No images? Click here Welcome to The Corner. In this issue, we take a closer look at the DOJ’s move to block Penguin Random House’s proposed takeover of Simon & Schuster, and how surveillance advertising has harmed user privacy. The DOJ's Move to Block Takeover of Simon & Schuster Is Major Advance in Fight to Rebuild U.S. Market for Books
On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sued to block Penguin Random House’s planned $2.18 billion acquisition of rival book publisher Simon & Schuster. The DOJ alleged that the merger would give Penguin — which is owned by the German corporation Bertelsmann and is already the world’s largest publisher — too great of an influence over the books being published in the U.S. and the pay for authors of the books. The Wall Street Journal noted that the lawsuit represents an effort to shift antitrust policy away from economic efficiency and consumer prices to broader attempts to protect economic opportunity. The action by the DOJ amounted to a major win for Open Markets, which has long focused closely on the dangers posed by consolidation of power over the U.S. marketplace for books by Amazon and by super-large publishers. In January, Open Markets submitted a letter to the DOJ opposing the merger — cosigned by the Authors Guild and other groups. After the decision, Open Markets Executive Director Barry Lynn issued a statement celebrating the move. Lynn also discussed the decision on Cheddar TV News.
Beyond Surveillance Advertising: Insights From Media Scholar Matthew Crain
Karina Montoya
A new book offers a timely examination on surveillance advertising, an issue perhaps not as widely chronicled in the Facebook Files fallout as human trafficking or how Instagram distorts the self-image of teenagers, but one that has all but destroyed the privacy of users and deeply damaged the economic foundations of journalism. Communications researcher Matthew Crain, a media professor at Miami University of Ohio, in September released Profit over Privacy: How Surveillance Advertising Conquered the Internet. Law professor Frank Pasquale has called it the “definitive history of the evisceration of internet privacy.” Crain explores roads not taken that could have led to a far different web — one not dominated by the Google and Facebook digital advertising duopoly that threatens independent journalism. In a different iteration of the web, a more competitive news media, and noncommercial undertakings, including the efforts to curtail online surveillance, could have flourished. To learn more about Crain’s thinking, read the full extended interview. Here are some highlights:
On better ways to design an advertising ecosystem: “There is no technical or even business reason that ads must be surveillance-based. Take contextual ads, for example: If you’re going to search for Hawaii, we’re going to show you ads based on it. Money can still be made, goods can still be marketed, but no privacy needs to be violated. Google did this for the first years of its existence, and it made a ton of money by simply showing ads relevant to context without collecting any personal data. “Today, Facebook and Google have such control over the advertising market that when they decide to do things a certain way, the smaller players follow suit. The fact that they can create a ‘standard’ is more a reflection of the public policy [enabling this system] and their power to shape markets, than a reflection of what good advertising is. On structural changes to rein in Facebook and Google, including Europe’s get-tougher policies: “It’s very exciting that antitrust is part of the conversation. An important discussion for me that I hope gets more traction is a federal privacy law. Imagine a law that limits microtargeting to something like a zip code, or that prohibits holding consumer profile information to no more than 10 days. This is akin to what the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation] calls ‘data minimization.’ It does something to level the playing field, and it makes contextual advertising a more exciting prospect. “I don’t think breaking a monopoly into a triopoly or anything similar is the best solution if you address the surveillance advertising business model. I definitely think that cutting this business model off at the kneecaps would open the door for others that don’t run on surveillance. Therefore, small publishers and medium-size publishers can compete for advertising dollars on a more leveled playing field. On news publishers’ efforts to respect privacy while still delivering effective advertising: “Publishers can lead this change. They are being squeezed in all senses, forced to race to the bottom and to accept the terms of their ad partners [Google, Facebook and other ad tech platforms] just to get the scraps after sharing revenue with them. I can see how they would be interested in moving away from these practices. Publishers didn’t have much choice, but once they decided to get in bed with these surveillance advertisers, they undermined their own product in nasty ways. That is part of what has been contributing to this vicious cycle of the journalism crisis.” Continue reading more remarks here. 🔊 ANTI-MONOPOLY RISING:
📝 WHAT WE'VE BEEN UP TO:
We appreciate your readership. Please consider making a contribution to support the continued publication of this newsletter. 📈 VITAL STAT:$5-$20How much Facebook is now claiming to pay its creators for every new subscriber it gets through the end of the year, as part of Meta's $1 billion investment in creators it made earlier this year. This move comes amid ongoing tension with Apple for reaping 15-30% of Facebook creators’ earnings. 📚 WHAT WE'RE READING:
NIKKI USHER'S NEW BOOK
News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism Nikki Usher, a senior fellow at Open Markets Institute’s Center for Journalism & Liberty, has released her third book, News for the Rich, White, and Blue: How Place and Power Distort American Journalism. In her latest work, Usher offers a frank examination of the inequalities driving not just America’s journalism crisis but also certain portions of the movement to save it. “We need to radically rethink the core functions of journalism, leverage expertise, and consider how to take the best of what the newspaper ethos of journalism can offer to places that have lost geographically specific news, “ says Usher, an associate professor at the University of Illinois-Champaign. “The news that powers democracy can be more inclusive.” Usher is also the author of Making News at The New York Times (2014) and Interactive Journalism: Hackers, Data, and Code (2016). News for the Rich, White, and Blue, published by Columbia University Press, is available as a hardback, paperback and e-book. You can order your copy here. 🔎 TIPS? COMMENTS? SUGGESTIONS? We would love to hear from you—just reply to this e-mail and drop us a line. Give us your feedback, alert us to competition policy news, or let us know your favorite story from this issue. |