Last May, Google announced a requirement for user consent through a Google-certified CMP for those using Google AdMob, Google AdManager, and Google AdSense, imposing a deadline of January 16, 2024. The industry’s response following this deadline is now a topic of interest.
In this guest post, the team at GameBiz Consulting, led by Božo Janković, delves into how top-grossing games have responded to Google’s CMP requirements. They share actual CMP stats from GameBiz Consulting clients to underscore best practices and insights.
In previous articles and on LinkedIn, I have written about Google’s announcement to enforce TCF 2.2 compliant consent collection. The original deadline was January 16, 2024; however, enforcement began in February and is expected to be complete by the end of the month, although Google has not made any official statements.
Analysis of Covered Games
My team and I analyzed over 120 games, including the top 100 grossing free-to-play mobile games and additional influential titles, to gauge their response to Google’s requirements. It was noted that 63 out of the top 100 games did not have a “Contains Ads” tag on their Google Play Store page, indicating that they do not use ads as part of their monetization strategy. Furthermore, 34 games among the top 100 were focused on the Asian market.
Only 28% of the games we checked had a CMP implemented
Božo Janković
Further analysis of 61 games after the official deadline revealed that only 28% had implemented a CMP, indicating that the majority of games relying on ads for monetization did not meet the CMP requirements.
Potential Reasons for Low Implementation
- Games not heavily reliant on ad revenue from EEA and UK countries may lack the motivation to implement the CMP, as these regions accounted for an average of 27.4% of revenue among GameBiz clients.
- Other ad networks do not currently require TCF 2.2 compliance, and games may prioritize other tasks over CMP implementation due to reliance on non-Google networks.
- Some publishers may be waiting to see industry best practices before implementing their own solutions.
Comparatively, CMP adaptation is notably lower than ATT adaptation, which had an adaptation rate of 42% in our previous research.
Most Used CMP Providers
Out of the 17 games with implemented CMP, 13 opted for Google as their CMP provider, while the remaining games used Sourcepoint or OneTrust, with OUTFIT7 using its own CMP. Notably, popular providers like Didomi and Usercentrics were absent.
Challenges of Google CMP
- Google’s CMP offers limited customization options, no AB testing, and lacks customer support.
- It does not allow for the fusion of CMP pop-ups with Terms of Service and Privacy Policy notices, presenting potential user friction.
- Google’s CMP does not permit different settings between countries, posing a challenge for publishers in choosing a legally safer approach against a higher opt-in rate.
Publishers that have implemented the CMP message are focused on achieving the highest possible opt-in rate, posing some legal risks.
Božo Janković
Legal Implications and Implementation Challenges
- The implementation of CMP messages raises legal concerns, particularly in countries with stringent data processing regulations such as France, the UK, and Spain.
- Regulatory authorities from these and other countries are expected to scrutinize CMP practices in the mobile games sector in the near future.
Consent Rates and Implementation Quality
Specific data on opt-in rates from GameBiz Consulting clients’ games revealed rates ranging from 64% to 90%, with varied CMP implementations across platforms. Additionally, other CMP solutions had higher average opt-in rates than Google’s CMP solution.
Conclusion
The response of the mobile games industry to Google’s CMP requirements has been mixed, with a majority of games yet to implement the necessary CMP. The shift in industry practices and the implications of non-compliance are issues that game developers must consider closely.
Edited by Paige Cook
