Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 537 posts

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#51

Post by Matticus_Rex »

jacquesm wrote: post #19
cm2012 wrote: post #3

Doubling of advertising expidenture (Which is a massive, sea change) would apparently make people 3% less happy. So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. I highly doubt it is true though. It's a purely correlational study, that says from 1980-2011, advertising increased and people in general got 3% less happy. They say they accounted for GDP when doing their regression, but…

So, halving it would make people 3% more happy. I say halve it 30 times in a row then. These silly stats make no sense at all.

That doesn't follow.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#52

Post by anoncake »

cm2012 wrote: post #3

Doubling of advertising expidenture (Which is a massive, sea change) would apparently make people 3% less happy. So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. I highly doubt it is true though. It's a purely correlational study, that says from 1980-2011, advertising increased and people in general got 3% less happy. They say they accounted for GDP when doing their regression, but…

Happiness is the one thing we should be optimizing for. 3% is not negligible if there is no trade-off.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#53

Post by munk-a »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #31
lordnacho wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well like it says there's two kinds. One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". The other is "Look at this woman, isn't she fascinating? People like her will desire you more if you buy the thing she's lying on top of. Actual woman not included." Unfortunately, people have discovered type 2 is effective…

Marketing has a light side and a dark side. Light side: Closing the loop between what the customer wants, what their actual problems are, and what engineering and manufacturing can deliver. Darkside: Ladies you need to use our spray or else your hoo-haw will stink.

The light side is of so little value that I think we should just throw it out with the bathwater and kill this modern experiment in advertising.

Our society is paying huge costs to support this industry in terms of wealth, novel innovations, productivity and sanity. It's terrible.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#54

Post by zacherates »

deogeo wrote: post #45
lordnacho wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well like it says there's two kinds. One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". The other is "Look at this woman, isn't she fascinating? People like her will desire you more if you buy the thing she's lying on top of. Actual woman not included." Unfortunately, people have discovered type 2 is effective…

> One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". I almost never see ads of type one - in fact, even finding that information is usually made accidentally or deliberately difficult.

The Wirecutter (https://thewirecutter.com/) is a site dedicated to this kind of advertising and it is extremely useful.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#55

Post by frenchy »

lovecg wrote: post #34
jandrese wrote: post #4

Isn't this what you would expect? Advertising fundamentally is trying to convince you that you need something. If you're perfectly happy with your current situation then what else would you need? So the advertising has to convince you that you're not happy but that there is a product that you can buy that will increase your happiness. You're basically being negged by advertisers.

At its best, advertising is a form of search technology. If I have a need A and there’s a company out there providing exactly A, it’s awesome if I find out about it - both sides benefit from the transaction. To me this sort of advertising seems ethical and useful. Unfortunately there’s of course the other kind, based on deception, psychological tricks, and appeal to emotion.

> At its best, advertising is a form of search technology

That's not advertising. That's curation. Mixing these up is like mixing up astronomy and astrology.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#56

Post by JohnFen »

lordnacho wrote: post #24
jandrese wrote: post #4

Isn't this what you would expect? Advertising fundamentally is trying to convince you that you need something. If you're perfectly happy with your current situation then what else would you need? So the advertising has to convince you that you're not happy but that there is a product that you can buy that will increase your happiness. You're basically being negged by advertisers.

Well like it says there's two kinds. One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". The other is "Look at this woman, isn't she fascinating? People like her will desire you more if you buy the thing she's lying on top of. Actual woman not included." Unfortunately, people have discovered type 2 is effective…

> One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock".

I'm pretty sure that I haven't seen that sort of ad since the late '80s.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#57

Post by jsharf »

deogeo wrote: post #45
lordnacho wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well like it says there's two kinds. One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". The other is "Look at this woman, isn't she fascinating? People like her will desire you more if you buy the thing she's lying on top of. Actual woman not included." Unfortunately, people have discovered type 2 is effective…

> One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". I almost never see ads of type one - in fact, even finding that information is usually made accidentally or deliberately difficult.

Actually, ads on facebook are surprisingly beginning to look like this for me. I've found myself going from hating ads to finding them actually surprisingly interesting, and things I would have wanted to look at anyways (like, for example, interesting kickstarter ideas)

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#59

Post by lwb »

The biggest offender in my opinion is not the web, where you can install ad blockers and avoid certain websites, but television, where you're forced to sit through something before you can get to the content you're trying to watch.

I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it!

It's also pretty bad for F2P mobile games, although the solution there is easy (play different games).

I actually don't mind advertisements in big cities or on billboards, sort of adds to the flashiness factor in some cases. Though if I lived in a more concentrated metro area I might feel differently.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#60

Post by JohnFen »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #31
lordnacho wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well like it says there's two kinds. One is "Hey, did you know this thing exists? Check it out! Here are all the tests it passed, realistic cost of ownership, and locations where it is in stock". The other is "Look at this woman, isn't she fascinating? People like her will desire you more if you buy the thing she's lying on top of. Actual woman not included." Unfortunately, people have discovered type 2 is effective…

Marketing has a light side and a dark side. Light side: Closing the loop between what the customer wants, what their actual problems are, and what engineering and manufacturing can deliver. Darkside: Ladies you need to use our spray or else your hoo-haw will stink.

> Light side: Closing the loop between what the customer wants, what their actual problems are, and what engineering and manufacturing can deliver.

Marketing seems to have given up on that sort of effort years ago.

Post reply on HN