Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by Iv » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

I'd like to add that advertising is also economic pollution that goes against free competition.

The theory behind free markets requires that voters are more or less rational and well informed. That they will never spend more on an inferior product. Advertisement distorts that.

I suspect that banning advertisement altogether would make the economy gain a lot in terms of market efficiency. Can you imagine a world where pricing and quality would be highly correlated? A world where information on a product would be, if not correct, at least made in good faith?

I'd love to see that happen.

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

#252

Post by davnicwil » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #245

davnicwil wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On simple vs manipulative advertising being different things, I think mostly it's not the intent of the business advertising to be manipulative but rather just to save money. That is it's not the end that's bad, but the means. Take our humble 'Painter for Hire' - an honest business looking to do real valuable work for people who genuinely want to pay for that service. That's the kind of advert we all want to see, whe…

But if someone needs a painter, they could just use an unbiased search engine, right? There is no need to bother anyone with ads.

You're right, but that's a very customer centric viewpoint - from the point of view of the advertiser this is not so great.

This specific painter pays the ad platform to be the one that comes to you, when you're busy with all the other things on your todo list, so that you choose them and not one of the other 10 painters in your area.

It still doesn't make them bad, or manipulative. You actually want this service and not having to do the search yourself is a bonus, all things being equal (price and service level is in line with the local market etc).

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

#253

Post by teawrecks » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:52 PM UTC

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #180

teawrecks wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

except the goal of marketing is not inherently to meet a person's needs. At the macro level, it's maximising needs met, but at the micro level this is done by both initiating and implanting desires that otherwise aren't present or necessary, and by creating problems/pain points (which then, as a second order effect, create a need, which is met by the product). In economic terms, advertisers aim to maximise locally me…

Every single person responding to my comment is conflating advertising with marketing. They are not the same thing!

Advertisers are putting customers in touch with marketers for products. Marketers are trying to convince those customers to buy the product. If the advertiser somehow magically knew a priori that nothing a marketer could say would change a given customer's mind, it's in everyone's best interest to not waste any resources on that customer.

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

#254

Post by krustyburger » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:56 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #251

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

I'd like to add that advertising is also economic pollution that goes against free competition. The theory behind free markets requires that voters are more or less rational and well informed. That they will never spend more on an inferior product. Advertisement distorts that. I suspect that banning advertisement altogether would make the economy gain a lot in terms of market efficiency. Can you imagine a world where…

Where would you draw the line? How would producers expect for consumers to find their product?

Would consumers be allowed to recommend products to each other?

What about design and product packaging? Isn't that essentially a form of advertising?

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

#255

Post by DoreenMichele » Tue, May 28, 2019, 11:59 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #240

DoreenMichele wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a copywriter in the sense of "person who writes adverts," but I am someone who writes copy for website content. One of the problems is that it isn't even good communication to say (for example) "This device has a 7 inch screen." That's mostly useless information for most people. It's much more genuinely helpful to tell people something like "You can easily read our large screen even in bright sunlight." Most…

That works if there is a single source from where people learn about your product. If you product is popular enough someone else will simply make a nice table comparing your 7" screen with your competitions 8" and 9" screens.

And that may well be your competitor, whose goal is no more high minded than yours: promoting their own products.

And if it's me, I will probably be paid to tell you why you might want to buy each product listed.

Obviously, the 7" model is portable, no frills, fits standard pockets and you will appreciate it if you need a space saving model or are buying on a budget.

The 9" has all the bells and whistles, is a premium product and well worth the money, if you can afford it.

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

#256

Post by snaky » Wed, May 29, 2019, 12:00 AM UTC

Iv wrote: post #251

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

I'd like to add that advertising is also economic pollution that goes against free competition. The theory behind free markets requires that voters are more or less rational and well informed. That they will never spend more on an inferior product. Advertisement distorts that. I suspect that banning advertisement altogether would make the economy gain a lot in terms of market efficiency. Can you imagine a world where…

> Mises in Human Action (p. 19) writes "Human action is necessarily always rational. The term 'rational action' is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man."

https://mises.org/library/what-do-austrians-mean-rational

> The rational being practicing rational-expectations theory only makes behavioral economists laugh. And the neoclassical construct of equilibrium prices requires assumptions that only tenured professors who don't get out much could believe, like perfect competition, perfect information, and perfect rationality.

https://mises.org/library/rationality-and-market-economy

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

#257

Post by munchbunny » Wed, May 29, 2019, 12:01 AM UTC

Iv wrote: post #251

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

I'd like to add that advertising is also economic pollution that goes against free competition. The theory behind free markets requires that voters are more or less rational and well informed. That they will never spend more on an inferior product. Advertisement distorts that. I suspect that banning advertisement altogether would make the economy gain a lot in terms of market efficiency. Can you imagine a world where…

I'd love to see an efficient market too, but banning advertising won't accomplish that, it'll just shift the burden of discovery elsewhere, like review aggregators, and information there is already questionably reliable.

In practice, I think the problem that creates advertising is that humans have limited bandwidth for ingesting information in general, so we have tons of tools to compile more information into less information, such as news, books, statistics, reviews, etc. (For example, how many people really entirely understand their health insurance plans? It's not for lack of trying.) Advertising is sort of an arbitrage of that communication bandwidth based on the fact that some actors (companies) really want you to see their information more badly than others.

That problem doesn't go away just because you ban advertising, it just moves the arbitrage opportunity elsewhere.

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

#258

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, May 29, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #86

enlyth wrote: post #15

To me, it is worrying how much human effort we're investing into advertising as a whole. The top minds of our generations, backed by billions of dollars in funding, are working on increasingly manipulative ways to capture people's attention and use it to generate profit. We're constantly getting better at it; who knows what path this will lead us down. I suspect it might not be the one we had wished for.

Here's the reason they keep doing-- It works. Stop rewarding it and they'll stop. I actually think a large number of societal issues today are stemming from people's inability to think rationally for themselves. Things like fake news, being vulnerable to advertising, taking bad deals like minimum wage etc. If someone were able to think rationally and into the future to figure out, "4 years from now if I choose this […

I actually think a large number of societal issues today are stemming from people's inability to think rationally for themselves.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with being bombarded with advertising from cradle to grave.

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

#259

Post by reshie » Wed, May 29, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

and it doesn't have to be but i do agree. jingles were a form of advertising and were kind of fun and had the phycological effect of getting stuck in your head. there were/are also quite entertaining commercials but still give visibility to their products tv and streaming. perhaps its the medium. of course we still have the equivalents to a infomercial on the internet though.

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

#260

Post by panarky » Wed, May 29, 2019, 12:02 AM UTC

sesteel wrote: post #66

I view advertising as a form of pollution. In many cases, it erodes the human experience. It is abusive to families with children creating strife where there was none. I spend a lot of time managing expectations and sharing philosophical ideas, like "less is more". I don't mind teaching my children, but I don't like feeling people are trying to take advantage of us all the time. I explain it to them as if it is a gam…

> a form of pollution

I'm reading Edward Bernays' 1928 book Propaganda [0]. Bernays was an advertising and public-relations guy who wanted to rehabilitate the term "propaganda" and rid it of its negative connotations.

Ultimately, advertising, public relations and propaganda are about agitating and motivating people to do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do, and Bernays believes it's all for the benefit of the public.

Crucially, Bernays argues that it's not so much about the ad you see, it's about the social cues that have been engineered into your family, education, employment and political system that predispose how you consume.

Turning off the TV and Instagram are good starts, but I wonder what media you and your children consume that is immune to the methods of Bernays and those who followed him.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)