On the 8th, the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Market Supervision and the Municipal Bureau of Commerce held a special survey on the platform “Big Data Mastering” and an administrative guidance meeting on standardizing fair competition market order.
Representatives of 10 Internet platform companies including Vipshop, JD.com, Meituan, Ele.me, Daily Youxian, Hema Xiansheng, Ctrip, Qunar, Ruqi Travel, Didi Travel, etc. signed the “Platform Companies Maintain Fair Competition Market Order Commitment”.
Supervision can ultimately reduce or even reduce big data. It is hoped that companies are consciously impossible. In the end, it is nothing more than “There are laws to follow, laws must be followed, law enforcement must be strict, and violations must be investigated.” I think at least the following three points should be done: First, issue regulations or even legislation to define what kind of behavior on the platform is to kill big data and provide relevant penalties. Second, establish reliable and effective consumers based on Article 1. Complaints and even class actions are the third channel. Strictly implement the punishment system. Because price reflects supply and demand to a certain extent and affects supply and demand, it will have a huge impact on the market competition landscape, and many of these effects are beneficial to the market economy. The unified pricing of many goods (services) is absolutely undesirable. If there is a differential pricing, then how to distinguish between reasonable differential pricing and “big data acquaintance” is necessary-what kind of evidence can prove that this price is acquainted with big data, not because the commodity is non-standard, or the platform provides you The service has paid more additional costs due to various other factors, or low-priced users have paid more additional costs for low prices? The understanding of the law by ordinary consumers is bound to be inferior to that of the legal department of the platform. The complicated scenarios and definitions must be clarified to have rules to follow. For example, people say that “big data” is a kind of price discrimination. Then there is a classic case of McDonald’s consumer coupons in economics: price-insensitive users directly buy McDonald’s products, and price-sensitive users spend time collecting discounts. Coupons go to 20% off to buy McDonald’s products. The latter’s costs for low prices mainly include the time cost of collecting coupons and the loss of a certain degree of freedom of choice. This differentiated pricing strategy in disguise not only expands demand by reducing prices to some people, but also maintains profits without reducing prices across the board, killing two birds with one stone. The question is, buying fries with a coupon that is torn down from anywhere (the fries are within the discount range) will cost 2 yuan less than someone who does not have the coupon? Is this essentially a kind of price discrimination? Is it illegal for McDonald’s to do this? The so-called big data mastering is the era of big data. The platform can quickly and accurately identify price-sensitive and price-insensitive users based on data and models and then price them differently. At this time, some people may say that it is the active behavior of consumers to collect coupons. It is a platform behavior for the platform to give discounts to new users and price-sensitive persons through the big data model. Then the differentiated preferential behavior of the platform is illegal price discrimination, and there are laws. Is it based? What kind of differentiated preferential (pricing) strategy is illegal? Everyone must be upset when they are killed, but just venting their emotions and cursing a black-hearted businessman does not solve the problem. I hope my answer can give you some thinking and inspiration.