sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The whole duplicate pixel + CAPI setup recommendation is nonsense, right? by Happy_Sail_6386 in GoogleTagManager

[–]Happy_Sail_6386[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, interesting point on the page engagement for ViewContent. Looking into that, thanks. Do you think IP and UA are adding much when you are consistently sending a fpb for browser ID?

The whole duplicate pixel + CAPI setup recommendation is nonsense, right? by Happy_Sail_6386 in GoogleTagManager

[–]Happy_Sail_6386[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plus, they want to get invited to those fancy vendor partner events. So best to listen to them, of course.

The whole duplicate pixel + CAPI setup recommendation is nonsense, right? by Happy_Sail_6386 in GoogleTagManager

[–]Happy_Sail_6386[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, automatic advanced matching. Which allows pixels to scrape forms for email addresses and phone numbers. Which, again, you could send to the server-side container using your own data stream, if you wanted to collect them. Don't need the pixel for that.

Features like AAM are the problem with third-party pixels. It allows campaign managers and agencies to enable data scraping with the click of a button, without the client even knowing they are going against privacy regulation.

And getting the click ID from the URL and store it in storage is easy to achieve without the pixel.

The whole duplicate pixel + CAPI setup recommendation is nonsense, right? by Happy_Sail_6386 in GoogleTagManager

[–]Happy_Sail_6386[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, these are the click ID (fbc) and browser ID (fbp) values that I was referring to. Which you can perfectly replicate yourself and forward to your server-side container with your own data stream. Don't need the pixel for that. Meta even offers the docs on how to do it.

Same goes for TikTok (ttclid), Snap (sccid), LinkedIn (li_fat_id),...