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

311–320 of 537 posts

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

#311

Post by [deleted] »

freehunter wrote: post #131
burntoutcase wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by User23 »

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 […

> Here's the reason they keep doing-- It works. Stop rewarding it and they'll stop.

That's like saying stopping rape is easy, just don't reward it. It completely ignores the non-consensual nature of the interaction. Except advertising is even worse, because at least rape victims are aware they have been victimized, people that are manipulated by advertising don't even know it. In fact, if you ask, almost everyone will say "advertising doesn't work on me." If that were true, then why do companies spend billions on it?

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

#314

Post by cm2012 »

cwkoss wrote: post #307
cm2012 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just not true. Example: I was just hired to scale marketing for a particular app. This app currently has over 100 real reviews online, averaging 4.9 stars out of 5. Retention is nuts - 98% of people who ever started using the product (which has a monthly fee) are still using it. The company is three years old. Perfect to take off, right? But few industries are actually viral. We just doubled the number of new…

Why isn't the app growing organically? You can certainly pay for eyeballs, the question is whether FB ads are giving users with a retention level high enough to justify the advertising expense. Users from online ads tend to much lower quality than those that come from organic traffic, I would not expect your organic retention numbers to hold.

I've said why its not growing organically many times. Most businesses have no viral coefficient, so organic growth is linear and slow. Some consumer focused tech busnesses are the exception, not the rules.

And yes, all ad spend should be measured against true LTV.

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

#315

Post by clevep »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #283
clevep wrote: post #268

This article misses by far the number one benefit of advertising: it makes products and services cheaper. That notion obviously applies to the plethora of "free" (free in quotes because I am not trying to dodge the fact that you are always paying something) websites which everyone frequents, but goes beyond that as well. There's a comment on here complaining about how Hulu shows ads despite the fact that they are pay…

this talking point just doesn't die, and that's not how economics or profit maximising agencies work. It also fails to explain why, over time, advertising encroached on almost all platforms unless actively resisted and why it's so difficult to find a genuinely ad free service. in short, these platforms work to maximise profit. ads serve to form another income stream, and as long as they don't push sufficient numbers…

Hah, perhaps I was not clear enough in my original comment because I agree with everything you wrote after the first paragraph.

I strongly agree with this sentence: "in short, these platforms work to maximise profit. ads serve to form another income stream, and as long as they don't push sufficient numbers of customers away, it's always in the short term interest of the provider to expand advertising income until the marginal gain equals the marginal loss in marginal revenue from the consumer base."

That is 100% accurate. However, that doesn't mean that ads do not affect the price of goods and services.

Businesses are always looking to find the sweet spot to maximize profits by pulling on different levers. These levers could represent price increases, advertising, lowering production costs, etc. Businesses will always be looking for the most efficient lever to pull. And I guarantee you that if you somehow figure out how to take the advertising lever away, they will pull a different lever. This could result in a higher price, a lower quality product, or something else, but ultimately something has to give.

This explains why advertising is likely to encroach on all platforms, because as users become more accustomed to it there is a higher likelihood that it is the most efficient lever to pull.

And of course I agree that it is generally not the case that you could pay 5% more to be rid of ads. The Hulu example was just a good illustration of how to think about the relative value of advertising to Hulu / the consumer.

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

#316

Post by asdff »

oregontechninja wrote: post #29

I view any and all non-obiective advertising as literally evil. There is absolutely no good reason for advertising to exist it's current state. Are there any nations or states which outlaw or heavily regulate advertising? I've heard some governments outlaw advertising to children.

Sao Paulo banned advertising, removing 15k billboards in the process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

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

#317

Post by robertfw »

bobbygoodlatte wrote: post #263
maerF0x0 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 […

This is good advice for an individual and relatively useless advice when given to society as a whole. Yes, people should think for themselves. If you have kids you might even be able to teach them how to think for themselves. But at scale, at the level of a population, an expectation of individual rationality loses out to the realities of these manipulative techniques. On an individual level they might not work, but…

I think on top of your points, the effect of decades of underfunding education - and on focusing on "marketable" skills over "soft" skills such as critical analysis - must be taken into account.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

jressey wrote: post #32
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 would go further and state that our entire economy and society are based on the manufacturing of demand. There are so few things we actually need. Food, water, clothing, shelter. Everything else is a luxury you've been convinced to buy (or it was given to you by someone who was convinced). I'm not talking about ethics here, just straight facts.

[deleted]

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

#320

Post by rkagerer »

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've never clicked a Google link and bought something. I've never watched a Youtube ad and bought something.

I don't think they're making much money off me. They still keep advertising at me.

Post reply on HN