Hacker News Reader

Comment by elevatedastalt | Hacker News Reader

My feeling is Google / FB have done nothing close to Visa / MC when it comes to landgrabbing, but I am open to information / arguments.

View on HN

I actually think it’s worse because it’s not as natural of a monopoly as it was for the payment network space. Google and Meta actively created a duopoly in the ad space and at a global scale too.

No. For many of us it irrelevant if there is duopoly in the ad space because we don't use Facebook and we use ad-blockers. But in the payment space VISA/MC charge high fees which are passed onto all consumers.

> For many of us it irrelevant if there is duopoly in the ad space because we don't use Facebook and we use ad-blockers. But in the payment space VISA/MC charge high fees which are passed onto all consumers.

Products that you buy have their marketing priced in. Even if you don't see the adds you are still paying for them.

> Products that you buy have their marketing priced in. Even if you don't see the adds you are still paying for them

Marketing costs are not included in Gross Profit Margin calculations, and don't have an impact on COGS.

Marketing spend is primarily used to grow your TAM and channel customers to your product, but is very marginal spend wise.

Visa and MC only take .1% of the 2.9% you are thinking of. The rest goes to the banks on either side of the transaction (one for the merchant, one for the purchaser).

They are however building more “solutions” to try and capture more of the transaction fees, but most people’s disdain for the payment rails would be better redirected at the banks in this case.

Well in the ad space, we are talking about ad buyers not so much consumers. I think a good analogy would be if ABC and NBC purchased all other broadcasters and cable channels in the 80s. And then they go and purchased all INTERNATIONAL broadcasters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com