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

131–140 of 537 posts

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

#131

Post by freehunter »

burntoutcase wrote: post #10
plg wrote: post #6

my kids only watch netflix and shows/movies we buy on iTunes so basically they see virtually no ads, SO unlike my experience growing up watching network TV where every 12 minutes there was a series of 5 or 6 30-second ads

They might not see explicit advertisements, but they're getting exposed to a metric assload of product placement.

Honest question and I don't have super strong opinions on the subject, but is product placement really that big of a negative? If I open someone's fridge, I don't see a bunch of stuff with the labels conveniently turned backwards or removed, I see Coca-Cola and Sunny-D and Hellman's Mayo and Heinz ketchup. If I walk through a college classroom I don't see a bunch of laptops with featureless lids, I see Apple logos and Dell logos and HP logos. If I'm driving down the road, I don't see a bunch of de-badged cars, I see Chevy logos and Ford logos and VW logos.

Is it really detracting from a movie to have a bottle of Pepsi sitting on the table at dinner while they're eating their Pizza Hut pizza? Isn't that how the real world actually exists?

Basically: aren't we all exposed to a metric assload of product placement all day anyway?

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

djtriptych wrote: post #16
rimliu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not say it works that way for me. I see most advertising as a visual noice and/or annoying interruption. I think majority of the time I am not even aware what is being advertised.

Probably it's almost impossible to measure one's own reaction to ubiquitous advertising. Ignoring it consciously does not mean you are unaffected.

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by TACIXAT »

chc wrote: post #71
deogeo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> necessary evil Whatever convinced you it was necessary? A few cities/states banned billboards, and as far as I'm aware, the sky didn't fall.

How many big content websites do you know that are doing well without ads?

I view this as a major failing of our payments infrastructure. I have no way to send a few cents to a business digitally.

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

#134

Post by bediger4000 »

teawrecks wrote: post #85
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.

I think advertising is to marketing as space travel is to rocket science. An ideal situation for space travel is to be able to teleport anything anywhere, but that's not possible yet, so they build rockets to travel as fast as currently possible. Similarly, an ideal situation for advertising is to read each person's mind, determine exactly what products they are looking for but aren't yet aware of, and make them awar…

That seems like an unreasonably optimistic viewpoint, based on the history of advertising, and indeed, mass market product of anything.

Optimistically: determine exactly what products they are looking for but aren't yet aware of,

Realistically: determine what high-margin products you could possible convince them of, and show those products in as intrusive a manner possible

The Internet seems to have made us all aware that the depths of human dishonesty and unethicality have no bottom.

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

#135

Post by dTal »

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.

I don't think the "light side" exists. Advertising is fundamentally about convincing the consumer to buy your product, when they otherwise wouldn't have. That goes regardless of whether it's good for them. Sure, it might be good for them, but that's basically irrelevant. If you're giving someone an unbiased opinion about a product or service, that's not advertising - it's a review.

At its core, marketing is all about creating information asymmetry. You're not informing the customer, you're persuading them. They're opposites.

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

#136

Post by taffer »

anoncake wrote: post #97
cm2012 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I don't think the correlation holds in the first place. But if it did, there absolutely is a trade-off. It's more or less impossible to grow any endeavor beyond local scale without ads, unless you're lucky enough to be an industry with a strong viral or press component. Take a look at the S-1s of most companies that go public. 9/10 of the companies have been able to grow because of ads.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "there is no trade-off". Those endeavours are only useful if and to the extent they create happiness. Also: Companies need ads to grow because their competitors also have ads. That doesn't mean they'd need ads in if ads didn't exist. The one legitimate purpose ads serve – could easily be served through other mechanisms, e.g. by the press. Maybe the press would have to expan…

If there were no explicit advertising, companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds. Today in the press we have a more or less clear distinction between advertising and content, and I think if we banned advertising it would create an unintended incentive that could lead to the destruction of unbiased journalism as we know it today.

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

#137

Post by drstewart »

deogeo wrote: post #112
chc wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many big content websites do you know that are doing well without ads?

How many are necessary, or even desirable, and not a net drain on human happiness by optimizing for endless engagement? I don't like the direction in which the ad-supported model is pushing content. Internet pre-advertising had plenty of useful and interesting sites. And Wikipedia is ad-free as well. And without the competition of zero-cost ad-supported commercial sites, other business models would rise to take their…

And what makes you think these other business models will have only net positive contributions on human happiness?

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

#138

Post by freehunter »

WalterBright wrote: post #92
jressey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will notice 'being locked in cages' is not in my original list.

My point is that subsistence allocations of food, water, shelter, and clothing is not enough, and such are part of the punishment of prison.

They're certainly enough to survive, which is why they're provided in prison. The argument wasn't that these are the only things you should ever have in life, but rather that these are the only things you need in life, and everything else is a luxury.

The punishment of prison isn't free food and shelter, it's a lack of luxuries. And people survive for decades in prison, so obviously what they're getting is, by definition, enough.

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

#139

Post by cm2012 »

FabHK wrote: post #125
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 basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. You are wrong. The paper goes on to say, in the very next sentence , that 3% is "approximately one half the absolute size of the marriage effect on life satisfaction, or approximately one quarter of the absolute size of the effect of being unemployed", thus (while smaller), it's the same order of magnitude. Presumably you do not con…

I saw that. I still think it's small. 3% is 3%, even if their measure shows marriage being 6%.

Changing peoples minds about their self worth is still changing their mind.

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

#140

Post by 40acres »

I assume brand advertising to be specific is the real culprit here. As a huge fan of Mad Men some of Don Draper's (main character) quotes are illuminatung here.

"Advertising is based on one thing, happiness. And you know what happiness is? Happiness is the smell of a new car. It's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams reassurance that whatever you are doing is okay. You are okay."

Post reply on HN