Your mileage may vary, dear reader, but I’ve never been much of a fan of bundled goods. In theory, you might find a bundle that includes exactly what you want, and only what you want, and comes at a lower price than all the individual components. But it’s never worked out that way for me. My cell phone plan, for example, lists out 20 different bundled “features” that are all included in my bill. But there are only about three or four things on that list I actually care about, want, or use. For example, my cell phone plan has included, among other things, a cloud backup service run by Verizon. This is a completely redundant service for me, as I already have cloud backup with iCloud and Google services – Verizon just also happens to run a pretty terrible knock-off version of those platforms. I doubt much of anyone would pay for it if it was only a standalone service. Hence, the best way to get more and more people to pay for their low-quality services it is to mandate bundling them with their high-quality services.
But, unfortunately, selecting a less expensive plan that includes fewer of these (to me) worthless add-ons also just so happens to cut back on the services provided with the features I actually do care about, resulting in lower data speeds and diminished (or eliminated) mobile hotspot abilities. There’s simply no option to choose a plan that includes only a high-end version of those few features I do want and cuts out all the rest. Boo.
For the same reason, I stopped getting any kind of cable TV service years ago. I’m not much of a TV guy – at any given time there are maybe two or three shows I might even aspire to keep up with, assuming I have the time. But unfortunately, there was never an option to only get the few channels I might actually want to access. In order to get them, I would have to get a whole bundle that included hundreds of additional channels of content I had absolutely no interest in watching or paying for. Luckily, streaming options have allowed me to largely bypass this particular annoyance.
Anyway, all of that was just a meandering framing for another kind of bundling I like even less – political bundling.
Political bundling is something I’ve touched on before in my multi-post review of Randall Holcombe’s book Following Their Leaders: Political Preferences and Public Policy. To recap very briefly, Holcombe argues that in politics, people have both anchor preferences and derivative preferences. As he puts it, “Anchor preferences are those that define people’s political identities. They define how people see themselves, and how they want others to see them.” Derivative preferences, as the name suggests, derive from the anchor: “Most policy preferences are derivative preferences, derived from the preferences associated with the person’s anchor. People’s political identity forms an anchor, and most of their policy preferences are derived from that anchor.”
According to this model, much of the (past) support among Republican voters for free trade did not come about because of a measured consideration of the issue by those voters. They supported free trade because they were Republicans, and Republicans support free trade. But being a Republican was, for many, the anchor point, and support for free trade was simply derivative from that. Hence, as Holcombe put it, “The Republican party, at least since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, supported free trade, but after President Trump won on a protectionist platform aimed at China, Mexico, and other countries, most Republicans did not push back and argue that Trump’s protectionist policies were out of step with the party’s values.” Instead, most rank-and-file Republicans simply switched their position on free trade. Now, support for free trade among Republican voters has plummeted, not because of a measured consideration of the issue by those voters, but because they are Republicans and Republicans don’t support free trade.
Holcombe argues that since in America there are effectively only two choices for political party at the national level, there are also at any given time effectively only two bundles of policies available to voters. Voters will vote for whichever bundle happens to align with their anchor preference, whether that is their political identity (I’m a Republican!) or some specific issue (We need more gun control laws!). Because all the other policies come along with the bundle, voters just adopt those other policies as preferences wholesale. Michael Huemer has made similar observations, writing “This is part of why I say ideology isn’t about ideas. If people actually cared about ideas, a party couldn’t just radically shift its positions and still have pretty much the same people supporting them and the same people opposing them.”
All that said, what I’ve been noticing more lately is how political bundling is being wielded outside of the policy space and into public argument. People will try to bundle unrelated issues together, arguing that you can only truly support X if you also support Y, even when X and Y are completely independent issues.
To give a concrete example, I was recently puzzled by seeing some pro-Palestinian protestors marching with a banner saying, “Reproductive Justice Means Free Palestine!” This seemed like a very strange position to take. For one, these are completely unrelated issues. For two, it’s been pointed out that abortion is illegal in Palestinian controlled territories, while it’s generally legal in Israel. Why on Earth would anyone insist on tying these two issues together? Logically, this seems like a very counterproductive line for those protestors to take.
I think what drives this is an attempt at political bundling. If, say, someone strongly supports the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and wants to shore up support for that issue, one way to do that is to try to make a focused argument on the relevant issue. Or a way to sidestep that process is to instead try to bundle that issue with another issue you know people might feel strongly about – if you can just convince people that the abortion issue is somehow bound up the issue of Gaza, you can get people into the latter cause based on their support for the former without that irksome need to provide any real arguments.
Or, if someone’s political view is heavily anchored on the oppressor-oppressed axis Arnold Kling describes in his The Three Languages of Politics, then convincing that person that Israel represents oppression and Hamas represents the oppressed will lead them to bundle support for Hamas in with their other views as well. Hence you can have Judith Butler, one of the most high-profile feminist philosophers of the 20th century, saying that “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are Progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.”
In general, it’s wise to be wary of people who try to sell you on a specific positions by means of political bundling. I’m not here to take a stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But I will say that for this issue or any other, the more one side tries to drum up support by bundling it with, or relabeling it as, reproductive justice, or climate justice, or any other issue other than the specific issue at hand, the more skeptical I become.
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Jan 26 2024 at 11:10am
Kevin: “Judith Butler, one of the most high-profile feminist philosophers of the 20th century, saying that “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are Progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.
Yes! Because I can readily identify them such that I can prepare to engage with their antagonism towards individual liberty.
steve
Jan 26 2024 at 12:41pm
Bundling plus litmus tests. If you arent pure you are a RINO or on the left a DINO. I dont really see how you can support everything each party supports. So for me, if I know something special about specific candidates I will vote for or against them, usually against. Then I just split my votes randomly among everyone else. So Oz was a med school classmate and a number of my staff have worked with him relatively recently. No way I could vote for him. Split most of the rest of the ballot as I was going to get good and bad, or bad and worse from each candidate. .
Steve
Dylan
Jan 26 2024 at 1:47pm
Taking the first part of your post on bundling, I remember a good article from Megan McArdle years ago on why bundling is beneficial to most people, including the people that think they hate it. I understood her points, but wasn’t very convinced on the cable front, since I’d already cut the cord a few years before her piece and had the benefits of both better quality (for me) and much, much lower prices. Of course, that has been changing with streaming over the last year or two as streamers try to recreate the cable bundle and raise prices commensurately. But, it’s been a good almost 20 years.
The cell phone plan seems weird to me though and a bundle I really don’t understand. The things you mention, like mobile hotspot are part of my $15 a month plan with Mint, and are good enough that I can take a Zoom call on my laptop from outdoors. When I had a fancy corporate job I was given a work phone and the most expensive mobile plan came with it…and honestly I could never tell the difference between the two.
I feel like I should probably keep this fact more of a secret, since all those people paying over $100 a month for cell service must be subsidizing my service, but still, I just don’t get it.
Henri Hein
Jan 26 2024 at 2:13pm
I wonder if the Verizon backup plan, as you describe it, is more of a marketing check-box gimmick than an example of bundling. If you are correct, then few people would use it. So Verizon gets to include its backup service in their marketing for little cost.
Komori
Jan 27 2024 at 9:53am
Good Omens (the book anyway) by Pratchett and Gaiman had a quote along these lines about one character, Anathema Device:
“Anathema didn’t only believe in ley-lines, but in seals, whales, bicycles, rain forests, whole grain in loaves, recycled paper, white South Africans out of South Africa, and Americans out of practically everywhere down to and including Long Island. She didn’t compartmentalize her beliefs. They were welded into one enormous, seamless belief, compared with which that held by Joan of Arc seemed a mere idle notion.”
Jon Leonard
Jan 28 2024 at 3:29pm
The usual case for bundling involves low-marginal-cost products. For example, I periodically buy video games, and there are often collections of games offered at a significant discount. The manufacturing cost of one more copy of a game is trivial, but if the games were priced at marginal cost there wouldn’t be nearly as many games, as there wouldn’t be any money in making them. So, as so often happens, it’s about price discrimination. If there’s a game I really want, I’ll pay list price for it when it comes out. Games that I don’t value so highly I wouldn’t buy, but offering them as a bundle means I sometimes do, making both me and the developers better off. There is some intrinsic weirdness to it, but it does serve a purpose. The same applies to things like phone bundles, though the phone bundles have more examples of “Why would anyone want that?”.
johnson85
Jan 31 2024 at 10:57am
Yea, the whole intro seems to miss the entire point of bundling. Bundling is never intended to get you exactly what you want and only that. The point is to get a little more revenue from consumers for products they might not value enough to pay for alone.
The cable bundle worked because some people really wanted ESPN and TNT and others really wanted HGTV and the Food network. They both were primarily paying for what they wanted and got what they didn’t care for as much for a pretty small price.
Early cord cutters were able to get a much better deal for a while because most of the revenue still came from cable and satellite users. They basically got stuff for somewhere between the average and marginal cost to produce it (including content costs in the total). Once enough people started cord cutting, that was no longer sustainable so you see streaming prices for consumers going up.
jdgalt
Jan 31 2024 at 3:05pm
Cable bundling is indeed about high fixed costs and low marginal costs, but it gave us a great incidental benefit — tens or hundreds of specialized channels for niche audiences. What seems to have killed it was that a few of the most watched channels (ESPN, Cable News) have made their products available separately via Internet streaming, so non-cable-subscribers can still receive them. Thus the subsidy for the niche channels is drying up and cable’s business model is collapsing. The result seems to be that we will soon have a lot fewer choices.
It also hurts that the mainstream news channels have abandoned objective journalism in favor of politically correct Pravda. Most consumers know this and are abandoning TV for podcasts and social media sites, so the mainstream is mainstream no longer. I predict legislative action to take these choices away from us. We all need to be aware of that and fight it. I recommend ReclaimTheNet.org.
J Mann
Jan 31 2024 at 12:30pm
I’m going to defend what Corcoran calls “political bundling” a little. As I understand the US system vs coalition governments like Israel’s:
(1) In the US, you are offered two bundles of policy preferences in the general election. For example, maybe you get offered (a) somewhat less favorable of free trade, likely to appoint anti-abortion judges, wants more immigration enforcement vs. (b) somewhat more favorable of free trade, likely to appoint pro-abortion judges, and wants less immigration enforcement. You pick the least bad option for your preferences, and candidates, primary voters or party leaders have an incentive to try to craft a bundle that appeals to a majority of the county.
(2) In Israel, you vote for a party with a set of preferences and priorities closer to your complete set, let’s say a pro-immigration party. That party then tries to form a coalition with the pro- or anti-trade party and the pro- or anti-abortion party. If you are lucky, your party is in government and not the opposition and has a chance to make some policy on immigration, but even in that case, you don’t have a lot of foreknowledge of where the government is likely to stand on trade or abortion.
So either way, you get a bundle, but at least in the US, you get to see the whole bundle before you make your choice.
Robert Lee Coffey
Jan 31 2024 at 3:07pm
In a non-parliamentary system, like ours, you don’t have to form a government.
Using your example, assume there are only 3 important issues: immigration, abortion, and free trade. If we assume binary positions on each with no subtlety, that would allow for 8 possible position combinations…so the US House would be made up of 8 different parties of various sizes. And yes, they kind of have to come together to elect a speaker, but its not as big an issue as in a parliamentary system, as the President might represent one of the small coalitions, and the Senate will be weirdly divided also.
And when you get an immigration bill, for example, it will represent the majority position, which will be a conglomeration of 4 parties that form a majority on immigration, but a different conglomeration would form a majority on abortion or free trade.
Of course, for the bundling to be broken, we would have to change our voting system to something like ranked choice.
If I preferred the 3 issues (call them A B and C) in that priority order, I might vote for the 8 candidates on my ballot in the following order:
ABC
AB~C
A~BC
A~B~C
~ABC (4 and 5 could be switched depending on how much of a single issue voter I am)
~AB~C
~A~BC
and no point in voting for #8.
Comments are closed.