Skip to content
feedlab Request early access

Channel comparison

Microsoft Advertising vs Pinterest: feed requirements compared

Microsoft Advertising and Pinterest sit at opposite ends of how demanding a feed specification can be while using the same vocabulary. Microsoft wants the Google taxonomy and a strict identifier chain and can reject items outright; Pinterest treats nearly all of that as optional and cares about the image instead.

Where the two specifications diverge

The 4 attributes one channel treats differently from the other. Everything else is identical and is listed further down.

Attributes treated differently by Microsoft Advertising and Pinterest
Attribute Microsoft Advertising Pinterest What that means
brand Required in some cases Optional Stricter on Microsoft Advertising.
gtin Required in some cases Optional Stricter on Microsoft Advertising.
item_group_id Required in some cases Optional Stricter on Microsoft Advertising.
mpn Required in some cases Optional Stricter on Microsoft Advertising.

Differences a table cannot show

Requirement levels are the easy part. These are the differences in values, structure and delivery that break a feed copied from one channel to the other.

Microsoft rejects where Pinterest shrugs

Microsoft expects the gtin, mpn and brand chain and can reject items that fail it, which is stricter even than Google's warning behaviour. Pinterest treats all three as optional. The same own-brand catalogue can be almost entirely rejected on one channel and entirely fine on the other.

Only one of them uses a product taxonomy

Microsoft accepts Google's product category taxonomy and uses it for placement. Pinterest does not take that attribute at all and classifies from the title, description and image. The taxonomy mapping is required work for one and dead weight for the other.

Market structure differs

Microsoft works from one catalogue per market you configure in Merchant Center. Pinterest expects a separate data source per country and language pair. A multi-market store ends up with a different number of generated files for each channel.

Both fetch daily, but Pinterest lets you choose when

Neither offers a sub-daily schedule, so both are structurally a day behind at worst. Pinterest lets you pick the fetch time, which means regeneration can be aligned to it precisely. That control is the only scheduling advantage either channel has.

The image carries different weight

On Microsoft the image is a thumbnail in a text-led ad unit. On Pinterest it is the entire listing, displayed large, where a landscape theme crop visibly underperforms a vertical one. The same image_link value is adequate on one channel and a missed opportunity on the other.

Reusing one feed for the other channel

What actually has to change, in the order it is worth doing.

  1. Publish the Microsoft mapping to Pinterest unchanged

    Everything Pinterest needs is already in a Microsoft feed, and the extra attributes are ignored rather than rejected. Confirm ingestion first, then improve.

  2. Split the feed per country and language

    One data source per market, each with its own currency, prices and URLs. Microsoft handles markets in its own settings, so this structure does not exist yet in your pipeline.

  3. Pick the Pinterest image deliberately

    Check what image_link resolves to today. If it is a theme-resized landscape image, map a portrait or square alternative for Pinterest only, from a metafield or a second product image.

  4. Regenerate immediately before the Pinterest fetch

    Set the fetch time in Pinterest, then schedule generation just ahead of it. The two channels should not share one regeneration slot, because their fetch times are unrelated.

  5. Keep identifiers and the taxonomy in the output

    Pinterest ignores both, but they cost nothing to carry and they are what keeps one mapping serving both channels. Stripping fields per channel is how two feeds start diverging.

Every attribute, side by side

All 16 attributes documented in this knowledge base, as Microsoft Advertising and Pinterest each treat them.

Full attribute comparison between Microsoft Advertising and Pinterest
Attribute Microsoft Advertising Pinterest
availability Required availability Required availability
brand Required in some cases brand Optional brand
condition Optional condition Optional condition
custom_label_0 Optional custom_label_0 Not documented here
description Required description Required description
google_product_category Recommended google_product_category Not documented here
gtin Required in some cases gtin Optional gtin
id Required id Required id
identifier_exists Optional identifier_exists Not documented here
image_link Required image_link Required image_link
item_group_id Required in some cases item_group_id Optional item_group_id
link Required link Required link
mpn Required in some cases mpn Optional mpn
price Required price Required price
sale_price Optional sale_price Optional sale_price
title Required title Required title

Frequently asked questions

Is a Microsoft Advertising feed enough for Pinterest?

Yes, in terms of attributes: Pinterest requires strictly less. The two changes worth making are splitting the feed by country and language, and choosing a better-shaped image for a channel where the image is the listing.

Does Pinterest use google_product_category?

No. Microsoft accepts the Google taxonomy values, Pinterest does not take the attribute at all and classifies items from the title, description and image instead.

Which channel is stricter about product identifiers?

Microsoft, by a long way. It expects the gtin, mpn and brand chain and can reject items outright, while Pinterest treats all three as optional.

How often do these two channels fetch a feed?

Both once a day. Pinterest lets you choose the time, which is worth using: regenerate shortly before the fetch rather than on an unrelated schedule.

Both specifications in full

Errors on either channel

Related concepts

Primary sources

Channel specifications change. These are the official documents this page is based on.

Last reviewed View as markdown