Home Economics Google's Appalling Consumer Exploitation And Fitbit

Google’s Appalling Consumer Exploitation And Fitbit

Author

Comments

A groupuscule has decided that Google’s acquisition of Fitbit cannot be allowed to pass. Apparently on the grounds that it will benefit consumers. That’s not quite how they put it but it is what they mean for as Joan Robinson said the only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is not being so.

But, you know, can’t allow the Americans to benefit consumers now, can we? For if they do that what purpose the bureaucracy meant to benefit consumers by excluding Americans?

As documented by the CMA, controlling access to vast audiences allows Google to charge higher advertising prices; and controlling access to unparalleled data about these audiences allows Google to carve them up according to demographics, interests and locations, and to auction them to the highest bidder.

The consumer here is the advertiser. To whom all of the traditional methods of advertising are still open. Radio, TV, newspapers, they all still exist, as do billboards, direct mail and so on and on. So, why do they flock to advertising through Google? Because while each advertisement might well cost more advertising as a whole costs less. By reducing that half of all the budget that is wasted the cost per advertisee rises, sure, but the cost per interested potential consumer falls.

That is, Google isn’t charging higher advertising prices. Consumers – again, here, the advertisers – are paying less, not more.

capable of harming consumers through personalisation of advertising and increasingly also by enabling targeted product offerings,

Their claim is that Google harms consumers – again, advertisers – by allowing them not to waste money on clickbait for tampons to male to female trans but target it selectively to people who menstruate. This is being listed as a harm – these people are mad.

This discriminatory power, supported by Google’s unmatched data, is the dimension of the proposed acquisition of Fitbit that concerns us most. The interest of Google in this deal is not in Fitbit’s wearable itself – but only in the wearable as a source of valuable complementary health metrics which Google can correlate with an enormous wealth of other data. Exploiting this data as a general-purpose input, and flexing its discriminatory power, is something Google has done (very profitably) for some time, and very openly, in online advertising markets. But such data has many more possible applications and Google has the incentive, ability, and track record to leverage its strength in data into many potential markets.

Therefore we cannot allow Google to do more of this.

Verily, madness.

What’s worse all the groupuscule are very keen on insisting that they’ve not been paid by competitors to write this. Nope, they’re not bought at all, they’re believers. Lord help the academy if this is the sort of idiocy that infests it. Actually, Lord help the rest of us if this is the sort of stupidity that informs how the world is to be organised.

SUPPORT US WITH A SUBSCRIPTION?

3 COMMENTS

  1. It should also be remembered that advertising is a service to the people seeing the ad. It enables the potential punter to know what is on offer. And if they leave out stuff I have no interest in, that’s a time saving for me.

  2. I suspect that in this instance by “consumers” they mean the public and the “harm” they imagine is that advertisers will be better able to “target” them, increasing sales (the horror), needless consumerism, global warming, people buying and enjoying the wrong things, it’s just all so awful.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

expunct

in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

So Bjorn Lomborg Is Proven Right Once Again

Back when Bjorn Lomborg brought out the Sceptical Environmentalist my word how people laughed. He pointed out that well, actually, solar power had been...

So, That Answers The Question About Arun Advani Then

Arun Advani was on that Wealth Tax Commission. You know, the one that ended up saying that it would be just fine to have...

An Entirely Absurd Insistence About Oil Company Pay

The claim is that as oil company CEOs are paid with stock therefore they conspire to boil the planet. That is, no really, what...

Big Meat Is The Next Enemy After Big Oil

We would, perhaps, hope for a little more logical ability among those who write the newspapers and news sites for us. Take this example...

In Praise Of Benign, Even Helpful, Beneficial, Tax Competition

Richard Murphy tells us that it is not possible for there to be anything other than harmful tax competition. All such competition must, by...

Recent comments