So we've been going to the gym regularly for the last ten months. Really regularly, as in every day unless we're a) travelling or b) going to the ER for date night. I've been pretty impressed with myself for being so consistent about it. I'm not sure I'm seeing proportional improvements, but I hear it's supposed to help with all sorts of stuff.
Anyways, we were selected to be profiled as "Members of the Month", which basically involves a photo and little survey that gets posted for other members to see ("What's your favourite exercise? What keeps you motivated? What differences have you noticed?"). Then you get a wee little 'Member of the Month' dog tag that's bright red and too tacky to show anyone, ever.
When they told us we were chosen for the month, my mind automatically went into UX mode. I questioned what metric this whole thing was meant to improve and how it works - maybe they target members to increase social connections with others at the gym, so they all sign up for paid group activities. Obviously they wouldn't choose someone who only goes once every other month, right? Perhaps it appeals to the narcissistic parts in all of us, encouraging less active members to attend more in hopes of being featured themselves. It could also be that they select members coming up on their first renewal, as a way to boost retention/conversions.
Here's the thing, though: I've used my membership to visit some of the other facilities in the city that are part of the same company, and I haven't seen any 'member of the month' bios on their walls. So perhaps, just maybe, this particular location only does it to be nice to their regular members? No hidden metrics or psychological hook. Just building a nice little community, so it's not another soulless facility where people who don't know each other.
That concept seems so antithetical to modern corporate behaviour, though. The rule of thumb when you see your favourite digital service announce a new "improvement" or "feature" is that it's not done from the goodness of their heart. They aren't trying to do something nice for their users, they're trying to take better advantage of an audience. The next time a great new technology is being added to your account, stop and consider how it's actually designed to help the company's bottom line.
I'm sure that you've noticed that Google search is getting worse. There are more ads and you have to flip through more pages of results to find useful results. I read somewhere (that I now can't find because I'm using Google to look for it) that the degradation of quality is by design. Yes, they've deliberately reduced the quality of search results because their metrics show that a) users were willing to look through more pages of results, which b) allows Google to serve them more ads. As a bonus, c) users get fed up with useless unmonetized results, so they're more open to clicking the ads to find what they want.
It made me start to wonder, what would Google do their most ideal of worlds? In their absolutely, most perfect scenario, what would their business model look like? It's an easy and fun game for the whole family! Try it with your favourite brands!
Google Search: Nothing but ads. You don't pay for ads for your site? Then it is not included in any search results. The entirety of the internet's directory must be monetized.
Amazon: All the worst items would have the best reviews and highest sales. Customers receive their product to discover that it sucks, so they have to go buy another one.
YouTube: Nothing but ads that play before, during, and after the sponsored content (ads) you actually want to see. Maybe you would pay for subscriptions to watch the best ads.
Spotify: Pay your (hefty) subscription to only listen to the songs that charge the lowest royalties to Spotify. All others are removed from the platform.
Netflix: Pay-per-view to watch Netflix-only content, probably with ads inserted. All third party is removed.
BMW: Pay for each and every driver input. $10 for each start of the vehicle. Turn on the AC? $1. Turn left? No problem, that's $0.50 per 10 degrees of wheel rotation. Want to roll down your window? $5 per inch of travel. The first 50km/h of speed are free, then it's $1 per each kph per minute. $2 per decibel of music. Perfect. By the way, now they use a proprietary fuel you can only purchase from a dealership.
CNN: Why pay for reporters and hosts? So much overhead. They'd just switch to 24 hours a day of ads, with breaks for advertorials. JOURNALISM!
Apple: Good news, each app (down to the calculator, clock, and contacts) is by subscription only. The phone battery only lasts a year of standard use, and then you get to upgrade to the latest model! Buy a new phone of equal or greater value only.
F1: Watch two hours of ads, with a small map in the corner with team icons doing laps. They don't actually have drivers in cars, it's just digitally simulated. Place bets on your favourite icon! F1 collects 50% royalties on all bets.
Instagram: Most active accounts are created by Instagram using AI-generated text and imagery to display affiliate content, alongside which related ads will be shown. Real influencers have to pay a percentage of their proceeds for any sponsored content. A like costs $0.50 and a comment costs $3.
You could go on and on.
I can't help but feel like the noose is starting to tighten as companies of all shapes and sizes are pushing to maximize profits. It's easy to point your finger at content digital services in particular, because make no mistake: YouTube doesn't want its users to learn anything, feel uplifted, or be amused. They just want them engaged. More views = more ads = more better. Tell me that you've never found yourself watching videos late at night only to realize that they're shit and not good by any discernable metric. But you've been glued to the screen for an hour now and 40% of that time is spent on ads for garbage you don't want or need. The algorithm is working perfectly.
In fact, why don't we cut out the middle man altogether? We read reports all the time about how consumers are failing to properly stimulate the economy. How about instead we earn a wage and it all goes directly to a corporation who must in turn supply us with the absolute barest of minimum of living standards? Work 40 hours a week and get a protein cube good for 30 servings and renew the front door lock subscription for your temporary compact accommodations. Scratch that, it should be 80 hours a week like before unions came around and screwed everything up. The more we can give to the CEOs and stockholders, the more will trickle down to benefit the common folk, right?
Yes, this is probably an overly bleak outlook on technology, capitalism, and society. Part of my reason for going to the gym regularly was to help with mental health, but that hasn't quite materialized. Instead you get this post, because depressed people see the world more realistically. Call it my super power that I'm selflessly using to aid society.
Anyways, buckle up folks. I can't wait to see who wins at capitalism.
-Cril
So you come a long way
But you'll never have me
Never have things for a normal life
It's time, too busy earnin'
You can't get enough
This busy earnin'
You can't get enough
You think that all your time is used
Too busy earnin'
You can't get enough
And I get always
But I bet it won't change, no
Damn, that's a boring life
It's quite, busy earnin'
You can't get enough
This busy earnin'
You can't get enough
