These third party cookies are easily blocked and removed. Up until now, most browsers allowed them to pass through without objection, and it was up to the user to block them in the browser.
This in turn may reduce the ad unit price as less is known about the user visiting a particular website.
Cookies are not the only option companies have on the other hand, from using other resident storage on the computer to fingerprinting, there are options left that companies will use to track users for advertising purposes.
Google, the world's largest advertising company, seems to have ideas of its own how to cope with that decision. One of the scenarios as reported by the New York Times is to tie an anonymous identifier to the company's web browser Chrome.
Google would make the identifier available to companies and advertisers, but would remain in control over the system. So, instead of using a small text file that is easily deleted or even blocked, users would be tracked by their own web browser instead.
This moves user tracking to a whole new level, as the profile that is created out of this is as detailed as it gets. Where cookies relied on third party scripts, the browser itself does not have this limitation.
The big question is this: if you are using Google Chrome and Google comes along with such a system, would you continue to use Google Chrome as a web browser?
It is not clear if and how this will be implemented. Users may get control in the browser to turn off the ID, or at least recreate another random number.
According to USA Today, ideas to reset the ID every year and provide users with options to create a secondary ID are discussed at this point in time.
If this new form of user tracking is implemented in Chrome, would you continue to use the browser? Depending on how the change is communicated, users may not even notice the change at all.
I think that it could seriously backfire on Google if it is implemented, as it will generate negative reviews and press on the Internet.
What's your take?