Thursday , September 23 2021
Home / Managerial Econ / Clorox is outbidding Vanderbilt for ad space

Clorox is outbidding Vanderbilt for ad space

Summary:
Following up on an earlier post showing Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Twitter show 20% fewer STEM ads to women than men:  as  Scientific America explains Women are pricier to reach because they generally make more household purchasing decisions than men do. ... ...on Instagram it cost .74 to get a woman’s eyeballs on the ad but only 95 cents to get a man’s. In other words, Clorox is outbidding Vanderbilt for ad space likely to be seen by women because Clorox places a higher value on the ad.  However, auctions are efficient, so both men and women end up seeing the highest-value ads.   OK, so there is no "disparate treatment" of men and women, but isn't it illegal to adopt practices that have a "disparate impact?" My understanding (I am NOT an attorney) is that Federal law

Topics:
(Luke Froeb) considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

(Michael Ward) writes Historical Knockout Auctions

(Luke Froeb) writes How does Google auction ads?

(Luke Froeb) writes Is competition among colleges becoming fiercer?

(Luke Froeb) writes Why do women bid less for gigs?

Following up on an earlier post showing Facebook, Instagram, Google, and Twitter show 20% fewer STEM ads to women than men:  as  Scientific America explains

Women are pricier to reach because they generally make more household purchasing decisions than men do. ...
...on Instagram it cost $1.74 to get a woman’s eyeballs on the ad but only 95 cents to get a man’s.
In other words, Clorox is outbidding Vanderbilt for ad space likely to be seen by women because Clorox places a higher value on the ad.  However, auctions are efficient, so both men and women end up seeing the highest-value ads.  

 OK, so there is no "disparate treatment" of men and women, but isn't it illegal to adopt practices that have a "disparate impact?" My understanding (I am NOT an attorney) is that Federal law prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination, even though adhering to one would violate the other. 

 For example, if you give a bidding advantage to STEM educational institutions when they bid for ad space likely to be seen by women, the algorithm is treating women differently than men.  This kind of disparate treatment is what the article recommends--and it may be illegal.

The same kind of tradeoff shows up in the current debate about equality (equal treatment) and equity (equal outcomes). If we want equity, we have to give up on equality.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *