The issue pertaining to Facebook actually correlates well to the current lesson in my marketing class about Demographics. Demographics indicates the characteristics of human population and segments used to identify consumer markets for example age, gender, and income. This data can be accessed by purchasing it from market research firms. My marketing class discussed the opposite idea this article brings up: the benefits demographics provides society. How, if certain specific products are marketed to certain demographics it can help both the business and consumer find what they are looking for, for example a certain medication due to an illness they have. However, Fiegerman brings up in the article that Facebook has been under quite some criticism due to the fact that it could be using “ethnic affinities” to discriminate against users in housing-related ads which is forbidden under the Fair Housing Act.(CNN.com) Based on Fiegerman’s analysis, Facebook has stringent regulations, however, they were sued for violating the Fair Housing act. During her presentation, Nicolette brought up a good point- Facebook is not discriminating however it is enabling marketing advertisers to discriminate. Albeit, Facebook is probably not enabling them on purpose, since they since have changed their guidelines. In addition, today Chynelle brought up a good point as well that instead of marketing on Facebook by race for housing and credit they should do it by financial status as that is an option.
Marketing involves the use of demographics, as I mentioned earlier. That’s one of the core attributes of the marketing environment framework analysis process: determining what to market and to whom. One counterargument to the article is that, products are hidden from all types of consumers regularly- not just on Facebook but on numerous websites. Because that is how marketing is successful, it’s supposed to be specific and effective. Were the advertisers aware they were going against the Fair Housing Act policy and knowingly broke the law, or was it just a marketing ploy on their part? To their benefit, Facebook does make all users sign a contract, as Nicole brought up allowing the sale of information to third parties, such as these marketing agencies.
Another issue the article brings up is the negatives of “filter bubbles”. which I strongly agree with. I do think that eliminating news that one may not agree with can be potentially more detrimental to society as a whole and our thinking-process. Those who do not actively go search for news, will be in a dilemma as they will be in a loop of media that is catered to what they want to hear. However, this news may or not not be completely accurate and unbiased. Filter bubbles are also a marketing strategy because news companies want to target and market to a segment that they know will read their articles, and people like to reinforce what they know, and usually do not like being questioned and challenged on their core ethical values and beliefs.
Erin Egan who made the notice via Facebook has actually expanded on the core foundations of any business and that is transparency and honesty. The Facebook notice has stated that they will “disable the use of ethnic affinity marketing for ads that we identify as offering housing, employment, or credit,” and “will update [our] Advertising Policies to be even more explicit and require advertisers to affirm that they will not engage in discriminatory advertising on Facebook,” (Facebook.com). From the consumer’s perspective, this does seem like a great step, both towards equality and fairness. However, through the advertisers and marketing perspective I can see the argument that can be posed of potential failures in their marketing implementation.
