Privacy & cookieless

Cookieless tracking and privacy consulting

Signal loss is not a future event, it is a current cost. This engagement assesses how much measurement you have already lost, what your consent and tracking setup is actually doing, and how to rebuild measurement on first-party foundations.

Consent architectureSignal loss auditFirst-party strategy
Quick answer

Privacy-first measurement strategy: consent architecture, server-side tracking, first-party data strategy, and measurement that holds up as signal degrades.

Compliant, and measuring far less than you think

Two failures usually coexist. The consent banner was implemented to satisfy legal review, and it now blocks tracking in ways nobody has quantified, so reported conversions are down and the cause is attributed to performance. At the same time, tags fire before consent, or hashed identifiers get sent for users who opted out, creating genuine exposure. Both problems come from the same root: consent, tracking, and measurement were treated as three separate projects owned by three different teams.

What the engagement covers

  • Signal loss quantification: what share of conversions and journeys you are actually observing today
  • Consent implementation review against how tags and server-side events genuinely behave
  • Consent Mode and platform-specific privacy feature configuration review
  • Server-side tracking architecture recommendation, with identifier and consent handling designed in
  • First-party data strategy: what to collect, where to store it, and how to use it for measurement
  • A measurement plan that stays viable as signal degrades further, including where modeling replaces observation

How we work

  1. Measure the current gap between observed and actual conversions before recommending anything

  2. Audit what tags and events do under each consent state, in the browser and server-side

  3. Design the consent and tracking architecture as one system rather than separate fixes

  4. Deliver a phased plan covering both the compliance risks and the measurement rebuild

Typical stack

Server-side GTMConsent ModeConversions APIsCMP reviewBigQuerySnowflake

Frequently asked questions

No, and it should not be treated as such. We assess technical implementation against how your policies and consent framework are configured, and we flag where behavior and stated policy diverge. Your counsel decides what your obligations are; we tell you what your systems are actually doing.

It varies widely by geography, device mix, and consent design, so any single figure quoted at you should be treated with suspicion. What matters is your number, which is measurable by comparing tracked conversions to your order system. Establishing that baseline is the first thing we do, and it is often the most useful output.

No, and any vendor implying otherwise is selling you risk. Server-side tracking improves durability against browser restrictions and ad blockers for users who have consented. Consent is still checked before an event is sent. Its value is reliability and control over the payload, not evasion.

Aggregate and experimental methods, mainly. Marketing mix modeling for channel-level allocation, geo holdouts for incrementality, and clean rooms for privacy-safe joins. The shift is from observing every path to measuring effects reliably, which for budget decisions is usually sufficient.

Go deeper

Quantify your signal loss

We will baseline how much measurement you are actually losing before recommending any rebuild.

Start a project

Proof from our work

Related solutions