#Market Competition

[americanredragger]

Capitalist Highlander — THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

All Capitalist roads lead to Monopoly at the end, be they long or short, because Monopoly is the goal of an unfettered free market ideology.

You have many companies, all competing to offer goods and/or services in a given space, with the understanding that the "superior" company will beat out the competition and emerge victorious.

The lie we were told as children consisted of two fallacious understandings: that the struggle has no end, and that it was the superior product and/or service that would win, not the superior company. That lie disguises the fact that the superior company achieves that superiority by many, MANY means, with only a small handful having to do with shipping a product of a certain level of quality. Most of them have to do with legal abuse, creative accounting, dividing up territory, and other means of inter-corporate politics to block and/or remove competition in the first place. Most of this effort is targeted at preventing smaller competition from growing further, as not much can be done to bring down a fellow titan but wait for them to make an industry-shaking mistake and then be there to buy up the pieces off the corpse, so these titans exist in a precarious balance of power with each other.

The struggle ends, of course, with a victor who has achieved such market dominance sufficient to effectively lock out any and all competitors, aka, a monopoly. Some competition will always be permitted to deny that a monopoly has formed and lend it a degree of market legitimacy ("See! We can't be a monopoly! We have competition right over there!"), but it will only be allowed to operate within a permitted niche — it will never be allowed enough resources and breathing room to seriously challenge said monopoly's dominance. This is a big reason why a box of Honey Nut Cheerios will sell for $5-6 a box, but "Auntie Rhonny's Honeyed Nut Cereal" has to make do selling a much smaller box for $8-10 even if their product were objectively better in every way; the dominant power sets the terms of the market such that their competition stays small and token.

Even "better" is when the monopoly can turn their small competitors into customers. For instance, Samsung sells their smartphone screens at an affordable price both to major competitors like Apple, and also to smaller, more niche brands like Unihertz. This makes those smaller companies dependent on the titan they are in direct competition with, ensuring they cannot grow above a certain level. After all, if Unihertz started approaching getting big enough to think about maybe making their OWN displays, Samsung could simply prematurely cut off Unihertz's supply and prevent further growth in that direction, forcing them to either fold or find a new source of displays that may not be of the same quality that their customers have come to expect, which might do further damage. This dependency on Unihertz's part assures that Samsung wins and maintains their dominance over one market or another, no matter what happens.

Capitalist thought is much like The Highlander: "there can be only one". The process will continue until each market segment is dominated by a superior company, and then that King can behave largely how they want, because a lack of meaningful competition means people have no alternative.

It goes without saying that this is ultimately bad for consumers AND workers. Only the "competition" phase is any good for us, and even then, it has to be competition predicated on the ideal of selling a superior product or service. For that, in the current status quo, you need a strong government with powerful anti-trust laws and pro-worker and pro-consumer regulations and a vested interest and willingness to enforce them.

There are potential socioeconomic overhauls (of which Marxism and its various descendants are overwhelmingly the most well known) that could flip this script completely by investing power elsewhere and even redefine what a corporation even IS, but those are simply potential overhauls that will require a revolution (of one sort or another) to accomplish, so for the purposes of this post, they aren't very practical to discuss.

In the system we have, right here, right now, the only way to prevent monopoly is by using government regulations and anti-trust to physically intervene and prevent them, and break them up where they HAVE formed. Which is to say, the United States is probably already fucked. But the rest of you guys might manage something with enough action.

[worldpostday]

A 21st Century Business Strategy for Posts in Developing Regions.

Commoditization of postal products has made the courier and express parcel (CEP) market competition time-sensitive. In this kind of market, a longer lead-time period ��� the time between ordering/booking and delivery - is fatal for any postal or courier organization, while speed and service excellence are now even more paramount than the product itself or its price. For many Posts in developing countries, these rapid changes call for a profound adaptation of their strategies, operations and business models.

Learn more about A 21st Century Business Strategy for Posts in Developing Regions

[anik211]

Case Study: Reviving BSNL through Strategic Initiatives and Stock Exchange Listing 📈📞

Introduction Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) has been grappling with market competition, especially against private giants like Jio, Airtel, and Vodafone Idea (VI). This case study explores BSNL’s revival strategies, particularly through infrastructure upgrades, competitive pricing, and the potential benefits of listing on the stock exchange. 💡 Current Market Landscape Competitive…

[prabhatjairam]

Customer Relationship Management 

The key to success lies not only in acquiring customers but also in nurturing relationships that last. This is where Customer Relationship Management, or CRM, emerges as a powerful ally for businesses seeking to thrive in the digital age. More than just a software solution, CRM represents a philosophy—a commitment to understanding, engaging, and delighting customers at every touchpoint. 

In this article, we embark on a journey to uncover the essence of CRM, exploring its transformative potential, practical applications, and the profound impact it has on shaping modern business strategies. Join us as we delve into the world of CRM and unlock the secrets to building enduring customer connections that drive sustainable growth and prosperity.

What is CRM?

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is like a superhero for businesses, helping them build strong and lasting connections with customers. It's a special tool that keeps track of all the important information about customers – like what they like, what they buy, and how they interact with the company. This way, businesses can understand their customers better, offer personalized experiences, and make sure everyone in the company is on the same page when it comes to customer relationships. It's not just about selling stuff; it's about creating happy customers and making the business thrive.

Advantages of CRM

CRM (Customer Relationship Management) offers numerous advantages for businesses. The following points explain how it helps companies better understand their customers, improve customer satisfaction, and streamline sales processes.

1) Customer Insight:

It collects and organizes valuable customer data, offering businesses a comprehensive view of their preferences, purchase history, and interactions. This insight allows companies to anticipate customer needs and deliver personalized experiences.

2) Efficient Communication:

With CRM, communication becomes streamlined. Teams across sales, marketing, and customer service can access the same up-to-date customer information, ensuring consistency and coherence in interactions. This not only saves time but also prevents misunderstandings.

3) Customer Retention:

By identifying and addressing customer needs, CRM helps build loyalty. Proactive customer service, personalized offers, and timely follow-ups contribute to a positive customer experience, reducing the likelihood of customers seeking alternatives.

4) Market Adaptability:

In a constantly evolving market, businesses need to adapt quickly. It aids in tracking market trends and customer feedback, enabling companies to adjust their strategies and offerings to stay relevant.

5) Sales Growth:

CRM systems empower sales teams by providing them with tools to manage leads, track opportunities, and forecast sales. The result? Increased efficiency, improved conversion rates, and a better understanding of the sales pipeline.

“Explore deeper insights and practical strategies to elevate your CRM game on platforms like Study24hr.com, where a plethora of courses offer invaluable knowledge tailored to your needs. The platform empowers you to unlock your full potential in nurturing lasting customer relationships. Embark on your journey to CRM excellence today and redefine the way you connect with your customers on Study24hr.com's dynamic learning platform.”

How CRM Helps Businesses Remain Competitive

With CRM, businesses can better understand customer needs, improve customer satisfaction, and ultimately, enhance their market position in a rapidly evolving business landscape. The subsequent details elaborate on how it contributes to these aspects.

1) Tailored Customer Experiences:

CRM allows businesses to craft personalized experiences for customers, from targeted marketing campaigns to customized products or services. This personal touch sets companies apart in a market where individuality matters.

2) Agile Decision-Making:

Informed decision-making is a competitive advantage. It provides real-time insights, enabling businesses to make agile decisions based on current market trends and customer feedback, rather than relying on historical data alone.

3) Enhanced Collaboration:

Collaboration among teams is key to success. Customer Relation Management fosters seamless communication and collaboration between departments, breaking down silos and ensuring that everyone is on the same page when it comes to customer interactions.

4) Efficiency and Cost Savings:

Streamlining processes through CRM not only enhances efficiency but also reduces operational costs. Automation of routine tasks frees up valuable time for employees to focus on high-impact activities, ultimately contributing to the bottom line.

The Conclusion

In summary, CRM is not just a tool; it's a strategic approach that places customers at the heart of business operations. By leveraging the insights and efficiencies offered by CRM, businesses can create meaningful connections, drive growth, and, most importantly, remain competitive in a market where customer relationships are the currency of success.

[platformdecentral]

Spotify's CEO, Daniel Ek says Apple's EU DMA announcement is "at best vague and misleading"

Today, Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, penned a blog post expressing his criticism of the alterations Apple has made to its app ecosystem in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act. He accused Apple of presenting “a new plan that is a complete and total farce” under the guise of “compliance and concessions.” Ek asserts that Apple doesn’t believe “the rules apply to them,” and he anticipates…

[thelawandmore]

Considering the Drivers of Change in the Legal Industry 

Considering the Drivers of Change in the Legal Industry

The legal industry is undergoing significant changes driven by various factors, such as technology developments, evolving client demands, market competition, and regulatory shifts. In this blog post, we will explore some of the major trends and challenges that are shaping the future of legaltech, and how they impact both law firms and legal service providers.  Technology developments  One of…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

UK publishers suing Google for $17.4b over rigged ad markets

THIS WEEKEND (June 7–9), I'm in AMHERST, NEW YORK to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity.

Look, no one wants to kick Big Tech to the curb more than I do, but, also: it's good that Google indexes the news so people can find it, and it's good that Facebook provides forums where people can talk about the news.

It's not news if you can't find it. It's not news if you can't talk about it. We don't call information you can't find or discuss "news" – we call it "secrets."

And yet, the most popular – and widely deployed – anti-Big Tech tactic promulgated by the news industry and supported by many of my fellow trustbusters is premised on making Big Tech pay to index the news and/or provide a forum to discuss news articles. These "news bargaining codes" (or, less charitably, "link taxes") have been mooted or introduced in the EU, France, Spain, Australia, and Canada. There are proposals to introduce these in the US (through the JCPA) and in California (the CJPA).

These US bills are probably dead on arrival, for reasons that can be easily understood by the Canadian experience with them. After Canada introduced Bill C-18 – its own news bargaining code – Meta did exactly what it had done in many other places where this had been tried: blocked all news from Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and other Meta properties.

This has been a disaster for the news industry and a disaster for Canadians' ability to discuss the news. Oh, it makes Meta look like assholes, too, but Meta is the poster child for "too big to care" and is palpably indifferent to the PR costs of this boycott.

Frustrated lawmakers are now trying to figure out what to do next. The most common proposal is to order Meta to carry the news. Canadians should be worried about this, because the next government will almost certainly be helmed by the far-right conspiratorialist culture warrior Pierre Poilievre, who will doubtless use this power to order Facebook to platform "news sites" to give prominence to Canada's rotten bushel of crypto-fascist (and openly fascist) "news" sites.

Americans should worry about this too. A Donald Trump 2028 presidency combined with a must-carry rule for news would see Trump's cabinet appointees deciding what is (and is not) news, and ordering large social media platforms to cram the Daily Caller (or, you know, the Daily Stormer) into our eyeballs.

But there's another, more fundamental reason that must-carry is incompatible with the American system: the First Amendment. The government simply can't issue a blanket legal order to platforms requiring them to carry certain speech. They can strongly encourage it. A court can order limited compelled speech (say, a retraction following a finding of libel). Under emergency conditions, the government might be able to compel the transmission of urgent messages. But there's just no way the First Amendment can be squared with a blanket, ongoing order issued by the government to communications platforms requiring them to reproduce, and make available, everything published by some collection of their favorite news outlets.

This might also be illegal in Canada, but it's harder to be definitive. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in 1982, and Canada's Supreme Court is still figuring out what it means. Section Two of the Charter enshrines a free expression right, but it's worded in less absolute terms than the First Amendment, and that's deliberate. During the debate over the wording of the Charter, Canadian scholars and policymakers specifically invoked problems with First Amendment absolutism and tried to chart a middle course between strong protections for free expression and problems with the First Amendment's brook-no-exceptions language.

So maybe Canada's Supreme Court would find a must-carry order to Meta to be a violation of the Charter, but it's hard to say for sure. The Charter is both young and ambiguous, so it's harder to be definitive about what it would say about this hypothetical. But when it comes to the US and the First Amendment, that's categorically untrue. The US Constitution is centuries older than the Canadian Charter, and the First Amendment is extremely definitive, and there are reams of precedent interpreting it. The JPCA and CJPA are totally incompatible with the US Constitution. Passing them isn't as silly as passing a law declaring that Pi equals three or that water isn't wet, but it's in the neighborhood.

But all that isn't to say that the news industry shouldn't be attacking Big Tech. Far from it. Big Tech compulsively steals from the news!

But what Big Tech steals from the news isn't content.

It's money.

Big Tech steals money from the news. Take social media: when a news outlet invests in building a subscriber base on a social media platform, they're giving that platform a stick to beat them with. The more subscribers you have on social media, the more you'll be willing to pay to reach those subscribers, and the more incentive there is for the platform to suppress the reach of your articles unless you pay to "boost" your content.

This is plainly fraudulent. When I sign up to follow a news outlet on a social media site, I'm telling the platform to show me the things the news outlet publishes. When the platform uses that subscription as the basis for a blackmail plot, holding my desire to read the news to ransom, they are breaking their implied promise to me to show me the things I asked to see:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-need-end-end-web

This is stealing money from the news. It's the definition of an "unfair method of competition." Article 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the FTC the power to step in and ban this practice, and they should:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

Big Tech also steals money from the news via the App Tax: the 30% rake that the mobile OS duopoly (Apple/Google) requires for every in-app purchase (Apple/Google also have policies that punish app vendors who take you to the web to make payments without paying the App Tax). 30% out of every subscriber dollar sent via an app is highway robbery! By contrast, the hyperconcentrated, price-gouging payment processing cartel charges 2-5% – about a tenth of the Big Tech tax. This is Big Tech stealing money from the news:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Finally, Big Tech steals money by monopolizing the ad market. The Google-Meta ad duopoly takes 51% out of every ad-dollar spent. The historic share going to advertising "intermediaries" is 10-15%. In other words, Google/Meta cornered the market on ads and then tripled the bite they were taking out of publishers' advertising revenue. They even have an illegal, collusive arrangement to rig this market, codenamed "Jedi Blue":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

There's two ways to unrig the ad market, and we should do both of them.

First, we should trustbust both Google and Meta and force them to sell off parts of their advertising businesses. Currently, both Google and Meta operate a "full stack" of ad services. They have an arm that represents advertisers buying space for ads. Another arm represents publishers selling space to advertisers. A third arm operates the marketplace where these sales take place. All three arms collect fees. On top of that: Google/Meta are both publishers and advertisers, competing with their own customers!

This is as if you were in court for a divorce and you discovered that the same lawyer representing your soon-to-be ex was also representing you…while serving as the judge…and trying to match with you both on Tinder. It shouldn't surprise you if at the end of that divorce, the court ruled that the family home should go to the lawyer.

So yeah, we should break up ad-tech:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-shatter-ad-tech

Also: we should ban surveillance advertising. Surveillance advertising gives ad-tech companies a permanent advantage over publishers. Ad-tech will always know more about readers' behavior than publishers do, because Big Tech engages in continuous, highly invasive surveillance of every internet user in the world. Surveillance ads perform a little better than "content-based ads" (ads sold based on the content of a web-page, not the behavior of the person looking at the page), but publishers will always know more about their content than ad-tech does. That means that even if content-based ads command a slightly lower price than surveillance ads, a much larger share of that payment will go to publishers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

Banning surveillance advertising isn't just good business, it's good politics. The potential coalition for banning surveillance ads is everyone who is harmed by commercial surveillance. That's a coalition that's orders of magnitude larger than the pool of people who merely care about fairness in the ad/news industries. It's everyone who's worried about their grandparents being brainwashed on Facebook, or their teens becoming anorexic because of Instagram. It includes people angry about deepfake porn, and people angry about Black Lives Matter protesters' identities being handed to the cops by Google (see also: Jan 6 insurrectionists).

It also includes everyone who discovers that they're paying higher prices because a vendor is using surveillance data to determine how much they'll pay – like when McDonald's raises the price of your "meal deal" on your payday, based on the assumption that you will spend more when your bank account is at its highest monthly level:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Attacking Big Tech for stealing money is much smarter than pretending that the problem is Big Tech stealing content. We want Big Tech to make the news easy to find and discuss. We just want them to stop pocketing 30 cents out of every subscriber dollar and 51 cents out of ever ad dollar, and ransoming subscribers' social media subscriptions to extort publishers.

And there's amazing news on this front: a consortium of UK web-publishers called Ad Tech Collective Action has just triumphed in a high-stakes proceeding, and can now go ahead with a suit against Google, seeking damages of GBP13.6b ($17.4b) for the rigged ad-tech market:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/17-bln-uk-adtech-lawsuit-against-google-can-go-ahead-tribunal-rules-2024-06-05/

The ruling, from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, paves the way for a frontal assault on the thing Big Tech actually steals from publishers: money, not content.

This is exactly what publishing should be doing. Targeting the method by which tech steals from the news is a benefit to all kinds of news organizations, including the independent, journalist-owned publishers that are doing the best news work today. These independents do not have the same interests as corporate news, which is dominated by hedge funds and private equity raiders, who have spent decades buying up and hollowing out news outlets, and blaming the resulting decline in readership and profits on Craiglist.

You can read more about Big Finance's raid on the news in Margot Susca's Hedged: How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy:

https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p087561

You can also watch/listen to Adam Conover's excellent interview with Susca:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21YfWy0-bA

Frankly, the looters and billionaires who bought and gutted our great papers are no more interested in the health of the news industry or democracy than Big Tech is. We should care about the news and the workers who produce the news, not the profits of the hedge-funds that own the news. An assault on Big Tech's monetary theft levels the playing field, making it easier for news workers and indies to compete directly with financialized news outlets and billionaire playthings, by letting indies keep more of every ad-dollar and more of every subscriber-dollar – and to reach their subscribers without paying ransom to social media.

Ending monetary theft – rather than licensing news search and discussion – is something that workers are far more interested in than their bosses. Any time you see workers and their bosses on the same side as a fight against Big Tech, you should look more closely. Bosses are not on their workers' side. If bosses get more money out of Big Tech, they will not share those gains with workers unless someone forces them to.

That's where antitrust comes in. Antitrust is designed to strike at power, and enforcers have broad authority to blunt the power of corporate juggernauts. Remember Article 5 of the FTC Act, the one that lets the FTC block "unfair methods of competition?" FTC Chair Lina Khan has proposed using it to regulate training AI, specifically to craft rules that address the labor and privacy issues with AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg

This is an approach that can put creative workers where they belong, in a coalition with other workers, rather than with their bosses. The copyright approach to curbing AI training is beloved of the same media companies that are eagerly screwing their workers. If we manage to make copyright – a transferrable right that a worker can be forced to turn over their employer – into the system that regulates AI training, it won't stop training. It'll just trigger every entertainment company changing their boilerplate contract so that creative workers have to sign over their AI rights or be shown the door:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

Then those same entertainment and news companies will train AI models and try to fire most of their workers and slash the pay of the remainder using those models' output. Using copyright to regulate AI training makes changes to who gets to benefit from workers' misery, shifting some of our stolen wages from AI companies to entertainment companies. But it won't stop them from ruining our lives.

By contrast, focusing on actual labor rights – say, through an FTCA 5 rulemaking – has the potential to protect those rights from all parties, and puts us on the same side as call-center workers, train drivers, radiologists and anyone else whose wages are being targeted by AI companies and their customers.

Policy fights are a recurring monkey's paw nightmare in which we try to do something to fight corruption and bullying, only to be outmaneuvered by corrupt bullies. Making good policy is no guarantee of a good outcome, but it sure helps – and good policy starts with targeting the thing you want to fix. If we're worried that news is being financially starved by Big Tech, then we should go after the money, not the links.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/06/stealing-money-not-content/#content-free

[front-facing-pokemon]

[sataniccapitalist]

Allegations of price collusions among the potato cartel reveal the new, sophisticated methods food corporations are using to keep prices high.

[clar-a-m]

Some sketches inspired by @theunqualified1's fic Chalk It Up To Luck You can find some more drawings for this AU here

also little bonus bc i had to figure out their uniforms:

[fuckyeahchinesefashion]

chinese guzhuang fashion

[queerofthedagger]

"Thereafter escaping from the Orcs Beren dwelt still in those lands as a solitary outlaw for four years, and did such deeds of single-handed daring that Morgoth put a price on his head no less than upon the head of Fingon King of the Noldor."

There is a lot going on here but I frankly cannot stop thinking about Morgoth putting prices on people's heads. Like, what is the price? Money?? Is Sauron printing coins in Angband as a side hussle? Does anybody at this point trust Morgoth to keep a promise like money/lands/whatever the fuck that price is, considering the countless infamous stories of Morgoth Not Keeping His Word EverTM? Do people who are desperate bring by heads of people who they think look similar??? Like I have QuestionsTM! how does Mafia Boss Morgoth work what's the details are there wanted posters? Do people collect wanted posters?? Hell I want a wanted poster. damn it

[mirensiart]

Good luck with exams!

Waaah anon!

I graduated college a while ago, so I'm finals/exams free lol the one paper I was agonizing over was for a 6 month course I was forced to take by my current employer lol but like, it was that one final assignment so I can get a certificate that I did + passed the course so my employer can be happy about it

The place where I work at likes having it's team "up to date" with the new design and marketing stuff, so courses like this are pretty common, at least that's what my coworkers say lol

Anyway I WILL however pass on your lovely wishes to whoever is reading this who has finals/exams this week! Anon and I wish u best of luck, guys!

[platformdecentral]

Apple details how notarization will work for iOS apps distributed through alternative app stores in the EU

Apps that are distributed through alternative app stores in EU countries will need to undergo a notarization process that’s akin to the notarization process for Mac apps. According to Apple, Notarization applies to all apps and is a process focused on privacy, security, and maintaining device integrity. Apple aims to ensure that apps do not contain viruses, malware, or other security threats, and…

[tomwambsgans]

It's just, I only just got here again, and I'm--

I'm starving, too, like...