Voting with your Wallet (Can) Work: A response

[Red]

This is pretty niche, so many of you here are unlikely to be familiar:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HVT ... qo9lr48p8d

While it's mostly been used recently in the context of gaming (particularly within the context of the Stop Killing Games movement, the subreddit of which this essay is often circulated), I feel as though it is indicative of a broader sentiment that decries the importance of consumer action in terms of creating social change. I'm not sure of the political leanings of the author, but her (as the -ette at the end of one of the nicknames implies, I'll feel a little silly if I got that wrong, the Duke Nukem profile pic is having me second guessing) political views aren't important here, since I won't be critiquing her arguments from an ideological standpoint.

I don't doubt that the writer of this article is intelligent and well-intentioned, but there is so much I disagree with in this essay. And, since I haven't come across any significant criticism of it (I'm sure there is some buried under downvotes at the bottom of a Reddit thread), I guess I'll have to be the one to offer a critique.

I would post this to r/StopKillingGames but I have neither the time nor the energy to waste hours of my life arguing on Reddit, I've learned my lesson from last time. If someone wants to post a link to this thread there, assuming it wouldn't get deleted, go right ahead. If anyone there makes any interesting counterarguments there, I'll address them here. I'm probably going to spend far more time on this than necessary, but there's not much I can do about that. It's gonna be kinda messy grammatically and in terms of formatting since I don't have too much time to read this over, so I apologize in advance.

Now as a disclaimer, I have been 100% in support of the consumer movement Stop Killing Games since day one, which seeks to prohibit publishers from making games unplayable after they discontinue support, and am glad that the UK Petition and European Citizens' Initiative Petition have both surpassed the thresholds they need to be considered by their respective parliaments, both of which are well past their minimums, since I do agree that government action is necessary on this issue. I'll elaborate more on this later.

Now, without further bullshitting...

A business does something you don't like. One of the things you'll hear is "vote with your wallet," and hear it all the time you will, as if it's some sort of magic spell that can right the wrongs of whatever business is being voted on. But in reality it's almost always used as a thought terminating cliche, nothing more.

I disagree with this framing. A lot of people who make the claim of voting with your wallet aren't free-marketeers who believe the omnipotent invisible hand will work everything out on its own. Maybe those of a libertarian persuasion believe in a sort of benevolent magic, but there are many valid reasons for advocating for the "Wallet Vote," none having anything to do with any sort of libertarian ideology or devotion to free market capitalism.

1. It does not imply boycotting
Often you will hear about the Wallet Vote™ because a company did something you don't like. Let's say that Samsung decided to remove the headphone jack and the SD card slot from their phones, and you care deeply about both features. Rather than buy Samsung, you buy Huawei, or Xiaomi, or Nokia, or whatever other business that still has these features. You have voted with your wallet. How is this any different than not buying Samsung in the first place? As far as Samsung is concerned, you're just a non-buyer. You're no different than the people who were buying Nokia their whole lives, or the people who never bought smartphones. There is no incentive to figure out if the reason you're not buying Samsung is because it never occurred to you that their phones are decent, or because you tried them and you found their phones to not be that great.

There is a massive difference between a lost customer and person who never was a customer.

When it comes to a lost customer, the company will no longer receive money from that person. They never saw the money of people who bought Nokia or Huawei or Xiaomi products their entire lives. But now those companies, which are competitors to Samsung, have gained a customer, and potentially a loyal one. Their main goal (as is the goal of every company) is to sustain and increase their customer base, and you better believe they notice when enough people stop buying their products.

In business and economics, there’s the concept of churn, the rate at which customers stop buying from a company. Companies invest heavily in minimizing it because churn is often a clear sign they done fucked up (or are just unlucky, but that's often difficult to discern), and it’s especially concerning for them because winning back a lost customer is far more difficult (and more expensive) than gaining a non-customer.

Of course, they probably expect to lose a few customers with changes like that, but they're banking on attracting more customers to make up for it (changes that are made by observing market trends and what their competitors are doing), many of which are in the non-customer camp. They understand that most people are locked into either Samsung or Apple, but both companies are competing for that 10% who can swing either way, hence you'll see them modify their products to have a broader appeal. There's also the consideration that they decided that even if they lose more customers than they gain, the cut cost of not needing to include a headphone jack or SD card slot would be sufficient regardless. But that's a case by case basis.

It’s good to think about it, if you yourself are a consumer, as sort of competing against other consumers who are also voting with their wallets; if more people are buying the product compared to people who have stopped buying the product, that consumer base has won, and Samsung will focus their efforts on making them happy.

One might think mathematically, that if “buy = support” then the same is true that “no buy = no support” But not necessarily. It might be that you’re not buying because you don’t like the product. Or you’re unaware of it existing. Or you simply don’t have a problem with the product not being bought, you just like another product more. Therefore, in this instance, a Wallet Vote™ does not send the message that you are boycotting a product or a business.

But that can all be easily addressed (if you care about sending a message to Samsung about how they design their phones, which generally isn't of much moral or legal relevance) if you send them a message, which is something Pookette does acknolwedge at the end of her essay, but dismisses. I'll elaborate more on sending messages to companies in the next section.

That having been said, it doesn't necessarily require a verbal message for them to take a hint, since it all works on a threshold; If their sales decline a certain percentage from previous products on the same line, companies will immediately investigate the reasons for that and how to compensate. No corporation is going to sit back after seeing faltering sales and think "Welp that sucks, guess we'll never find out what consumers really want!" Your lack of buying a certain product may just reach that threshold the company needs to tell them to get their shit together, and any further lack of purchases will just cement the point for them even more.

Let's look at a real-world example of this sort of thing: Nintendo's disastrous Wii U. Following up the massive success of their Wii console, which sold over 100 million units, Nintendo intended to replicate that success with the Wii U, expecting a similar number of sales. Instead, it went on to sell barely more than ten million units (just a hair shy of that hundred million they were anticipating), which served as a wakeup call to Nintendo. While consumers might not have necessarily intended to send any message when they didn't bother picking up a Wii U, the message Nintendo got from the atrocious sales was that they couldn't ride off the success of the Wii, and they need to take a step back and understand why it flopped (terrible marketing, gimmicky concept, lack of appeal). Learning from this, they realized they needed to market their product better, implement a feature that people cared about, and appeal to a broader audience instead of being overly family-oriented, which gave us the Nintendo Switch, which had a strong marketing campaign, a mobile and home console hybrid feature, and an appeal to a general gaming audience. And as we all know, the Switch went on to become one of the best-selling consoles of all time. As of writing this, the Switch 2 seems well on its way towards replicating that success, though we'll see the long game.

All in all, as shitty as corporations often are, one thing you have to give them is that they will always follow the evidence when it comes to their interests, which is probably something more people should be trying to integrate into their own lives.

2. It does not say what it is that you’re boycotting

Back to our Samsung example. You chose another smartphone vendor because Samsung removed the SD card slot and the headphone jacks. By buying another phone, and even if we assume that Samsung is somehow aware that this is an active act of boycott, it still does not know what you’re boycotting it for.

Are you boycotting the company because of the headphone jacks only? The SD slots? Both? Something else entirely? That is if we assume they know you left them for a competitor for something they did. If they don’t know why you left them, your Wallet Vote™ simply and unceremoniously falls on deaf ears.

As mentioned earlier, if enough people decide to not buy the new Samsung phone, they will immediately investigate into why instead of sitting with their thumbs up their asses. People not buying isn't always necessarily a boycott, which implies an intention of protest, rather it's just people not interested in the product. They'll perform surveys and such to see what went wrong and how to improve next time.

But more importantly:

As well, the company you’re switching to doesn’t know why you left Samsung, if they even know at all. That very company you switched to might also remove the SD slots and headphone jacks, because your Wallet Vote™ simply hasn’t told them why it was given to them. Therefore, even if you ditch the products that stopped catering to your needs and move to companies with products that do, the companies can still ditch these products and force you into yet another company, and the cycle continues until nobody is offering the features you want, because the Wallet Votes™ are simply just purchase receipts, not feedback documents.

Companies often figure this out on their own, but as a consumer, this can all be easily addressed by doing one simple thing: Communication. A quick email, a two minute phone call, hell, even just a simple Tweet or signature on a dumb change.org petition (where applicable), all count towards communicating to the company what you really want. It is not hard to open up your browser and send a (preferably) polite email to a company telling them you are not going to purchase their products, and explaining why. It can be a simple "I was a loyal customer, but your decision to remove the headphone jack has prompted me to buy my devices from another company." Companies do listen, not because they're benevolent entities, but because they want to know what consumers want. Look at how much contacting Ubisoft (the fuckers) was mentioned as a point of attack on the Stop Killing Games website, provided you owned The Crew.

And it is by no means necessary for every last boycotter to send emails and make phone calls. If even just 5% of them do, that alone sends a huge signal, since they know that for every person voicing a complaint, there are hundreds or even thousands with a similar grievance that are not bothering to say anything. Of course though, the more the better if you really wanna get the point across.

It doesn't just apply to the markets. Ask anyone who has served on the staff of a political representative, and they'll tell you, politicians will take notice if they get even just a dozen or so calls about an issue. 

To add to this, it doesn't even need to be a direct call (although that would be extremely useful). Even just telling others why you aren't buying a product contributes to that, since that might dissuade them from buying the product themselves, and word of mouth helps contribute to the general public sentiment. 

A good real world example of this is how the egg industry has slowly been moving away from using caged eggs, which is easily one of the worst forms of animal cruelty on factory farms, if you know anything about it. Thanks to the hard work of animal rights activists (most notably the Humane League) constantly badgering companies using caged eggs and publically calling out which companies don't bother changing on that front (which helps dissuade average consumers), their use has been gradually declining over the past few years, and while cage free eggs are still pretty cruel, it has reduced suffering for billions of egg laying hens, meaning a huge net positive. The Humane League in particular has a Fast-Action-Network which streamlines this sort of thing, with action alerts to contact both companies and political representatives.

Of course, this is where money mainly talks though. If you tell a company to stop using caged eggs but still buy them anyway, then your impact is minimal at best. You have to do both. The boycott comes first, then the letters. There is value though in getting enough people to call/email a company to flood their offices to make business harder to conduct, but those sorts of things are difficult to coordinate.

3. Wallet Votes™ is a positive feedback system

At the end of the day, your Wallet Votes™ are simply nothing but purchase receipts: proof that you made a transaction with a seller, in which you got a good or service in exchange for money or data. More purchase receipts are good for the business, but that’s all they ever say. The product is being sold. One thousand sales have been made, a hundred thousand, million, ten million, whatever jives. They don’t say that sales have been lost, because the only control is “a sale was made,” with the less common “a sale was returned” mechanism being used.

Wallet Votes™ cannot give negative feedback, you can’t vote against something. In essence, they are like Facebook likes. You can like and take back likes, but you can’t give dislikes.

I think I've already mainly addressed these ideas in my previous points, so I'll make this quick to avoid sounding too much like a broken record.

Companies WILL notice a decline in sales, and they will understand why it's happening easier if enough people who don't buy it voice their concern with it. Pookette seems to be framing not buying something as neutral, but in actuality, every sale they lose or not gain registers as that negative feedback, which effectively is a dislike (an email along with it means a strong dislike). No businessperson worth their salt will sit idly by as their sales take even a slight dip (unless they're just really bad at their jobs, which is common in startups and why a reason most of them fail). Nothing is being judged in a vacuum, it's being compared to what they project, and previous successes/failures. If these wallet votes really were just purchase receipts as Pookette seems to believe, we would never see products discontinued or rebranded after bad performances. Someone has to pay for these things, losses have an effect if they aren't made up for, and bad products get the axe.

And of course, conversely, if they see that their sales have gone up, they will keep going along with that and dumping more resources into what they see works. Like how Nintendo believed that continuing what they did with the Wii would serve them well with the next generation.

Look again at politics. There's something of an adage that not voting for one candidate as a potential supporter effectively is a vote for the opposition, and there is truth in that, especially when you see how narrow a lot of elections are these days (at least in the US). I consider political apathy one of the biggest impediments towards progress in our time, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Or look into how many products Google and Coca Cola have tried and taken to pasture. Or, you could look at buying vegan alternatives from companies that produce animal products. Buying a company's veggie burger is a vote for that instead of their beef burger.

4. Can’t Wallet Vote™ out monopolies

Breaking away from our smartphones example, depending on where you live, you might have a limited number of ISP companies to choose from, if any at all. If an ISP degrades the quality of their services intentionally, you may choose to go to one of the other few ISPs in this instance, at least until the new ISP decides to screw you over like the old one.

But if you have only one ISP? Tough luck. Your only option is to abstain from connecting to the internet at all. A service which is now extremely prolific and critical in this age, even before Work From Home was a thing.

Same goes for medical companies. If you need to buy an expensive medicine only offered by one pharmaceutical business, you don’t have the luxury to Vote With Your Wallet™ in this scenario, as the most likely alternatives are either coping with a disease at best, or death at worst.

I agree with this overall. The only issue though is that no one sane is suggesting vote with your wallet when it comes to dealing with monopolies.

But this doesn't do anything to invalidate the utility of the wallet vote, just that it isn't applicable in this situation. You can't build a house out of paper (maybe some weird modern artist has, I dunno), but that doesn't mean paper is never useful. Just not the right tool for the job.

I agree with Pookette that when it comes to times like this, the only real way to deal with monopolies is government intervention. And that requires a different type of voting: The traditional, political one. I've already touched on the parallels between voting with your money in capitalism and voting in the political process, so I hope it's easy to see how my arguments would still apply here. 

OK, let's get back to the disagreeing.

5. Wealth decides how many votes you have

If the way you vote on business practices is through a Wallet Vote, then you have more votes with more wealth, and vice versa. Free-2-play games built with tons of scummy monetization schemes like lootboxes are a great example of how the odds are stacked against you. Folks with more money, often called whales (whether they’re suffering from gambling addiction or not) spend more money on lootboxes, sometimes running into the thousands of dollars, and they may make the majority of the revenue from the monetization schemes even if they’re a small group compared to the entirety of the game’s playerbase.

In essence, you can only watch as very few people decide how far the deep end the game is with countless of Wallet Votes (even if at the detriment of their well being), while other people are only able to Wallet Vote less, or even not at all. Giving money a “voting” weight might be in fact a terrible idea, no matter the context.

While this point is mainly concerning F2P games, I'm going to address it generally, since I've seen this point several times floating around. I might go on a bit of a tangent here.

It sounds intuitive on paper. More wealth = More influence. But it isn't really true in most market instances, when we look at the big picture.

The main markets rich people have control over usually aren't the ones that the average consumer participates in. It's unlikely that Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos purchase appreciably more socks or toothpaste than the average person. They might buy more expensive versions of these products, but that would mean their money is going to niche, boutique markets, where most consumers aren't even participating. And even if they don't, millions of ordinary consumers vastly outnumber and outweigh the rich outliers in terms of shaping products, since for these markets, typical consumers is where the money really lies.

Beyond that, the main market sectors that rich people have dominant control over generally pertains to mansions, Rolex watches, sports cars, yachts, etc., and these make up a tiny sliver of the consumer economy.

That principle does sort of also apply to these shitass F2P games, though I do mostly agree that whales have disproportionate influence, so this is one of those instances where people with more money, or at least more willingness to spend money, thrive over those who don't.

In theory, these games are for everyone, but in reality they're mainly trying to capture that 10% of the base that will account for 90% of their revenue. People without much money or interest in spending it aren't the main targets, it's the ones with more money than sense... and addicts. The vast majority who spend little or nothing were unlikely to be catered to to begin with. It's a shitty practice for sure (taking advantage of addictions for one) and it does unfairly favor people who are willing to spend that money, but whales are not the only organism present in the ecosystem, and are not the only ones that are essential for its survival.

There's a reason why these games are revolving doors, with most people dropping the game after a week, after seeing the pay-to-win model. And if too many F2P's dip, even the whales will eventually get bored and leave, so they can't be completely ignored. In my experience though, these games don't have particularly long shelf lives, though I haven't played one in years besides TF2 (which is an outlier in terms of its model) so my perception might be wrong on that.

Let's wrap this up, this has gone on far longer than I anticipated (and I actually omitted a few points I wanted to add). I find the conclusion to be particularly objectionable, so forgive me if I come across as a bit grouchy in my response.

The whole Wallet Vote™ shtick is nothing more than a non-solution, and worse, a thought-terminating cliche. It might give you an illusion that you’re doing something and taking back what was taken from you by going to a competitor, but neither does the original company recognize why you left them nor does the competitor know why you’re now buying their products. A Wallet Vote™ is simply not the feedback system you’re looking for and not the magical solution to anti-competitive practices or other product changes that you may not like. Indeed, the superior feedback system is exactly the one where you have been told to Wallet Vote™: social media, public forums, online communities, etc. This was exactly how people told EA to knock it off with the loot boxes in Star Wars Battlefront II. The only problem is always staying loud no matter what - and whoever tells you to Vote With Your Wallet™ only wants to shut you up.

This is mainly just a summation of previous points, so I refer you to the answers I gave earlier.

I do however want to expand on the Battlefront II example Pookette gave. I don't remember too much from the incident, but from what I do remember, the public outcry was enough of a threat to EA to stop whatever the fuck it was they were doing and conform to the consumers. For every person getting up in arms about it, EA knew there were a thousand others silently telling them to fuck off.

Now look, I know no one wants to put in work... but I mean, if you want to actually be someone who walks the walk, you actually have to make that extra effort. You don't want to use what voice you have? That's your choice. Just don't pretend it doesn't matter.

OK, this is going to sound insane given this whole essay response, I do (mostly) agree with Pookette that voting with your wallet usually doesn't result in much. Obviously though, my reasons for believing this differ significantly.

It isn't because it wouldn't work, but because people can't be bothered. A million more people voting, boycotting, or donating to an effective charity would work wonders towards human development and flourishing.

In his original video on Games as a Service, Ross brings up the quote: "Anytime someone says the solution to a problem is to 'vote with your wallet' I know that cause is doomed." I wouldn't necessarily agree the cause is doomed, since every individual acting does make a difference and things tend to play out in the long term (after years of whittling away), but it's hard to argue that when realizing your goal relies on people changing their behavior, even a little bit, you're going up against a major hurdle (as animal rights folks, we know this better than anyone).

Individual action isn't the ONLY thing that can solve issues, but it's an incredibly useful tool that's neglected.  The essay I believe is pushing a false dichotomy of it's either government action (via the petitions), or voting with your wallet. But why can't we do both? Why shouldn't we do both? Get the government to act, and also encourage people to stop buying Live Service Games. Kind like how you can support the government taking action on climate change AND support changes to individual behavior.

This all ties back to Stop Killing Games. A major reason why government action is so important here isn't because a boycott wouldn't be effective, but because the people who are buying these products are (to put nicely) too short-sighted and apathetic to actually make the extra effort; and let's be honest, gamers are probably one of the least socially and politically engaged demographics around.

I will concede though that in an instance like this, government action would likely be necessary regardless since it is an issue that requires legal precedent that a boycott wouldn't be able to create on its own, which ties back into point 4. But I do wonder how necessary it would have been to launch this campaign if gamers understood how terrible the business practice is, didn't purchase these games, and told Ubisoft or whoever to eat shit if they don't stop this practice. Maybe if that were the case, it'd be easier to push legislation on this. 

The whole idea that individuals having no significant power to change things is one of the most insidious ideas people have been programmed with, since it's morally, logically, and empirically wrong. It isn't explicitly stated in the essay, so I'm not going to accuse Pookette of having this mindset. She probably understands individuals can have influence, as evidenced by the huge support the SKG petitions have been getting and are now going to be considered by both the UK and EU parliaments. She is just misinformed as to how consumers can influence much more than she thinks.

And, not to be all "no u," I find that shtick to be the thought terminating one; I see far too many people believe that individual action is useless and performative. I find it reminiscent of the incredibly frustrating "No ethical consumption under capitalism" line, which as far as I'm concerned, only serves to deflect the need for individual action and absolve oneself of any wrongdoings, so we don't feel bad about our complicity, and in fact, makes our inaction feel noble.

Quick TED talk (not necessarily directed at Pookette): When people imagine change, what they have in their minds are thrilling spectacles, hardcore action, and the downfall of existing systems. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's mostly a fantasy. The reality is, when it comes to making differences in the world on the individual level, the most impactful things you can do are boring as shit. Voting, boycotting, donating, contacting representatives and companies, volunteering time, all dull actions that seem to do little besides distract from the seemingly effective revolution that's just over the horizon or whatever the fuck. But you want to make the biggest difference you can? You have to tolerate the boredom.

So, when we say "Vote with your wallet," we're not telling you to shut up; We're telling you to put up, or shut up. The ball's in your court.

PS: Pookette, if you're reading this, respond however you prefer. You can create an account here but I understand that might be a pain in the ass. I'm probably going to regret doing this since I'm probably going to be roped into an internet argument for the next Lord Worm knows how long but you reap what you sow.