Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:01]
Adelaide Media
This podcast is brought to you by Adelaide Media verification and measurement are undergoing major disruption. Legacy players are pivoting to performance, advertising AI is reshaping brand safety and attention is replacing viewability. Adelaide is leading the shift with au, a new way to assess media quality that scores placements based on their potential to drive attention and outcomes. Before your ads run, think of it like a credit score for media. Finally, a clear view of quality. Before you buy, take the guesswork out of your investment strategy and try Adelaide AU on your next campaign.
- [00:32]
Brian May
Foreign.
- [00:43]
Alan Chappell
Welcome to the Monopoly Report the Monopoly Report is dedicated to chronicling and analyzing the impact of antitrust and other regulations on the global advertising economy. I'm Alan Chappell and this week my guest is privacy technologist Brian May. Brian is a senior technology leader with over 40 years of experience developing and architecting software and systems and leading teams. I've known Brian for over 20 years. He started working in the ad tech space in 2004 and has focused for the last five years on collaborative efforts within the IAB tech lab, pre bid and W3C groups to improve ag tech, with a particular focus on privacy. So I'm excited to get Brian's thoughts on the pros and cons around various privacy enhancing technologies. But also Brian is one of the few people in adtech who are asking the industry to change and to take the difficult steps to move us to the next level of maturity. So this stuff might not be sexy, but it is critical to the success of our industry. So let's get to it. Hey Brian, thanks for coming on the pod. How are you?
- [01:51]
Brian May
Great Alan, thanks for inviting me.
- [01:53]
Alan Chappell
So you and I first met a long time ago when we were both working in the adware space. For those who might be newer to the industry and not remember this, about 20 years ago there was a handful of companies who were able to get consumers to download software and it was often music file sharing software. But anyway, that software would pop ads over the consumer screens. I often say that ad tech gets blamed for a whole bunch of bad things, from IP theft to damaging computers to annoying consumers. And the adware space was sort of ad tech's evil doppelganger. And that a lot of those issues that we typically hear about in the context of ad tech were often exacerbated pretty exponentially in the adware space. Well, anyway, what's the number one thing that you learned from those days?
- [02:43]
Brian May
Number one thing is that you need to be respectful of everybody who you're engaging with, from consumers to partners to business associates you don't last long in a new frontier if the rules that you're making for that frontier are self serving to the point where nobody else is getting the value they need. And as Tim O'Reilly put several years after that experience, what we really need to do is we need to provide more value back to the ecosystem than we capture from it. I really took that to heart after that experience with the adware company.
- [03:16]
Alan Chappell
Well, it was almost like you had a whole group of people and they'd collectively decided to rob a bank. And then you're in there and you've got the money and you're on your way out and like, you know, thief 2 points a gun at D3 and says, you know what, maybe you should turn over what you have. And then T1 took a shot at thief five. And it was just an, it was kind of comical if you think about it. But it was also, I think, to your point, wildly disrespectful of the larger ecosystem. And really you can say, well, that was the wild west. And you know, hearken back to different, a different time. But, but the reality is that hopefully the industry has at least grown up a little bit from those days.
- [03:51]
Brian May
Yeah, I think that as an industry we learned some things about what to do and what not to do and how to treat people. And it's kind of unfortunate. I think that if the adware model had been refined to be more respectful, it would have been reasonable to have ad supported applications that were actually productive and not intrusive, not annoying.
- [04:14]
Alan Chappell
You know, that's a great point. And I remember there was a moment in time where I think it was Warner had signed a distribution deal with one of the ad tech companies and then the whole thing just sort of fell apart at the 11th hour. And I don't think it ever was even consummated. But you know, had that happened, it would have been really interesting to see if that model could have been legitimized.
- [04:37]
Brian May
Yeah, it would have been an alternative to web advertising using the same distribution channels, same mechanics, but instead of going to a browser, it would be going to an application.
- [04:47]
Alan Chappell
So you and I are both privacy professionals. I think you come at it from a little bit more of an engineering background and I tend to come at it more from a look at and legal background. But over the past five years or so, I think it's safe to say that the privacy space has shifted pretty significantly so that we policy people really can't get anything done without the engineers. And so in that light, walk me through how you see your role within the ad tech space.
- [05:17]
Brian May
So I got involved with all this about five years ago when Chrome announced that they were going to deprecate cookies. And the company I was working for at the time, Distillery, which provides audiences and depends on cookies, or depended on cookies at that point, needed to figure out their path forward. So I had a combination of a strong engineering background. I've done some work with policy groups before, most notably the About Ads effort back in 2010 era, and they needed me to help them figure out what the path forward was and I was really happy to jump in and contribute. I started with listening in the W3C and IAB tech lab and pre bid groups to what people were talking about and pretty quickly recognized that we weren't going to move things forward if people didn't start contributing more. So I started speaking up and making points of view known and trying to encourage other folks to contribute and collaborate. And that led to five years of what are we going to do when cookies are gone? How do we treat users with respect and really getting deeply immersed in the world of data and proper data usage and respect for users and the future of the web and all sorts of things related to how does ad tech influence the web and its survival?
- [06:42]
Alan Chappell
So you raise a whole bunch of interesting questions here, but the first one that comes to mind is I remember Those days of 2009, 2010 as the Big policy debate within the industry was how do you put icons on ads? And maybe taking a half step back, how do you create a level of awareness around the targeting techniques being used by the ad space? And the debate between, you know, the advertiser didn't want to give up any of their real estate and the publisher was like, well what? I'm not going to give up any of my real estate. And then there was some technological and engineering challenges around, like how do you make sure that that icon gets served into the ad? And so then that became yet another specialization of the ad tech world. Fun days.
- [07:28]
Brian May
The debate between the content providers and the ad providers about who owns that icon and who gets to place it and are you going to mess my page up?
- [07:36]
Alan Chappell
Those fun so today we're talking mostly about privacy enhancing technologies or pets. So walk me through what are the goals of pets as they apply to the ad space? What are you really trying to accomplish? You know, we hear a lot of, a lot of talk now, particularly from the privacy engineers around, like the value of privacy enhancing technologies. What is that core value?
- [08:01]
Brian May
I think the real value of privacy Enhancing technologies is that they control access to data in meaningful ways. That's a good thing in that if data pipelines are built properly and the people acquiring the data are respectful of the people they're acquiring it from, and the people who are disseminating the data in its privacy respecting form are actually taking the time to package it appropriately and safeguard it properly, it's great. But the reality is that pets are sort of point solutions applied to different aspects of the pipeline where there is concern about data leakage and we kind of forget the part that comes before, the part that comes after, and the potential for. Yes, we very privately joined these two data sets, but somebody had to collect the data to begin with and somebody had to consume the data on the other end. And are those equally privacy respecting?
- [09:02]
Alan Chappell
That's really the ultimate challenge. Right. Is like the, the thing that, that raises alarms for me often is like, okay, privacy protecting, great, but from whom? And then from an ad tech vendor standpoint, it's like you haven't even finished your sentence around how the pets should work and there is somebody with the service going, oh, yep, we got this, ours does that. And so they are often designed to solve a very specific problem without necessarily addressing kind of more holistically the larger sets of things that the industry is trying to achieve in terms of making it more privacy safe.
- [09:40]
Brian May
Which is why involvement in this effort has been so interesting. Adtech is sort of a two headed monster. On the one hand, we are very independent. I want my solution to be the one that you use. I want my solution to be the one that is going to solve all the problems of the industry and I'm going to be rich and famous. On the other hand, if it's just my solution, there's not enough solution there to really apply across the use cases. So I've got to work with my friends and figure out how to develop standards and how to make sure that partners I'm receiving stuff from are doing the right thing and the partners I'm sending stuff to are doing the right thing. A very interesting mix of independence and dependence that sort of comes to a head when we're talking about privacy and advertising.
- [10:26]
Alan Chappell
So it's a great point. And as you're explaining this, and I think you're explaining it well, I can imagine that a number of listeners here are like, oh, that's boring. How do I figure out how to increase revenues? And like, I think that's a legitimate question. So how do we, as you know, the privacy and engineering nerds, try to frame the conversation in a way that we hold the attention of the people who are signing checks.
- [10:50]
Brian May
I think this stuff, particularly in ad tech, where attention tends to be what's happening this month, this quarter, maybe into next quarter, but beyond that, I'm not really interested, doesn't show up for my revenue curves. I think that the industry needs to look down the road just a year before it becomes obvious that people are pulling back from things. And the consequence of people pulling back from things is there's going to be less opportunity for everybody. The less opportunity there is, the less prosperity there is. The less prosperity there is in the market, the smaller the market becomes. So we can focus on revenue right now and hope that somebody else will solve our problems, or we can collectively work on the health and well being of the marketplace and put something together that everybody trusts and the consumers will continue to engage with.
- [11:41]
Alan Chappell
Just for now, I'm going to, I'm going to leave aside some of the, the, the larger walled garden pets initiatives. Not that those don't have their merits, but like if you're working with, you know, your regular garden variety ad tech company, you know, a company that isn't worth billions of dollars, what are the pets that they should be thinking about and considering that you think will be most effective at achieving their goals?
- [12:08]
Brian May
I think that the most viable pet for smaller players are environments like data clean rooms and trusted execution environments where they're able to collaborate with other peers in a way that is privacy preserving. These are technologies that that larger platforms will be developing and making available through clouds. So they're going to be on the more affordable side of the pets equation and they're going to be relatively mature. There are definitely downsides to that sort of collaboration. It means that you have to very specifically pick the partners you're going to work with and you have to put a lot of effort into getting things together. One of the things that I focused on over the last couple of years is how do we get collaboration to happen in data clean rooms in a way that's effective and cost effective for smaller players? What standards can we put together for that? I think there are table stakes, sorts of things like encryption. Everybody should be encrypting stuff. Data minimization, which isn't really a privacy enhancing technology per se, but is certainly in the spirit of privacy enhancing technologies and using the data for what you're saying you're going to use it for, making sure your partners are doing the same thing and focusing on building and maintaining trust with your consumers. That's just Demonstrable. So when you say you're going to only collect this amount of data, have some means of showing to people that this is all you collected when you're going to share this kind of data, have some means of showing to people I shared it and I showed the consents that you gave for its that sort of thing.
- [13:50]
Alan Chappell
You mentioned data minimization and that's really, that, that's a hard and fast rule and I've lost count. Five U. S States and, and of course the European Union have you know, some rules around data minimization. And that's really been a pain point not just for ad tech but for, for really advertisers over, over the last 50 years. Because the idea that you might need data at some point in the future, the incentive structure is such that you might as well keep it. And do clean rooms really help there?
- [14:18]
Brian May
Well, in terms of being able to stockpile data, no. A clean room is a place where two people bring together a data set each or a couple data sets each and then combine those data sets to create a new one. The new data set having been cleansed of any personal information that might implicate users. So it's not a place where you park your data. And to your earlier point, yeah, ad tech is a world in which there might be value in any signal that I've come across, ever. Over time I want to try and preserve as much of that value as possible, even if I don't recognize what it's going to be useful for Today, in a year I might discover an algorithm that can take advantage of this thing that suddenly makes me a lot of money. So ad tech is generally reluctant to limit how much data is collected and limit how long data is collected or maintained for. You have to push us to do it, I think.
- [15:15]
Alan Chappell
Yeah, well, you know, it's funny, I've been saying, well the law is going to do that, but heck, I mean, GDPR is now in year seven or eight. I don't want to say that hasn't happened, but that certainly hasn't happened to the degree that those who crafted the GDPR were hoping it was going to. And you're starting to see that in the US now as well. And so I guess my question is, are there other techniques that can be used as an alternative to data minimization?
- [15:42]
Brian May
Before we get to that, reflecting back on the beginning of our conversation, when I was involved with an ad tech company, we were making the rules for ourselves and we just did what we wanted until somebody stopped us. I Think ad tech generally is putting itself in a similar sort of position. We are getting told by regulators and by consumers and by various other constituencies, listen, you guys are going too far. You need to rein things in. What we discovered in the adware world is that if you push too far, you're going to get shut down. And that entire segment of ad tech disappeared in the matter of about a year. We can keep pushing what we're doing now, collecting all the data we're collecting, ignoring people's warnings, but we do so at our own peril, potentially at the peril of the industry generally. So I think we need to be very careful with that.
- [16:33]
Alan Chappell
I would agree. I might frame it a little differently and that as we aspire to get to the next level of maturity, data governance and privacy are part of that. And not just the things that you say, like, I think privacy is really, really, really, really, really important, but like that you have an actual program around that. And one of the challenges, like I've beaten up big tech regularly here, but one of the things I would say that Big tech at least tries to do is to set up some level of data governance. Now, we can criticize it, it doesn't go far enough, and there's holes in it. But my larger point here is that I would put the light on the little tech guys because I don't think there's been nearly enough investment in this area. And I'm just curious, do you agree? What's your reaction to that?
- [17:23]
Brian May
I think it's very hard to do, which is why people aren't doing it. It's expensive in terms of resources, expensive in terms of opportunity cost to spend a lot of time keeping your house clean. That's one of the reasons that I've been involved with efforts in various industry groups in recommending that we come up with standards for what data needs to get collected, for what use cases, and provide these standards back to the folks who don't have the time to figure out this is the data I need to collect and this is data I don't need to collect in order to successfully run my business, particularly around the area of measurement. I think that there are very specific things that an ad tech company needs to provide to people who are paying for the ads to give them a sense of what it is they're getting, what the value of their advertising is. And we can identify a subset, I would guess somewhere around maybe a dozen attributes for an ad and a campaign that will tell advertiser how to optimize their campaign and Is their campaign worthwhile. And if we land on that as a industry standard, then everybody can go on with their lives, figure out how do I address people effectively. I know that the measurement side of things is taken care of.
- [18:40]
Alan Chappell
Yeah. So my reaction to that is, wow, that sounds hard. But I, I, I'm, I'm only half joking here, like, but you kind of have to do that stuff eventually, don't you?
- [18:51]
Brian May
It may be hard for us to do something like that. I would say that it is going to be a lot easier than the work that we've done over the last five years trying to cobble something together with privacy sandbox and other efforts to replace cookies. I think that if we focus on our core requirements for ad tech and rebuild our foundation in a way that is privacy preserving, using both pets and just intelligent ways of designing systems and deploying them, that we will have a solid foundation on which to focus on things like revenue.
- [19:26]
Alan Chappell
Again, fair point. And hopefully, hopefully our industry associations are going to be up to the task of, of herding those cats. It's not an easy thing. So I'm not here to beat up on, on Katzer or whomever or Lee and the nai. Like that stuff's hard.
- [19:43]
Brian May
Yeah. I certainly have experience with both. Difficult because you have a lot of different points of view and a lot of different people advocating for different sorts of solutions. And difficult because all of these things take lots and lots of time and concerted effort. They happen. The meetings generally happen once a week and you make a little bit of effort, I mean incremental progress every week. But it takes a year to get something to a place where it's really substantial.
- [20:12]
Alan Chappell
Well, okay, but let me ask you this. So I've been involved in a whole bunch of standards initiatives over the years, multi stakeholder processes. And you show me a standards process, I will show you a hidden anti competitive effort where the winner has already been picked. Depending on what you say that the North Star of the initiative is, is that too cynical?
- [20:37]
Brian May
I think it depends on who's proposing the standard. I have over the last couple years been advocating to the folks who run these various groups the proposition that ad tech start taking the lead rather than having large corporations within ad tech lead the processes. And I think we're making some progress in that direction. There are certainly voices speaking up for that. I think that if ad tech effectively does that, then we come up with standards that are considered from many perspectives and work for many people versus being devised from a single perspective, which is not necessarily nefarious. But if you're the guy looking at your interests, you tend to think in terms of what's going to work for you and not really notice the impacts on others.
- [21:27]
Alan Chappell
Well, yeah, I just harken back to the do not track days where the first thing they did, the first rule there, and this was, like, written within the W3C, like, mandate was, whatever we do here, we can't tell browsers what to do. And, like, that's the starting point. And then, okay, but you guys come up with something. It's difficult to create a viable standard unless everybody is there willing to come in with an open mind.
- [21:57]
Brian May
Everybody's gotta be there willing to come in with an open mind. Everybody's gotta be there willing to play fair and to focus on the greater good and assume that their interests are going to be properly supported by supporting the greater good. And if they're not, my perspective is you really need to ask yourself what business you're in and what you're doing wrong. Because we should be able to create a marketplace which supports everybody who is contributing and participating in earnest and the basis of trust. If people aren't willing to work with you or they're not sure about what your participation's all about, I think you need to look at what you're doing and figure out how to make yourself trustworthy.
- [22:42]
Alan Chappell
Okay, I want to turn to a little bit more to big tech now, and I'd welcome your reaction to this. I mean, I think I've been pretty publicly skeptical of certain implementations of pets, particularly when used by big tech. And my concerns really are twofold. First, that I worry that they don't often address a defined privacy issue and will often trade one set of privacy issues for another. And second, I think they tend to lack transparency and accountability and auditability. And therefore there's a tendency to exacerbate some of the existing issues around trust in the marketplace. What's your reaction? I mean, do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? And maybe better put, is there a different way to approach this that you can sort of address some of those concerns?
- [23:34]
Brian May
So, like I said earlier, I think pets are about limiting access to data. And sort of as a general thing, you package the data up and only the people who have privileged access can get to it. That doesn't do anything about the data that has been packaged up. And I think that's where we've fallen short, is that we haven't taken the time to look at what data we are providing to other participants. Is this data sufficient to solve their use cases, Is it more than they need? And should we reduce the amount of information we're providing to them? And does it give the people who are watching what's going on enough access to the signals that they need to determine is this fraudulent or is this somebody misrepresenting their inventory? The other things that ad tech has to be concerned with, but that pets, at least as they've been applied to date, have not been used to address.
- [24:32]
Alan Chappell
Yeah, I think somewhere in there there's a Venn diagram around like privacy, competition and auditability. And there needs to be a better sense of what the sweet spot in between those three things are. Because often really I would say the last five years has pretty been indicative of this. Like there's been a hyper focus on privacy with a zero discussion of some of the other things or very little discussion. And you know, while, you know, I'm the first to say great privacy is a fundamental human right, it is not the only consideration. And I think that there's been almost too much focus. I don't know how the privacy person should be the one saying this in the industry, but I think there's almost been too much focus on privacy at the expense of other things.
- [25:18]
Brian May
Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that's a reflection of how the narrative is being pushed by various constituencies. And the fact is that if you focus only on privacy, you allow people who are using privacy as a way of manipulating the market to basically take over. If somebody raises their hand and says we can only allow you to do these specific things that I've sanctioned in the name of privacy, that basically is by default giving them control over all of those interactions. And unless that party with that control is neutral in some way guaranteed that there's going to be anti competitive behavior. Maybe not intentional, but it'll happen.
- [26:05]
Alan Chappell
Well, you've done a fair amount of work on the privacy sandbox over the years and I think that if the Google sandbox team were here with us, I think they'd agree that your input has been productive and mostly apolitical. So now that the sandbox has moved into a new phase where I think they're moving forward. Pretty sure they're moving forward, but they don't seem to be moving forward under the threat of third party cookie deprecation, I'd love to hear your thoughts as a technologist. Like what did Google get right in this process and what did they get wrong?
- [26:41]
Brian May
I think the positive contribution of the privacy sandbox effort was raising the profile and the concern for Privacy, consumer rights within the industry. I think that it was long overdue and we didn't have any large actor standing up and saying, hey, listen, we need to take this stuff seriously because it's in the best interests of everybody. I think that the approach they took was somewhat counterproductive. Maybe folks that I know would say it was entirely counterproductive. But if you start by saying, hey, we're going to deprecate cookies and oh, by the way, we're going to need to figure out how to backfill for them, that throws everybody into a panic. And people don't generally do their best thinking when they're panicking. I think if Google said at some point we're going to want to deprecate third party cookies because they're a privacy threat and we'd like everybody to start working now to help us figure out how to rebuild adtech so that it doesn't have dependency on it, I think it would have gotten a very different reaction. I think that there would have been sufficient resources within ad tech, people would have seen sufficient opportunity in that to want to contribute to it, but we wouldn't have all felt like our days were numbered and we weren't walking to the gallows.
- [27:57]
Alan Chappell
Yeah, that was sort of the sense from day one. And there was this weird farcical nature of the whole narrative of like, we're making the web better. And it was just obvious to everybody who didn't work for Google that the long term goal was likely to put them out of business. And so it's very difficult to operate under that type of a threat to your point. But, but I think there's a larger product issue. And look, I'm not a product guy but, but I do know one thing. The way you build a product is you introduce something, you test it, you, you know, have a framework and, and something published of like what you really want to accomplish with this thing that you're creating. And then you get feedback and then you go through an alpha phase, you get feedback and then you go back to the drawing board and then you go to a beta phase and like, and this was the like it always seemed like from day one that it's like, yep, six months from now we're going to be ready and this thing is going to be ready to go. And so here's what it is. And then you start looking under the hood and there isn't a there there yet. So I know I'm pontificating here, but Blake, as somebody who has a lot more understanding of how one introduces a technology product into the marketplace. Am I that far off?
- [29:10]
Brian May
No, I thought about the same sort of thing regularly during the process of putting together the privacy sandbox that a company of Google stature with the products that they have, with the engineering know how that they have. How is it that they are treating the privacy sandbox as a first out of college project where they're trying to figure out how do I hit the date without knowing what I'm trying to accomplish?
- [29:36]
Alan Chappell
Yeah. And it also wasn't helpful that there were large segments within Google who didn't seem to be participating. You know, segments of Google who very easily could have been the alpha testers here and who could have come back with findings and could have, you know, experimented a bit and that didn't seem to happen.
- [29:56]
Brian May
Yeah, I think that part of that reflected a certain level of self consciousness that Google had. On the one hand, with the privacy sandbox, they were trying to put forward new standards for browsers that would support ad tech. And on the other hand they have an ad tech stack. And I think had they employed the other aspects of their ad tech stack in designing and developing the privacy sandbox, there would have been a lot of concern in the industry that Google was just trying to replace everybody with their own product. I think to some degree there's merit in that.
- [30:30]
Alan Chappell
Yeah. So I've got one more question and then, then I'm going to let you go. I think this has been a great discussion, but, but I've kind of beaten up Google for the last minute and a half and I, I want to just share maybe a counter thought. You know, Apple has gotten a bunch of credit for its use of cohorts in its ad product. The idea that you're not targeting an individual user, you're targeting groups of, I don't know, hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of users.
- [30:55]
Brian May
Users.
- [30:55]
Alan Chappell
But when Google tried to do something similar with Flocks, it was widely criticized. And so this is probably an unfair question because I'm asking a tech guy a policy question, but how much of that criticism comes from the fact that Google was just more open about its process than Apple? And then what lessons should we take away as a result?
- [31:17]
Brian May
I think that the difference between the two is that in the case of Google, the flock IDs were a relatively stable identifier that was published in the context of a rich data set coming out of the browser, which meant that it contributed to fingerprinting, contributed to recognizing a browser again in a different circumstance, in different contexts. I'm not all that familiar with the Apple approach, but Apple generally is very careful to control as much of the context as possible. And when they provide a cohort id, it's in a data set that they are pretty sure is not going to expose more than they wanted to.
- [32:02]
Alan Chappell
Fair point. One last question. Is there anything about the ad space? If you could, like, wave a magic wand, you know, what is the thing that you would change, and what's the thing you want to see the ad space, you know, develop as their North Star over the next year or two?
- [32:17]
Brian May
I would love for ad tech to recognize that consumers are the basis of what we do. And that rather than having a relatively adversarial relationship with consumers, wherein we try and deduce from what we watch of them, what we observe of them, what it is they might be interested in, and then try and figure out how to encourage that interest. If instead of doing that, we worked with consumers, we collaborated, we said, what are the things you're interested in? We'll find you products that are aligned with those interests. We'll use our data science to figure out somebody who's interested in this, may be interested in this other array of products, and then we'll present you with something that you've contributed to. You're not being stalked around the web to figure out how we can make money off of you. You're participating, we're giving you value, hopefully more value than we're receiving from you. And you want us around instead of feeling like we are an uninvited guest who keeps distracting you while you're trying to get stuff done.
- [33:24]
Alan Chappell
So the takeaway for me is that we need more Garrett Johnson's out there who are doing legit research. It's sort of remarkable to me with all of the money that flows through this industry, how little real consumer research that there is out there, and that oftentimes the research that is created is created on both sides to fit a predisposed narrative.
- [33:50]
Brian May
Yeah, I think that's entirely the case. And if we could have more voices from the center who were looking at both sides of the equation and prioritizing the overall health of the ecosystem. And when I say the ecosystem, I mean the open web rather than one set of constituencies, I think we would come out with a marketplace that was hugely prosperous and that enabled all sorts of great things socially going forward. I think that the track that we're on now is not that track.
- [34:21]
Alan Chappell
Well, wise words indeed. Brian. Brian May, thank you so much for coming on the pod.
- [34:25]
Brian May
It was great to have you thank you, Alan. Always great to talk to you. Have a great day.
- [34:32]
Alan Chappell
That was a great conversation. So if you're more on the policy or business side, you might not know who Brian is, but I can promise you that all of the privacy engineers at the big tech companies in the ad space know Brian's name because he's smart, he's principled. Frankly, we need more people in this space with Brian's skill set. We've got a bunch of other fantastic guests coming up on the Monopoly Report podcast over the next few weeks. Please subscribe to the show@monopolyreportpod.com or on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. And thanks for listening.
- [35:09]
Adelaide Media
Thank you for listening to the marketecture podcast. New episodes come out every Friday and an insightful vendor interview is published each Monday. You can subscribe to our library of hundreds of executive interviews at Markitecture TV Key. You can also sign up for free for our weekly newsletter with my original strategic insights on the week's news at News Market tv. And if you're feeling social, we operate a vibrant Slack community that you can apply to join at adtechgod. Com.