<\/span><\/h2>\nLet\u2019s illustrate with a hypothetical scenario for an email campaign + ad conversion path, and how Privacy Sandbox rules might alter it:<\/p>\n
\n- Old model<\/strong>: You send an email to user A with link to site. After email click, user sees Google Display Ad (tagged), clicks, lands on site, converts. You track via cookies and UTM parameters: assign conversion to that ad impression and can say \u201cemail campaign triggered ad click \u2192 conversion\u201d.<\/li>\n
- New model<\/strong>:\n
\n- The ad impression is served via a publisher site that supports Attribution Reporting API. The ad click is registered as a source.<\/li>\n
- On conversion (site event), you register a trigger event via ARA. The browser matches the source & trigger and sends a report (event-level or summary) to the ad tech\/advertiser.<\/li>\n
- But: Because you may not control the email domain as an \u201cad\u201d source (email provider), you might not<\/em> register the email send \/ click via the ARA source channel. Therefore you lose the \u201cemail \u2192\u201d part of the chain in a deterministic way.<\/li>\n
- You may get conversion numbers for the ad campaign, but you may not<\/em> have full visibility that the email caused the ad. Instead, you might use modelling or aggregated insights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
- Effect<\/strong>: Attribution becomes less precise for email-driven ad traffic, requiring shifts in measurement logic (cohorts, aggregated reports, first-party integration) rather than exact user-journey attribution.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n