels. |
Thanks @rahulkooverjee-google. The percentage of inventory on which GAM will permit Protected Audience auctions to run is that advertised here? |
Correct - we expect to enable up to 10% of traffic for PA auctions this year |
TY @rahulkooverjee-google. So those Finch (?) experiment percentages support GAM and Chrome modes. |
Can you further elaborate how that 10% of traffic will be selected? Will it be 10% of network codes, 10% of slots of a page, 10% of browsers, etc.? For the selections that are label-based, it should be simple enough for a seller to ensure that we do (for the soon-to-be-selected mode A label ) or don't (for control label mode A) return an However, for the ones that aren't labelled, I'm looking for further clarification as to how that can be be made available to PA participants -- otherwise, it will be impossible to distinguish between 'no IGs on device', 'no IG bids were placed' and ' |
Here is a table overlaying Chrome's testing doc and above comments. Does this accurately capture it, GAM's intent, @rahulkooverjee-google?
My original Sheet here. |
That seems right, except for the label_only_* labels. We haven't yet decided which mode A label will be used for PA API testing (i.e. it may not necessarily be label_only_1), and for the other labels it's not that no auction would run but that auctions would run similarly to un-labeled traffic |
Yes, @rahulkooverjee-google, that was for placement only to account for the single Mode A label in your comment. Just one label seems counter to the CMA's intent to have:
|
@rahulkooverjee-google which one? We don't want to solicit auction configs when we can be confident you won't run a top level auction |
We just published details on our planned testing, including how each label will be used, here: https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/13178817
@patmmccann to save you a click, it'll be label_only_5 |
The doc indicates Google Ad Manager's treatment is (*)
Thank you in advance for posting here should this change. |
@rahulkooverjee-google -- I noticed a new section / GAM configuration option on https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/13627134: "Allow testing on all inventory with non-Google sellers" -- can you comment on this further? Specifically, are any of these PAAPI opt-outs visible client-side in javascript via the GAM libraries? |
Hey @rahulkooverjee-google, just circling back on this. Despite having PAAPI enabled to allow testing on the full 100% of our inventory and tweaking the user agent along with applying CMA labels, it seems like GAM isn't calling runAdAuction all the time as expected on some of our test pages. There are definitely interest group buyers on the page, but there's no clear indication whether it's a technical issue or if GAM is throttling the auctions. Is there any way to verify what's happening with GAM calling runAdAuction or any documentation about how/when/why GAM wouldn't call runAdAuction? It's pretty crucial for us to have some kind of visibility for this, as it impacts our ability to properly interact with PAAPI. |
Our help center has documentation about when we do / don't call runAdAuction. It looks like you might work at Index Exchange - if that's right, I'd encourage you to contact GAM through the existing communication channels we have if you'd like deeper support. |
As per https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/13627134:
As noted #77 (comment), #65 (comment) and privacysandbox/privacy-sandbox-dev-support#110, with the GA release of PAAPI, it has become evident that there is a gap in how on-page Protected Audience
auctionConfig
, GPTsetConfig
and GAM's handling are interacting, making it extremely difficult to for buyers, sellers and publishers to begin integrating with PAAPI.In short, there is no indication on-device available in JavaScript that an
auctionConfig
registered for a component auction will not be honoured by GAM -- neither before thedisplay
call for the ad slot is executed, nor after the slot has rendered --runAdAuction
simply isn't executed, and it's invisible as to why this is the case from the browser. In other words, it acts as though there are no IGs available for the user, but that simply isn't the case. At the moment, it appears quite random as to whether or or GAM will throttle PAAPI or not.https://services.google.com/fb/forms/uastringformultisellertestsignup/ is the proposed workaround for local testing -- but if ad tech vendors are going to begin to start PA testing, we're going to need additional clarity and signalling regarding if and when a given slot is PAAPI-eligible in GAM during the ramp-up period.
Can GAM provide this much-needed clarity?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: