Google's mission statement is "don't be evil". Meet the company bold enough to shorten that by one word.
On the grounds that there's always another side to the story, I have been struggling to think of something positive to say about this company. So far, I've got nothing.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Absolutely brilliant. They're completely up front about what a ripoff it is, and still idiots are lining up to hand over their money. The "fixed price" and "100% off" "auctions" are especially inspired.
I have been struggling to think of something positive to say about this company. So far, I've got nothing.
They serve as a perfect illustration of cognitive biases and how to exploit them? Ok, maybe that's not exactly positive.
I thought google abandoned that motto once they started doing deals with the Chinese government? Or am I misrembering?
this is an amazingly evil business model.
that said, if the site is legit--if the company is not itself driving up bids--then I'm sure that some smart people could actually win real deals. of course the vast majority of bidders will lose money.
Google shortened that by one word a long time ago when they started turning in searches on topics relating to democracy to the Chinese government.
Google turns in the dissident, things like this (China's Gruesome Organ Harvest) happen, and the Google people get to pour a little more gas into their private widebody airliner when they fly off to the next Global Warming conference.
Google isn't quite De Beers in terms of evil, but they're trying awful hard.
I'd have to echo the sentiments of the previous person. Also, if that's the actual business plan of Google, I wouldn't be surprised to find Google bankrupt within 30 years. ;)
That's a really brilliant idea...
I wouldn't characterize it as evil. Just a Dutch-auction equivalent to ebay.
I actually watched it in action. some of the deals are incredible, at least initially. Then, watching the auctions, for the most part every time it got below 10 seconds blip! a new bid. It would be maddening to actually be in the middle of one of these...
I wouldn't characterize it as evil. Just a Dutch-auction equivalent to ebay.
It's closer to the dollar auction equivalent to EBay.
The evil part is the "a bid only raises the sale price by 15 cents, but it costs 75 cents to make a bid." So the company is essentially auctioning off the times for six times the price of the winning bid! (The actual price paid plus all the prices "to play.")
The most insane are "100% price off auctions." Here the winner doesn't actually pay the winning bid; the company only collects the 75 cents per bid. That means that at any time anyone can pay only 75 cents to be the new "high bidder" and owe nothing if they win other than the 75 cents.
As I am watching, someone just won a Wii Fit board for $10.35...according to the site it's normal price is 90 bucks.
The "positive" of this company is the same as any other: a) it creates jobs and b) it provides a service that folks willingly prefer to purchase than not. Who are we to say the bidders are wasting their money? We've got no idea what their utility curve looks like; maybe the thrill is worth it in itself.
I'd agree that only fools would shop there. You pay to bid, and unless it is a 100% off auction, you then pay, on top of that, the winning bid?
Though, if they aren't employing bots to bid on their items, then they must be making money hand-over-fist. But I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
The odds of coming out ahead as a bidder are worse than playing slots! I'm sure the casinos are looking into this business model.
@Secret asian: Thanks for linking that article. Chilling, if true.
Klug -
It's always hard to tell the full truth of claims by the Falun Gong, but it's a fairly safe bet that, even if exaggerated, there's some truth there.
However, the selling of organs began years before the Falun Gong freaked out the Chinese Communist Party by having reportedly around 10,000 of them suddenly show up one morning in 1999 outside Zhongnanhai. The Falun Gong were engaged in a silent, peaceful protest, but for thousands of them to show up without warning outside where the elite live really got to them.
As I've mentioned before in other comments, I lived in Hong Kong in the 1990s, and it was 'common knowledge' then that the best time to buy organs from the mainland was around the holidays, due to the tradition of mass executions just before holidays. We always heard that the best prices and selection were at Chinese New Year. It was only later that the Chinese military hospitals became more sophisticated and allowed people to have their prisoners killed to order, for an extra fee (just in time inventory).
I can remember some good Lily Wong comic strips about how, for orders from people with rare blood types, they'd have to entice people to say bad things about Deng to give the military an excuse for acquiring the needed inventory. I think it was those strips that got the Lily Wong series banned from the South China Morning Post (the book "Banned in Hong Kong" by Larry Feign has some great Lily Wong comic strips, including the ones that got him banned).
The selling of organs isn't a special punishment only for the Falun Gong. Why should the Chinese government limit the size of their market? But the revenue stream from executions gives authorities one more incentive to crack down on a group that they don't like anyway. Which kind of explains why it's a bad idea to sell the organs of those "patriotic" criminals.
Regarding whether there's anything positive to say about this company -
I do research on auctions and on how complicated the optimal bidding strategies can be. Perhaps this company will teach a few more people that auctions can be very risky and often don't work out well. Well-designed auctions can also be very useful in the right circumstances, but they're not a magic fix for all problems.
I found the site a month ago, and even signed up, before I realized that there was no possible way to bid without losing. All the same, this company has given me at least an hour of entertainment, free of charge.
Hi -
It's not evil, but rather using network effects to generate for that company the greatest possible revenue stream whilst remaining very attractive as an auction site for the individual bidder. Individual bidders seem to do quite well in getting goods for substantially lower costs than they would elsewhere: how is that evil?
It's taking the auction efficiency of eBay and adding extremely high transaction costs. It wouldn't surprise me to find some former stockbrokers behind the business: after all, it's how stockbrokers make their money (high transaction costs).
The only thing "evil" about this is how the company maximizes the transaction costs. But that's not evil: it's merely exploitative. Evil would be, say, what Madoff has done in the world's largest Ponzi scheme so far ($50 bn ain't no chump change, even in DC). This scheme merely exploits the greed of others (I want that Wii Fit Board for $10.35, not $90!) by imposing substantial transaction costs: the winning bid cost $11.10, $10.35+$.75, but if there were 200 bidders, the company effectively exploited the greed of the other 199 bidders to take in 200*.75 = $150 for providing the opportunity to get it for $11.10.
That's not evil: that is a farging brilliant business plan if you can get it to work: apparently they can. But it's not evil: it's exploiting the greed of others...
At what point did a business, voluntarily transacted between fully-informed people, become evil?
There are lots of bad, exploitative deals out there in the world--from paying overdraft fees to buying a Chrysler. The overriding fact is that, in America at least, we have until now thought that a consumer having free choice in the spending of his/her income is a greater moral good than paternalistically controlling their options.
The thing about that Wii Fit board is that it cost $51.75 to make the bids that drove it up that high. So the site got $62.10 for it, even if the high bidder only spent $11.10. In that case they probably did lose money, but I imagine that's pretty rare.
Also, re Google, agreed. They're really cool, but they lost the moral high ground years ago. Then again, considering that their motto was an attack on Microsoft and its business practices, it should be pointed out that they still don't do some of the things that they were so offended by Microsoft doing. Also, their defence of their actions re China is at least plausible - choosing between a stripped-down Google or no Google, they chose the stripped-down one, on the principle that the firewall isn't perfect and access to more information will ultimately damage the regime. I don't necessarily buy it, but it's not obviously evil.
Howl,
How is it paternalism for us to deride a scam playing specifically to known biases in the human mind as evil? I'm not proposing that swoopo necessarily needs to be made illegal, although I could sympathize with the argument that it may already be illegal under current law. Also, part of being a "fully informed" person is information, and you seem to be condemning the people here trying to provide accurate and truthful information.
How is this evil? They are totally upfront about their terms, everything I've seen is from people reading their own website. The Wall Street Bailout now, THAT is evil. The money was forcibly (or fraudulently for poeple who actually believe in gov't) stolen from the less well-off majority to pay the debts of wealthy investors - pure evil.
RE: Google/Evil
Google [google clitoris]. Google isn't evil; they're just lazy.
RE: Swoopo.com
Saying Swoopo is evil is like saying Ebola is evil; it just doesn't make any sense.
On the grounds that there's always another side to the story, I have been struggling to think of something positive to say about this company.
They possess a great understanding of the world, and its inhabitants.
I always thought that I was the only person in the world who reads Coding Horror and Megan. Imagine my disappointment when Megan links to Coding Horror! Ugh...
Megan is the sole reason I refuse to get a subscription to the Atlantic.
Get rid of her, and I will subscribe. But let the Market decide.
Saying Swoopo is evil is like saying Ebola is evil; it just doesn't make any sense.
I don't know if Swoopo is evil or not, but Ebola isn't a good analogy. There's intention behind Swoopo that doesn't exists in Ebola. Swoopo could be evil, Ebola can't.
Megan is the best thing about The Atlantic, and the only reason I read it.
There. Brad's cancelled out.
In contemplating the implications of a site like Swoopo, I don't know that ascribing a level of intentionality to Swoopo above and beyond what would reasonably ascribe to Ebola is going going to yield anything particularly useful. Same for Google.
@Matt
I've been reading Coding Horror for years, Jeff Atwood is the main guy behind Stack Overflow, a programmer's answer site that is still in beta.
Swoopo is a raffle/lottery, making it illegal as a business in several states.
@Tony
Ebola is a virus, mindless and devoid of moral character. Swoopo is...never mind, I can't bring myself to say they're anything other than a virus.
In contemplating the implications of a site like Swoopo, I don't know that ascribing a level of intentionality to Swoopo above and beyond what would reasonably ascribe to Ebola is going going to yield anything particularly useful. Same for Google.
I disagree. If your argument is that human constructions can't be assigned moral value then you lose the ability to call the gulag and concentration camps evil. I think that would be a tremendously bad result.
That's independent of whether Swoopo actually is evil. I don't think they're any more evil than casinos - they seem to be up front about their angle and they appeal to the same human desire to get something for nothing ("Loosest slots in town!"). I don't think casinos are evil (although I'd agree that gambling is a vice) so I don't think Swoopo is evil either. But I think people could reasonably differ.
And it does lead to some interesting arguments: Is facilitating a vice morally objectionable? What responsibility to adults have for their own behavior? Does society have an obligation to help adults make "good" choices?
I'm making no such argument. I'm merely saying that in the case of Swoopo (or Google) such assignations are not useful.
@Tony
I'm trying to ask this without sounding jerk-like, so here goes:
You really need to defend that statement. Why should Swoopo/Google be exempted from moral judgment on anything other than your say so? I really don't understand what you are getting at here. What is your argument, other than assertion?
I'll second KevDog's question. Irrespective of the answer, why is the question not useful?
I don't know how to say this without sounding glib, so here it goes:
I'm not lobbying for an excemption for Swoopo or Google; or at least I'm not intending to make that argument. Please feel free to pass moral judgement on any company or organization you like. I won't take offense.
RE: Utility
I will stipulate what Google is not evil and that Swoopo is evil. (We'll leave Ebola out of it for now.)
How is this useful to you? Or in the words of my original comment, how has this helped you make sense of either company?
Also, absent emocons, blog comments are generally presumed to be offered with a sharp edge, which can lead to misunderstanding and hurt feelings. I appreciate your challenging me, and offer my response with all affection.
I don't think Swoopo is evil, any more than I think state lotteries or casinos are evil.
Do they take money from people who cannot afford to lose that money? Certainly. Do they exploit human greed? Certainly.
But, unless Swoopo bought up all the, I don't know, polio vaccine in the world and was only selling it using its business model, I'm not going to decree it evil. Or if the Swoopo model was used by the only grocery store in, say, Valentine, Nebraska (the next nearest store being 100+ miles away).
It's a place where you cannot win, certainly. But you are also not required to shop there. Fool and his money, as the old saying goes.
FWIW, I don't buy lottery tickets or go to casinos, either.
How is this useful to you? Or in the words of my original comment, how has this helped you make sense of either company?
It doesn't help me make sense of the company, but it helps me make sense of the commenter and people generally. The answer provides insight in to other people's world view.
Their mission statement is "Don't be"? How do they get anything done?