The network effects, economies of scale, and associated ability to plough huge profits into buying up and out-promoting competitors absolutely make them monopolies.
Why not let big companies die and be replaced by startups if the only way they can succeed is by [ab]using their incumbent position to “rejuvenate” (a euphemism if ever I saw one!)?
It would stop worse products winning as a result of resources gained through prior successes (and monopolistic practices).
In fact, I’d be happy to see a situation where sufficiently unrelated businesses have to be sold off after some grace period even if they were developed in house.
Having observed and been part of contracts involving these companies, it would take a lot to convince me that at least 80% of them don’t cost an order of magnitude (or more) more than they should.
It’s not usually the type of work, it’s the specific commercial model and mode of engagement with them that’s generally at fault, often aided and abetted by procurement processes.
> it would take a lot to convince me that at least 80% of them don’t cost an order of magnitude (or more) more than they should.
I have enough friends who work in University systems and government roles (both similarly heavy in red tape) to know that many of these institutions would also spend an order of magnitude doing it in house.
It’s misleading to compare to an idealistic efficient organization with no red tape, because government jobs are very heavy on red tape. That’s where most of the inefficiency gets spent, whether it’s done in house or by consultants.
they're a order of magnitude higher for some reasons though. I work in consulting, and occasionally larger enterprises approach our firm. We almost always decline because their requirements from vendor screening, to change review boards, to just the amount of sheer meetings it takes to enact a change to a title change on the website home page - its not worth it.
A couple times we made the mistake of giving a 'go away' number and they took it, and then i had to deal with the insanity of F500 business...
Basically, but with big companies with on hand lawyer litigation is much more likely. They want things like contingency plans, licensing information, even asking what our own financials look like. We just walk and focus on clients who don't have so much risk
Yep, the procurement process (and related) requires a lot be baked into pricing. I’d also be curious what the fully burdened rate of in-house staff is compared to consultants. I’ve seen situations in the gov (not DoD) where despite high consulting rates, the full cost of hiring was even higher per hour.
But I’m loath to defend the big firms. Generally, quality plus the ever push for expanding scope leaves a sensation of waste. The solution is just going to need more than simply tossing them out.
Sponsored content should be considered an ad too and banned in this scenario.
Many “influencers” would have to go back to being amateurs. That’s ok. Some would accept backhanders, but they risk prosecution, which is actually possible [0].
Belongs in catalogues, store listings, the manufacturers website, product search engines, not forced into view when you’re trying to do something else.
It’d be perfectly reasonable even to have sites listing or aggregating new and updated products, or social media accounts that post about interesting [new or otherwise] products, as long as they’re not paid to place or promote products, too.
People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market.
Reading (unpaid) reviews.
There are vastly many ways that unbiased, factual information about a new product can be disseminated to those who are looking for it that are not advertising.
> People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market.
The salespeople at the shop and market are paid to like and sell the product.
Even getting your product into a store shelf is a marketing activity, and chain stores charge a lot of money for the privilege.
> Reading (unpaid) reviews.
This can be a hobby, but most people need to make money from the work they do. This is why this area is covered by companies that employ and pay people to use and review products.
Also, this is recursive - where did this unpaid reviewer hear about the product?
> unbiased, factual information
What is an unbiased fact? Is vim better or emacs? How do you decide between the two? First you “hear” about them, and hopefully they didn’t “bias” you on way or another, and then because they’re (luckily) free, you can try both and decide for yourself what the “facts” are. But what about vscode and jetbrains and etc? They’re backed by corporations, and have marketing behind them, but they’re great products too!
You see where this is going once you generalize across industries? People pay for ads so that they can tell people what they think is an unbiased fact about their product. If they’re lucky, they also get word of mouth. But in a massively populated world with millions of products, this obviously creates a market for said “word of mouth”. And in turn, attracts bad actors, who lie about their product or manipulate you for politics etc. Some cases are clear cut, but others are not. It’s up to the viewer to decide at the end of the day.
Publishing factual information in a place people expect to find it is not advertising.
Listing a house for sale on an agent’s website: not advertising.
Promoting that listing or the agent on the home page of a local news site: advertising
etc…
Some cases will be harder, all are decidable. We are talking about law not code, so there’s no need for a perfect algorithm, the legal system is designed precisely to deal with these sorts of question.
Exactly. You're paying a realtor to promote your house, including on their site, to sell it.
Zero difference from hiring a TV channel to promote your product, on their channel, to sell it.
Which is why trying to define advertising in a way that bans it is not simple at all.
GP says "Publishing factual information in a place people expect to find it is not advertising."
OK. Now the realtor adds a blog. They start publishing news about the real estate business. With listings mixed in. Congrats, you've got a newspaper with ads for homes. Are you ready to say the realtor can't publish news? Isn't that censorship?
Also, home listings aren't "factual". They're promotional. They focus on pros and omit cons. They have photos that hide the ugly parts. They're ads for homes, period.
Surely there is a difference between me (private person ) selling my 1 car/house or company Y advertising their latest car model (they want to sell 1000ds).
Yes, there's a difference in the number of items you're selling.
There isn't a difference in terms of the fact that it's advertising a sale. Nor is it relevant if you're doing so personally, as a sole proprietor, as a partnership, as an S corp or as a C corp. Advertising something for sale is advertising something for sale. Ads are ads.
Also, on the realtor's site they're listing hundreds of homes. Not any different from your local car dealership advertising their hundreds of vehicles. They're both corporations listing ads.
> IMO the idea of removing advertising entirely would essentially entrench the status quo even further.
This doesn’t seem correct to me.
Products would still be searchable, but the wealthiest companies could no longer pay for placement or pay to have their brand name repeated endlessly so it’s on the tip of your tongue but you don’t know why.
People would still talk in their communities and share recommendations.
Reviews (unpaid) would still be a thing.
Markets (real and virtual) where you can compare competing products and make a decision wouldn’t go away.
As one example, I think about how DuckDuckGo was able to grow to a decent size against an impossibly entrenched competitor aided by a large outdoor ad campaigns.
Reddit also grew more rapidly in recent years post-IPO for similar reasons. Reddit used to be more niche with fewer people even knowing it existed.
Knowing alternatives exist is half the battle. This fair comparison you hope people will make is just a hope without the ability to advertise. People have to know all possible alternatives exist in order for the market to be perfectly competitive.
reply