5 ms·

Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling th

Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about and others usually overlooked. The (legitimately real) rank and file support and skewed discussion focus which Uber's ad/lobbying money has bought them isn't my idea of grassroots backlash, even if it unwittingly enlists the grassroots in their PR campaign. No doubt the taxi lobby is pushing their interests just like Uber pushes theirs. Neither set of industry lobbyists is truly looking out for the citizens. But when the conversation they've shaped pairs "bought the mayor and City Council" for the less-spending party with "created a grassroots backlash" for the more-spending party, I can only marvel impressed and saddened at Uber PR's effectiveness. In most cities, the local taxi lobby plus the citizens who oppose Uber/Lyft/Juno/Gett for normal public policy reasons are even more outclassed against a major VC-funded global would-be monopolist like Uber than NYC managed. I'm impressed at de Blasio and City Council for holding firm. (As you can tell, I'm no fan of these companies for several reasons, but explaining those reasons substantively would be a huge tangent.)

euyyn 8y ago
Who cares how much money they spend on public ads? On the other hand, it's easy to understand why people care about how much money is donated to the campaigns of the politicians that will make these decisions.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  There's no legal problem with them spending as much on ads as they want, of course. But if public opinion is mobilized as a weapon through very selective presentation of the issues in ads, in a disproportionate way that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. The public can't react in their own interests if they don't have the right facts, so then polls will legitimately show what the company wants, by and large. Roughly the same problem arises if they fund a heavy "lobby your elected officials" campaign, targeted only at their supporters, with no equivalent resources mobilizing those who disagree - and indeed they did this.
  - euyyn 8y ago
    > that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, Then the other side has to also fund public campaigns, instead of just lining the politician's pockets. > it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. Yeah but one thing is lobbying and a very different one is "I fund your campaign if you benefit me economically". That's a soft version of bribery. Can't put it in the same level as propaganda ads that change public opinion on a topic.
dyarosla 8y ago
You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  I've never had any affiliation with any transportation company or lobby group on any side of the issue, nor have I bought or shorted any relevant stocks. I admitted my dislike of Uber and their peers very explicitly, but I'm only biased in the sense of having considered the issue and formed an opinion. As are we all, if we've thought about it enough. Not sure where bribery entered the conversation. The person I was replying to said that Uber spent $2 million / year on legal expenditures to affect the debate in NY, mostly through advertising. I have no reason to assume that this was any more bribery than PR campaigns and lobbying generally are, and indeed I presume it didn't go beyond that. The mention of the taxi lobby having "bought" de Blasio and the City Council was from the comment I was replying to, which I quoted to marvel at the tone of the conversation which Uber has managed to shape so favorably. And the public support which I said Uber has "bought" is, as I noted, "legitimately real" - they just fed skewed information to the public, which is not a bribe. (They do give lots of loss-leader promotional incentives to make people use and like their service, but we usually categorize that as marketing and not bribery without elements that are absent here.)
  - TuringNYC 8y ago
    I'm not in marketing or advertisement, but I seriously wonder if honest grassroots support can be "purchased" through ad spending. For example, I see HSBC's ads incessantly at airports about how they value customer service, but 5+ personal interactions with the bank proved otherwise and no amount of ad spending can get me to suddenly get on message boards and support HSBC. They could spend 10x for all I care and I still wouldnt use their bank...and certainly would never get on message boards to support their product. What ride hailing apps did is make rides available to a giant sector of the population who didn't previously have any reasonable alternative. That makes me (both through my experience, and that of my mother) spend my valuable time on message boards arguing in favor of ride hailing apps. A one line summary of my mom's very limited anecdote: for a frail elderly POC frequenting hospital trips in Manhattan and traveling back to Brooklyn -- there was life before Uber and life after Uber. For excited consumers, it has to do with the product, not ads.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent Uber spent four times as the taxi lobby spent on a single politician. I don't know what the taxi industry's total is. Given they shower tens of thousands of dollars on even state senators [1], I'd wager it's comparable to Uber's. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousands-in-donations-from-cab-industry/ https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousa...
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. Good correction. I wish this data were easier to compare in an apples to apples fashion. :( (Big apples to big apples, maybe, given the city in question?) I can no longer edit my grandparent comment to account for your correction, so this will have to do.

euyyn 8y ago

Who cares how much money they spend on public ads? On the other hand, it's easy to understand why people care about how much money is donated to the campaigns of the politicians that will make these decisions.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
There's no legal problem with them spending as much on ads as they want, of course. But if public opinion is mobilized as a weapon through very selective presentation of the issues in ads, in a disproportionate way that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. The public can't react in their own interests if they don't have the right facts, so then polls will legitimately show what the company wants, by and large. Roughly the same problem arises if they fund a heavy "lobby your elected officials" campaign, targeted only at their supporters, with no equivalent resources mobilizing those who disagree - and indeed they did this.
- euyyn 8y ago
  > that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, Then the other side has to also fund public campaigns, instead of just lining the politician's pockets. > it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. Yeah but one thing is lobbying and a very different one is "I fund your campaign if you benefit me economically". That's a soft version of bribery. Can't put it in the same level as propaganda ads that change public opinion on a topic.

dyarosla 8y ago

You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
I've never had any affiliation with any transportation company or lobby group on any side of the issue, nor have I bought or shorted any relevant stocks. I admitted my dislike of Uber and their peers very explicitly, but I'm only biased in the sense of having considered the issue and formed an opinion. As are we all, if we've thought about it enough. Not sure where bribery entered the conversation. The person I was replying to said that Uber spent $2 million / year on legal expenditures to affect the debate in NY, mostly through advertising. I have no reason to assume that this was any more bribery than PR campaigns and lobbying generally are, and indeed I presume it didn't go beyond that. The mention of the taxi lobby having "bought" de Blasio and the City Council was from the comment I was replying to, which I quoted to marvel at the tone of the conversation which Uber has managed to shape so favorably. And the public support which I said Uber has "bought" is, as I noted, "legitimately real" - they just fed skewed information to the public, which is not a bribe. (They do give lots of loss-leader promotional incentives to make people use and like their service, but we usually categorize that as marketing and not bribery without elements that are absent here.)
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  I'm not in marketing or advertisement, but I seriously wonder if honest grassroots support can be "purchased" through ad spending. For example, I see HSBC's ads incessantly at airports about how they value customer service, but 5+ personal interactions with the bank proved otherwise and no amount of ad spending can get me to suddenly get on message boards and support HSBC. They could spend 10x for all I care and I still wouldnt use their bank...and certainly would never get on message boards to support their product. What ride hailing apps did is make rides available to a giant sector of the population who didn't previously have any reasonable alternative. That makes me (both through my experience, and that of my mother) spend my valuable time on message boards arguing in favor of ride hailing apps. A one line summary of my mom's very limited anecdote: for a frail elderly POC frequenting hospital trips in Manhattan and traveling back to Brooklyn -- there was life before Uber and life after Uber. For excited consumers, it has to do with the product, not ads.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent Uber spent four times as the taxi lobby spent on a single politician. I don't know what the taxi industry's total is. Given they shower tens of thousands of dollars on even state senators [1], I'd wager it's comparable to Uber's. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousands-in-donations-from-cab-industry/ https://nypost.com/2018/01/27/taxi-committee-head-got-thousa...

jkaplowitz 8y ago
Thanks for clarifying. Good correction. I wish this data were easier to compare in an apples to apples fashion. :( (Big apples to big apples, maybe, given the city in question?) I can no longer edit my grandparent comment to account for your correction, so this will have to do.