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

511–520 of 537 posts

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

#511

Post by jodrellblank »

JohnFen wrote: post #483
jodrellblank wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't it be maintained forever? If a house can be valued at $4,000 one year, and $40,000 a few decades later, and $200,0000 a few decades later, what's the reason that "value" can't keep increasing eternally? There's obviously no real substance to "the value" of a thing, only people's interpretation and desire for it, and there's plenty of "value" where there is no physical substance at all, like exclusivity, or…

That's not growth capitalism. Growth capitalism requires constant growth in both supply and demand. Increasing supply requires increasing the usage of raw materials (not to mention the waste generated through their use). The reality is that we don't have an unlimited supply of any raw materials, so growth cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Increasing supply requires increasing the usage of raw materials

Recycling exists; Planet Earth has been doing it with organic matter for a couple of billion years without running out.

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

#512

Post by thorwasdfasdf »

JohnFen wrote: post #232
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 […

> Stop rewarding it and they'll stop. Here's the thing... I'd taken quite a lot of advertising courses during my education, and among the many truly scary things that I learned in them, one stood out above all others: Knowing how advertising manipulates you, and even noticing it in the moment that it's happening, in no way makes it less effective. People who claim that they aren't affected by advertising are incorrec…

Advertising does NOT affect me 99.99% of the time. How do i know this? Almost all the groceries I buy has no advertisement or even branding. The vast majority of my spending goes to housing, Taxes, grocery bill, gas, maintenance and insurance. Almost none of the groceries I buy have any kind of logo, marketing or advertisement: cucumber, tomatoes, potatoes. Even when I buy soymilk, once I get through filtering all my conditions (organic, no added sugar, no added calcium/sodium, etc) I'm lucky if I even have 1 choice left. Beans come from nameless bulk, etc. Gas is based on location and price (not brand). Maintenance is always done at the cheapest place of the 3 closest repair shops. All my utilities offer me no choice at all. I have no idea what brand the clothing I'm wearing. etc.

I find this quite easy and intuitive. I'm not against advertisement at all. I've seen and remembered several advertisements but they almost never offer a product compelling enough to buy. When an ad does offer me something I actually want, I'll buy it (this happens for far less than 1% of my spending).

and yes, i'm well aware of how advertisements influence our perception of brands. but how is it effective if I never buy anything that has a brand? and when I do buy, I usually never have a choice: Utilities, etc

I have a 15" macbook pro that may have been aggressively marketed by Apple. But once again, I had no choice. the reason I bought it is because I'm a developer who used to create IOS apps and I needed the development environment to build apps (no choice but to use apple machines for that).

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

#513

Post by cm2012 »

anoncake wrote: post #492
cm2012 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still use FB even though they see ads there. And then convert when they see the Plumbing ad.

So? Maybe some ends justify the means. Selling an app isn't such an end. Is being able to sell your stuff all you care about? Because that's the impression I'm getting. I'd summarize our discussion like this (exaggerating for effect): > Ads damage democracy, make everyone unhappy, they're a huge drain on our economy and can be replaced by better methods of distributing information. > But I get to sell a plumbing app.

I would completely disagree with your summary of our discussion.

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

#514

Post by FabHK »

return1 wrote: post #278
FabHK wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"not inherently evil" != "good"

I'm objecting furthermore to the argument that things that are natural are, therefore, not inherently evil.

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

#515

Post by foldingmoney »

rexpop wrote: post #370
foldingmoney wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like there's some central planning committee that sits down and decides what to pay everyone. Citizens decide where to spend their money -- at least the part that the government doesn't tax and spend for them -- and all of these industries you name exist and pay well because people value them and choose to spend their money on them.

> Citizens decide where to spend their money. It's almost criminal the way we propagate the narrative that advertising is ineffectual. Of course, if it were, there wouldn't be so much money in it. So it's very hard for me to take seriously people who believe in consumer choice.

What percentage of the products that you see advertised every day do you buy? 100%? 50%? I'm guessing it's probably less than 1%.

No one would argue that businesses spend a lot of money on targeted advertising, and targeting is something that marketers are constantly trying to refine.

What is targeting? Showing things to the people who are most likely to buy them.

In the world you're describing, targeting wouldn't exist, because the mind control techniques of advertising have made free will a thing of the past, and people will just buy whatever the all powerful advertising agencies tell them to buy.

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

#516

Post by beecat »

challenger22 wrote: post #489
beecat wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't second this strongly enough. Why are we utilizing such vast amounts of our limited resources to persuade people to make certain decisions? In my humble opinion it's usually because the decisions the people who employ advertising tactics want the people they are advertising to, to make, are suboptimal, if not downright bad, and people wouldn't make those decisions, but as a by-product of having been advertised…

Exploiting people's psychology to consolidate their resources for yourself is not tantamount to theft.

Okay, for the sake of semantic digression, let's call it 'fraud' then. It's tantamount to fraud...

... Which is tantamount to theft.

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

#517

Post by Mirioron »

Kaiyou wrote: post #478
Mirioron wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowing how advertising manipulates you, and even noticing it in the moment that it's happening, in no way makes it less effective. People who claim that they aren't affected by advertising are incorrect. Is there any evidence for such a claim? I've heard people say this again and again, but I can't see how this is true based on myself. Sure, I've been guided to a product based on advertisement once in my life, but…

You misunderstand advertisement. It is not designed to get you to buy stuff. It is designed to get you familiarized with the product and to shape your view of reality. Did you think people thought smoking was cool back in the days just because? Do you think wedding rings are supposed to be expensive?

I don't know about smoking being cool (I'm very biased against smoking, because my entire family smoked and I have asthma), but I do know that people smoked hundreds of years before advertisements were a thing. I've also always thought that jewelry was silly and pointlessly expensive, but I do know that people were affected by advertisement.

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

#518

Post by Mirioron »

wastedhours wrote: post #460
Mirioron wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowing how advertising manipulates you, and even noticing it in the moment that it's happening, in no way makes it less effective. People who claim that they aren't affected by advertising are incorrect. Is there any evidence for such a claim? I've heard people say this again and again, but I can't see how this is true based on myself. Sure, I've been guided to a product based on advertisement once in my life, but…

There's research on nudging behaviours, and that being told you're being nudged doesn't negatively impact your decision vs not being told you're being nudged, which could be considered synonymous with advertising transparency [0] (although there are caveats at play that might make that unsound). [0] https://www.coglode.com/gem/transparency-effect

I don't doubt the effects I'd advertising. What I wonder is whether advertising affects everyone. Studies can show that it affects people on average, but it doesn't mean it affects everyone.

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

#519

Post by wow425 »

Root of the problem is measuing everything in GDP.Natural resources such as rivers and oceans, topsoil and forests, the ozone layer and the atmosphere, are seen as essentially valueless—unless, of course, they are exploited and converted into revenue. Gdp measures mainly market transactions. it ignores social costs, environmental impacts and income inequality. Seen through such a lens, the most economically productive people are cancer patients in the midst of getting a divorce. healthy people in happy marriages, in contrast, are economically invisible, and all the more so if they cook at home, walk to work, grow food in a home garden, and don’t smoke

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

#520

Post by chrisseaton »

nanny wrote: post #506
chrisseaton wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.

If they're an "honest product" then why do they put caffeine in them? Caffeine doesn't change the flavor to make it "as delicious as possible".

Kola nuts, which contain caffeine, were in the original formulation. It's a stimulant - that's partly what some people are drinking Coca Cola and similar drinks for in the first place. It wasn't added later to increase sales.
Post reply on HN