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

271–280 of 537 posts

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

#271

Post by freeone3000 »

davnicwil wrote: post #244
quickthrower2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good advice, but I find it ironic. Keep your money. Stick it in an index fund. It'll get invested in Google, Facebook, Apple who make money from ... advertising their own or other people's products. To really be minimalist I think it's better (if less lucrative on average) to start your own business that takes a small chunk of business away from the giants, that you have ethical control over. It's getting harder…

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 they don't work. So many products and services are not useful. Simply not useful. On Twitter, I've started blocking every useless advertiser that decides to show me an ad... and I'm left with EXAAIR, who I'm sure is glad to target a computer software researcher with their compressed air-powered tools. There is simply too much advertising and too little space. How many advertisements, reasonably, can be sent to a person for things they legitimately want? Does that at all track with what they would see on the unfiltered web?

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

#272

Post by cwkoss »

taffer wrote: post #136
anoncake wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds.

This is currently done extensively, despite advertising existing. So this doesn't seem like a valid counterpoint.

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

#273

Post by anoncake »

cm2012 wrote: post #121
anoncake wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay. So say you make an app that helps plumbers do their job well. If every plumber used it, plumber productivity would go up 50%, making life easier for all. It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it. There's a big plumber app on the market already, but yours is way better. How do you get plumbers to hear abo…

> Uninterested. Plumber magazines or sites? Very low traffic - no way to scale.

That means plumbers don't care about plumbing news, including your app. You have no right to disrespect their choice by spamming them anyway.

In a world without ads, not subscribing to plumbing news would be a weird choice anyway. Refusing to learn about new ways to increase productivity – like your app – means giving your competition an advantage.

> It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it.

Society does not owe you customers.

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

#274

Post by crispinb »

undershirt wrote: post #261
crispinb wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I view advertising as a form of pollution Quite. If (which is now for obvious reasons somewhat unlikely) our global civilisation manque struggles on for another century, it will look back on the overconsumption propaganda industry very much like we now see slavery. Ogilvy, Saatchi et al are the Goebbels' of our age.

I would drink with you

That's a nice thing to say, thank you. I'm off to an Extinction Rebellion meet up this afternoon, where this kind of perspective is less alien than in the tech sector. They've had to book a bigger venue than originally planned because of a deluge of local interest. I have no great hopes, but there are stirrings.

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

#275

Post by 55555 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #226
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's hard to see the line. Real benefits are real. If Gadget X is easy to read and light, it's easy to read and light. Imaginary benefits are imaginary. If you buy Gadget X you will not instantly become attractive to the opposite sex, nor will you be the envy of your friends. The line is where you shift the emphasis from real benefits to imaginary social, emotional psychological, and sexual - i.e. lif…

There is no clear dividing line because lifestyle enhancement isn't imaginary. If you brush your teeth, dress well etc, it actually does improve your sex appeal. So does being able to signal a good income by having certain goods, like a nice car. Homeless men (granted, an extreme example) aren't seeing a lot of action. From what I gather, not owning a car as a man in the US is a serious barrier to having a romantic l…

The clear dividing line is when you feel bad for doing it. But money. So people do it anyway.

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

#276

Post by taffer »

cwkoss wrote: post #272
taffer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds. This is currently done extensively, despite advertising existing. So this doesn't seem like a valid counterpoint.

I explain why this is a valid counterpoint in the second sentence of my post: 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

#277

Post by 55555 »

zacherates wrote: post #54
deogeo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Stuff like this is in a sense worse. Everyone knows ads are ads. But these are 'unbiased' reviews which are totally biased, requiring them to actually distort objective information where required.

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

#278

Post by return1 »

FabHK wrote: post #224
return1 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you think communicating with you is unethical?

I'm objecting to the argument that things that are natural are, therefore, good (the "appeal to nature" fallacy).

"not inherently evil" != "good"

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

#279

Post by taffer »

cwkoss wrote: post #270
cm2012 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. So say you make an app that helps plumbers do their job well. If every plumber used it, plumber productivity would go up 50%, making life easier for all. It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it. There's a big plumber app on the market already, but yours is way better. How do you get plumbers to hear abo…

This is fallacious thinking. If you had an app that would increase plumber productivity by 50%, plumbers would be lining up to get into the Beta. Find any plumbing supplier or trade group, and if the effects are actually that good, they'll tell their members at no-charge because that knowledge would be a service to them. Plumbers would be cold-calling other plumbers trying to get a beta invite. All you need is a marg…

> If you had an app that would increase plumber productivity by 50%, plumbers would be lining up to get into the Beta.

How would plumbers know about the app without advertising?

> Find any plumbing supplier [...] they'll tell their members at no-charge

In other words: They would advertise it.

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

#280

Post by crispinb »

tim333 wrote: post #187
undershirt wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A game indeed. Our investments only grow as a direct exploit of the very “pollution” we try to avoid. As debt increases exponentially, so must consumption to cover it. So we shield ourselves and invest—because the game has winners, and it has losers.

People would still spend money and companies still grow even if you banned advertising. I still quite like having housing, good food, travel and so on even if I haven't seen adverts for those recently.

Marketers have always been clear that their task is to manufacture desire. Beyond the basics of food, sex, basic security, etc, wants are cultural constructions. Of course you want what you want. You did not make yourself. Your culture has that job.

If we had had a century of relentless propaganda installing onto young brains stereotypes of the glories of a clear night sky, or clean healthy rivers (instead of trivial comforts & consumer gewgaws), do you think people would still 'want' the things that destroy our natural rights to experience those things quite as much as they do?

Post reply on HN