Open Password – Wednesday April 21, 2021
#912
airbnb – Platform providers – Lobbying – Luke Yates – Grassroots lobbying – University of Manchester – Regulation – Home sharing clubs – Uber – Lyft – Doordash – Getaround – Lime – Scoot – Spin – Bird – Lyft Scooters – Recruitment – Support and influence – Ethical and transparency issues – Local and regional politics – Social media – Information science – Wolfgang G. Stock – N-digit information markets – Three-digit information markets – Influencers – Streamers – Micro-Celebrities – YouTube – Twitch – TikTok – YouNow – Instagram – Twitter – Parasocial interaction – Intimacy at a distance – Likes – Actual and expected attention – Money – Advertisers – AdSense revenue – Number of followers – Double-digit information markets – Three-digit information markets – Competition law – Data protection law – Fair use rule – Corona – Vaccination appointments – Willi Bredemeier – Karl-Josef Laumann – BioNTech – Armin Laschet – ntv – Astra Zeneca – Westdeutscher Rundfunk – T-Systems – ServiceNow – Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Westphalia-Lippe – Public announcements – Whistleblowers – Editorial teams
1.
Outside the box : Airbnb and other platform providers conceal the lobbying activities
of seemingly independent clubs
2.
Cover story : The influencers – three-digit information markets, conclusion and consequences for political action – By Wolfgang G. Stock
3.
Comment: The usual large distance between official announcements and reality – Especially in Corona times, but also otherwise: Always ask those affected – By Willi Bredemeier
Outside the box (40)
airbnb and other platform providers
conceal the lobbying activities of seemingly independent clubs
Luke Yates, The airbnb “movement” for deregulation – How platform-sponsored grassroots lobbying is changing politics, in: research.consumer.org/ethicalconsumer (University of Manchester), April 2021. airbnb (San Francisco) operates an online marketplace for Accommodations that can be booked for a short period of time (holiday apartments – tourist activities). The platform is accessible via the website and a mobile app. The launch of airbnb promised new income opportunities and jobs as well as strengthening local communities. As it turned out, that was premature. Airbnb is now represented in many cities around the world and has tens of thousands of apartments on offer. This has led to a shortage of accommodation in some places for those seeking long-term housing. Conflicts over attempts to regulate Airbnb in San Francisco, Barcelona and New York led to the establishment of nominally independent “home sharing clubs” that are intended to bring about deregulation or regulation that is positive for Airbnb. There are currently between 300 and 400 of these clubs worldwide. The Airbnb model has now led to similar establishments by Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Getaround, Lime, Scoot, Spin, Bird and Lyft Scooters. “Grassroots lobbying is now a key tactic for disruptive new business facing regulation, but its current scale, how it works, and its social and political impacts, have received litte attention.”
airbnb has a significant influence on the composition of the membership in the “Home Sharing Clubs”. Representatives of housing associations are largely excluded. Instead, an intensive search is carried out for suitable members. Former Airbnb employees interviewed by Yates “describe many forms of support and influence, inducing protesting alongside landlords: organizing many aspects of protests; political education and training; editing and rehearsing of curated “stories”; and suggesting policy that the company wanted … Clubs hold meetings, attend and give evidence in legislative hearings, lobby officials by phone-banking, letter-writing, in-person or by open petitions, liaise with media, and convene protests”. Signs of independence from individual clubs are seen by airbnb as a failure of its own influence, which must be counteracted. All of this is presented completely differently by Airbnb to the outside world, so that ethical and transparency questions arise because of this contradiction.
Comment. The successes of “home sharing clubs” and their potential for taking ownership of local and regional politics may be limited. But the rapid expansion of these associations across companies is raising concerns, especially since the “clubs” encounter local and regional politicians who are in no way prepared for this form of lobbying. A few years ago, however, one could not have imagined that social media would make significant contributions to the polarization and irrationalization of Western societies or that they would allow themselves to be exploited by hostile secret services. Lobbying must be permitted, but it must be identified as such and its activities must be largely transparent.
Information science
N-digit information markets
The influencers – three-digit information markets,
conclusion and consequences for political action
By Wolfgang G. Stock
Second part
————————————————– ————————————————– ———————–
Three-digit information markets
————————————————– ————————————————– ———————–
In three-digit information markets, a third market page appears. Our example is the new professional field of influencers in digital media. Influencers, streamers and other “micro-celebrities” often implement multi-channel behavior and use more than one platform, e.g. B. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok or YouNow for presenting your videos and additionally Instagram or Twitter for publishing images, text messages or announcements of your (live) videos. Influencers try to connect with their fan base digitally. However, there is no “normal” social interaction involving physical contact, proximity, orientation, gesture, facial expression or eye movement, as well as verbal and non-verbal aspects of language, which constitutes the classic definition of “social interaction”. Instead, the influencer-fan relationship is a parasocial interaction, since the fans know the influencer (or their productions) via social media channels, but the influencer does not know his fans. A viewer, for example of a TV show, a film or content on social media, sometimes not only consumes the content passively, but also builds a kind of relationship with a “media figure”, namely an actor, presenter, celebrity or whatever an influencer or streamer. The key difference between social interactions and parasocial interactions is the lack of reciprocity, creating “intimacy at a distance.” The influencer or streamer only knows the number of fans in the social media services used, more precisely the number of followers and the number of views for a single piece of content (and sometimes, depending on the service, also the number of “likes”). Influencers try to strengthen parasocial relationships and bind users to their channels through their posts and videos.
Figure: Three-digit information market: A seller of digital information, e.g. B. Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, YouNow or ByteDance with TikTok delivers digital content to an end user (buyer); in return, the buyer pays with his personal data or with his attention (exchange relationship #1). The same seller gives the user’s personal data or his attention to an advertiser; in return, this advertiser pays with money. Finally, the advertiser presents the advertisement to the original end user of the digital content (exchange relationship #2). Influencers or (in the case of live streaming services: streamers) establish digital contacts with users, usually via Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Twitch, YouNow or TikTok, and the users view their digital content and pay with loyal fan behavior and their attention; in return, the information company (such as Google for YouTube) pays the influencer money. In addition, influencers can also enter into contracts with advertisers and occasionally sprinkle paid advertising into their videos or images (exchange relationship #3).
Influencers have two sources of income, namely from the seller (a social media company) and from a company that works with the influencer to spread their advertising messages. The influencer produces digital content (e.g. a video on YouTube or an image with text on Instagram) and hopes to attract buyers’ attention. We need to distinguish between actual attention (i.e. the number of views of a single video, live stream or image from the influencer) and expected attention (i.e. the number of followers the influencer has on the service).
Influencers’ first source of income comes from sellers, who in turn are funded by their advertisers (as in the double-digit information market). The more exposure there actually is, the more money the influencer will make. For example, YouTube pays more than fifty percent of its video-specific AdSense revenue to influencers, based solely on the number of views of the video, whereby the size of the fan base and the content of the video are irrelevant. Therefore, in this case, end users are paying with their actual attention to watching an influencer’s video (and the embedded ad videos). On Twitch, “partners” can distribute their channels on a subscription basis, which are offered to end users (for money). The second income option for influencers comes from companies that work with the influencer regardless of the platform. The collaboration between an advertising company and an influencer is usually regulated contractually. The amount of the payment depends on the number of followers of the influencer, i.e. on the expected attention of the fan base. Influencers thus monetize their efforts to build parasocial relationships, with the crucial indicators being the number of views of their videos and the number of followers, i.e. aspects of fans’ loyalty. The figure shows such a three-digit information market, the lower part shows the two-digit market embedded in it.
————————————————– ————————————————– ———————–
Conclusion and implications for political action
————————————————– ————————————————– ———————–
What are the lessons learned? Why this entirely theoretical article? Information goods, ie content and software, are traded on information markets. Due to two-sided indirect network effects, information services can be platforms and establish two-sided markets. In addition, we observe different market relationships between players in the information markets in terms of payment. Buyers can pay with money, with their attention, with their personal data or with “loyal” fan behavior. We have called these relationships the “agency” of an information market. In single-digit information markets, there is only one payment relationship between a seller of information goods and his customers. Examples of companies in single-digit information markets include Elsevier or Netflix; Buyers pay with money. Two-digit information markets are characterized by two market relationships for each market participant. Buyers of digital content or software receive their products and services without any financial contribution, paying with their attention (e.g. in search engines) or with their personal data (e.g. in social media and some software markets). Sellers offer advertisers attention or their personal information, and they pay with money. The business model of influencers and streamers is more complicated, as it represents activities in a three-digit information market, but is based on the characteristics of double-digit information markets. Added to this is the role of influencers and streamers as media figures; Here the end users pay with their parasocial behavior as fans and – again – with their attention.
Double-digit and three-digit information markets require new regulations on
competition law and data protection law. In competition law, the concentration of data that a company can collect in a market should be taken into account when talking about a dominant position or when determining rules to control mergers and acquisitions. This would be an additional criterion that goes beyond the company’s market share in terms of customer numbers or sales or the purchase price in the case of acquisitions.
We see no problems with users paying for information goods with their attention or personal data (after all, information companies have to be able to survive), but it should be clear before each purchase what exactly customers should pay in the form of personal data or attention. Such a fair use rule can replace the current behavior of information companies in the sense of “we take what we want from your data or your attention”.
Additional information
Linde, F., & Stock, W.G. (2011). Information Markets. A Strategic Guideline for I-Commerce . Berlin: De Gruyter Saur. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110236101
Stock, WG (2020). N-ary information markets: Money, attention, and personal data as means of payment. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice , 8(3), 6-14. DOI https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2020.8.3.1
My personal experiences
with corona vaccination appointments
The usual long distance between
official announcement and reality
Especially in Corona times, but also otherwise:
Always ask those affected
By Willi Bredemeier
When the Labor Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia wrote to me and gave me the right to be vaccinated twice with BionTech, he also encouraged me to make appointments for this from Monday, February 8th (from 8 a.m. on each day). Before the reservation options were opened, I expected the worst from the start. In fact, my wife, son and I tried for a long time by phone and online without success. At lunchtime, the country’s Prime Minister appeared in front of the cameras and happily stated that the appointment bookings were going wonderfully and smoothly. Almost at the same time, ntv reported that not a single vaccination appointment had been made. But around 6 p.m. my son called and said he had gotten through and booked two appointments for me, the first later this week.
According to inquiries from neighbors, relatives and friends, we were one of the lucky winners. Others had to spend weeks or even months on the phone or going online before they finally got through. I wondered what became of those seniors who had no online experience and no helpful grandchild, since it was even less possible to get through on the phone. To this day I still don’t understand why the seniors weren’t spared the hassle of cranking by offering them an appointment. They could have canceled that.
A few weeks later, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia provided 450,000 additional vaccination doses for citizens over 60 in a special campaign. This was made possible because the Ethics Council changed its prioritization recommendations for the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Again the three of us came together, this time to get an appointment for my wife. Again, I expected the worst. But when I went online around 9 a.m. on Holy Saturday, the earliest possible time, I was promised a one-minute wait. And sure enough, after a minute, the path opened up to forms that I had to fill out and submit. At the same time I was promised a link to the booking options. When the email didn’t arrive after a long time, I filled out the forms again and then a third time. But this time too, the promised emails didn’t arrive, which means they all popped up in my email system at once on the afternoon of Easter Sunday. However, as Westdeutscher Rundfunk reported, all appointments had already been taken.
Nevertheless, we were again one of the lucky winners because my son called around 2 p.m. on Holy Saturday. He received the link and booked two appointments for my wife. My repeated inquiries revealed that I wasn’t the only unlucky person with the emails that were supposed to come but didn’t want to.
Once again, I was tempted to brush off my experiences as the inevitable vicissitudes of life when dealing with our bureaucracy. Then I received a press release from Telekom that gave an extremely positive assessment of the “Astra Zeneca” special campaign:
“The new booking portal for appointments was activated at 9 a.m. on Saturday morning. Within just two hours, 120,000 vaccine recipients had registered and received an appointment. On Sunday afternoon there were 168,000. Around 10,000 of them had already been vaccinated by Sunday evening. At its peak, the booking portal had 7,000 hits per second and 5,000 appointment bookings per minute. Since Tuesday morning, the portal has made a further 80,000 appointments for people over 70. The servers withstood the onslaught: users had to wait a maximum of three minutes before a successful booking.
KVWL and industry partners draw positive conclusions about the launch…: “ We are very pleased about the successful launch of the new booking platform for vaccination appointments in Westphalia-Lippe. The platform was activated on Easter Saturday and at the same time several million users were able to book a very limited number of vaccination appointments. Despite this huge rush, the system worked stably – we recorded more than 7,000 page views in one second alone! The virtual waiting room, which we used as a precautionary measure, hardly had to be used. All in all, we are very satisfied with this start and would like to thank T-Systems and ServiceNow for the good cooperation!” said the board of the Westphalia-Lippe Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Dr. Spelmeyer, Dr. Volker Schrage and Thomas Müller.”
Small question on the side: Did Dr. Spelmeyer, Dr. Schrage and Thomas Müller in a spontaneously formed choir for their positive assessment?
Other now more important questions are: Do we not consider the large discrepancy between public statements and what is actually happening and has happened to be downright typical and do we only lose our cynicism when we are personally affected? Aren’t announcements to the media made with the hot needle anyway and don’t PR professionals primarily want to impress their bosses instead of informing the media? Do those ultimately responsible for public statements fail to find out the truth of what happened at the lower levels or do they not even want to know it? How are media makers supposed to check the truth of official reports if they don’t have a whistleblower on site and extensive research, which would only be enough for a short report, is too expensive (especially as editorial teams are getting smaller and smaller)?
The following applies, especially in Corona times but also otherwise: If at all possible, always ask those affected. Then, as my initial suspicion goes, a completely different picture emerges all too often.
OpenPassword
Forum and news
for the information industry
in German-speaking countries
New editions of Open Password appear four times a week.
If you would like to subscribe to the email service free of charge, please register at www.password-online.de.
The current edition of Open Password can be accessed immediately after it appears on the web. www.password-online.de/archiv. This also applies to all previously published editions.
International Cooperation Partner:
Outsell (London)
Business Industry Information Association/BIIA (Hong Kong)
Open Password Archive – Publications
OPEN PASSWORD ARCHIVE
DATA JOURNALISM
Handelsblatt’s Digital Reach
MARKET TRENDS
Library Trends 2022
What are the key trends in the library market for 2022?
Online-Publications | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | GPT AI SEARCH
Print Archive | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000
