search

WICG / attribution-reporting-api

Attribution Reporting API
https://wicg.github.io/attribution-reporting-api/
Other
359 stars 170 forks source link

Integration-minimalistic reporting for advertisers #119

Open piwanczak opened 3 years ago

piwanczak commented 3 years ago

We often find a “code” or “pixel” changes on the advertiser’s site we work with to be significantly longer and harder to execute than it would seem.

For use cases like:

we think that it would be beneficial to give an advertiser - or a third party acting in its stead - a generic tool to trigger attribution, without explicitly stating the attributed partner.

An example scenario in the current world would be:

  1. ATP approaches a big ecommerce site WeLoveShoes.com and agree on a test
  2. WeLoveShoes.com receives from an ATP codes to execute on it’s site to attribute
  3. WeLoveShoes.com implements codes
  4. Campaign is executed by the ATP

What we think would be great to be able, in the Conversion Measurement API world, for advertiser to skip steps no 2 & 3

@csharrison what do you think?

csharrison commented 3 years ago

This sounds interesting. In the current API is the problem that the ATP wouldn't want to respond to the POST request here or that the advertiser is not interested in re-tagging to fire that request, or both?

In principle I think something like this might be possible, though we'd need to think it through carefully to avoid regressing security for origins that are not comfortable triggering attribution without them being "in the loop" via the HTTP request.

piwanczak commented 3 years ago

Thank you for your response!

It's the latter. From ATP's perspective responding to a POST request is negligible.

csharrison commented 1 year ago

Trying to triage old issues and came across this one. Thinking about it more, I'm not sure how this can be possible without WeLoveShoes.com doing something which indicates to the browser that they want the ATP involved. Otherwise the browser is completely out of the loop at stage 4.

Do you have a suggestion on how the browser could be informed about the agreement made at stage (1)?