Both companies rely heavily on advertisements for their finances and it's not a small amount. So, as the spend in digital marketing has increased, can we say that ultimately, it's the consumer who is paying the increased price for the same products, even if he might not be using Google or Facebook? If this is true, hasn't it led to world domination by such tech companies, in the sense, that consumer is supposed to pay the price for these services even if he might not be interested or using them? Isn't it something like, buy this or that and get Google / Facebook for free along with it, even if they might be unwanted?
comments
regardless of what your business is, if you advertise it with > 1 ROAS, you earn more money in total. getting > 1 ROAS is pretty easy, so it’s a no brainer to take your money, spend it on ads, and turn it into even more money
advertising greases the whole economy.
good logistics grease the whole economy.
However, I wonder if we cannot have accepted targeting parameters - maybe gender, age, very coarse location and be done with it - companies won't have incentive for extensive tracking... Sure $ spent on ads may go up overall but can we get to a better balance?