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

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

#531

Post by Kaiyou » Fri, May 31, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

ionised wrote: post #419

JohnFen wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I would never say 'advertising doesn't work on me' but it definitely doesn't seem to have the intended effect (persisting the brand in my memory for future sales) in a lot of cases. Example 1: Coca Cola adverts. I can't stand coke, it tastes like soap to me. No amount of viewing their adverts (which are everywhere) will make me want a coke. Example 2: I find most adverts cringey and embarassing and they serve only to…

Ads are not designed to get you to buy stuff. Ads are designed to familiarize you with a product. So when you plan a party and have to think what drinks to buy, you already know Coca Cola is a drink that exists. Maybe you buy it, maybe you don't. It doesn't matter. And if you go to a party, you also know that Coca Cola is a drink you can expect to get.

That's what ads are for. To get everyone to know that they live in a reality where your product exists.

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

#532

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #517

Kaiyou wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should read up on the relationship between smoking and advertising. It's actually really interesting, and there's no question that advertising alone is the reason that smoking became so prevalent in society.

A similar story applies to other things that we consider so normal today that we don't even think about them, like deodorants, women shaving their legs and armpits, etc.

All of these things only became common because of advertising.

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

#533

Post by JohnFen » Fri, May 31, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #299

JohnFen wrote: post #56

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'm pretty sure that I haven't seen that sort of ad since the late '80s.

Ever been to the 'gear' section of WiRED?

No, I stopped reading Wired about a decade ago.

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

#534

Post by burntoutcase » Fri, May 31, 2019, 5:19 PM UTC

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…

> Honest question and I don't have super strong opinions on the subject, but is product placement really that big of a negative?

If a product placement can't be justified on plot or characterization grounds, then I find it an obnoxious distraction and a sign of spinelessness on the part of the director and editors.

> 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.

Do it really matter what kind of car James Bond drives? Not really. All that matters is that it's something only rich pigs can afford and was customized by Q with all kinds of non-standard and outrageously illegal features, like artfully concealed machine guns.

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

If I want reality, I know where to find it. If I go to the movies, it's to get a reprieve from reality. I'm paying good money for the convenience of a ready-made waking dream, and the presence of gratuitous product placement cheapens the fantasy.

If product placement doesn't bother you, that's fine. It annoys the fuck out of me, so I prefer to read novels or play video games when I want to relax.

(Besides, the prevalence of CG makes most mass-market movies nothing but defective video games anyway. Who needs MCU when you can watch a let's play of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Libertines?)

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

#535

Post by chillwaves » Sun, Jun 02, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #523

nanny wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but nowadays there's no reason for it to be in there. You said they're marketed as a treat, and optimized to be as delicious as possible. So what's the caffeine for then? They're not marketed as energy drinks or designed to be as stimulating as possible. I say that the caffeine is in there solely to keep people addicted to it even more.

> So what's the caffeine for then? Part of being an enjoyable experience - not literally part of being delicious but part of being a sensation people enjoy.

The answer is that caffeine is addictive and the soda companies are selling drugs.

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

#536

Post by chillwaves » Sun, Jun 02, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #473

nothal wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a nearsighted appraisal of people in these industries. Advertising is effective and so is the myth that money gives you actualization, to me it makes perfect sense that smart kids are going into a high paying industry while missing it's harmful effect.

If they were really smart they would see the bigger picture.

You are assuming their values. Smart people can be selfish. Smart people can have no concern for a legacy or the bigger picture of humanity.

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

#537

Post by Matticus_Rex » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #236

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't follow.

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

Not really, though -- it was empirical, and the fact that an estimate of the first halving does X doesn't imply that further halving will have the same effect, so a reductio doesn't work here.