Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

jacek.zlydach.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#181

Post by stronglikedan »

megaman821 wrote: post #128

I feel this is a new trend among people. * I don't like something. * Why do people do it? It is not even effective. * It should be outlawed. If you and a bunch of other people like you think advertising is a waste of money, what is preventing you from starting your own company that does not use advertising? I promise you the government will not come and force you to buy commercial time or Facebook ads.

It's not a new trend. There's always people that think big, regulatory government is the answer to everything, and people just cannot be held accountable for their own actions. It just seems worse now that they can spout their nonsense to the masses, but good thing they're still a (very) vocal minority.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#182

Post by prophesi »

blodovnik wrote: post #96
kelnos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There must be a way to do advertising that respects the consumer, and doesn't use some form of sketchy manipulation to achieve the desired goal. And yet the vast majority of advertising is (to me) offensive. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. That's a rather childish and immature rejoinder. The world of employment simply doesn't…

People were offended by advertising in the same way in the 1970s. Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.

That's because we discovered psychological manipulation for advertising in the 30's thanks to Freud's nephew, Bernays. And it was brought to light when psychology hit center stage in the 70's after the psychedelics lash-back. So our current advertising methodology is a very recent phenomenon.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#183

Post by Freak_NL »

dudul wrote: post #44
t34543 wrote: post #22

If you stop watching ads for awhile and go back to it you’ll see how mind numbing it all really is. I aggressively block ads - no exceptions.

When I moved from Europe to the US I just couldn't believe it. In my home country there is one commercial break during a 2 hour movie. It's a little longer than the breaks in the US, but there is only one. There is also one during a 45minute TV show, and none during a 20minute show. I can't tell you the shock when I started watching American TV. I couldn't believe people were putting up with this.

Back when television shows made in the US were still made for cable and had to facilitate a bunch of advertisement blocks it used to be really obvious when you watched one of those shows in a country that didn't advertise quite as much. The show would wrap up a scene to prepare for a pause, and then instantly resume with a small recap of the action it ended with. That was the queue for us non-US viewers to know when viewers in the US must have had an ad break.

Of course with streaming services this phenomenon is mostly gone.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#184

Post by klum »

jkeuhlen wrote: post #97
bluetwo wrote: post #16

I would say the theft of attention and concentration is a cancer on society, but I agree overall. To those who say there is no other model, you are not correct.

What are the other models that exist and are currently working? As someone who is looking to build a free consumer product, I don't know what else exists that can offset my costs other than advertising. I hate paywalls just as much as advertising, so I'm opposed to just charging for access.

If you expect income, you're not really looking to build a free product, are you? Seems to me, a paywall (or similar) is the honest way; those who get value from your product give value back, in the most direct and transparent way possible.

(I know I'm trivializing the question; I'm not in your situation and I don't know the perfect model for your product. But I disagree with just lumping together "paywalls" and "advertising" in the same category of "non-desirable things".)

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#185

Post by dooglius »

joshgel wrote: post #82
rifung wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, everybody on the planet is now familiar with soft drinks. If anybody has never tasted Coke, it's not by accident. But Coke's ad budget is enormous. If all soft drink companies stopped advertising tomorrow, society would not be worse off. And we'd have billions of dollars [1] to spend on something useful. Not that I disagree, but where do you draw the line? Sure, if Coke stopped advertising we'd have bi…

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such beverages should get priced in and be used to offset eventual health complications. This is not easy because no one likes taxes, but you get what you pay for.

How is there an externality? It's not like smoking where it affects other people.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#186

Post by JudgeWapner »

joshgel wrote: post #82
rifung wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, everybody on the planet is now familiar with soft drinks. If anybody has never tasted Coke, it's not by accident. But Coke's ad budget is enormous. If all soft drink companies stopped advertising tomorrow, society would not be worse off. And we'd have billions of dollars [1] to spend on something useful. Not that I disagree, but where do you draw the line? Sure, if Coke stopped advertising we'd have bi…

As a doctor, I'm all for banning soft drinks, recognizing that it probably will never happen. But, the health externalities associated with drinking such beverages should get priced in and be used to offset eventual health complications. This is not easy because no one likes taxes, but you get what you pay for.

> and be used to offset eventual health complications

that would be predicated on an honest and direct pricing scheme for healthcare. taxing soda may be a feel-good thing to do, but how can you say - with a straight face - how much dialysis treatment or 'beetus meds actually cost? The whole business model of healthcare is built on information hiding.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#187

Post by iamaelephant »

blodovnik wrote: post #8

This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. It's a childish and immature opinion really. Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loa…

My brother has the same view of advertising as this author but also loves MotoGP and other motorsports and doesn't see the conflict staring him right in the face as sponsor-branded bikes fly past. I agree it's childish and short-sighted, and I'm certain the author would have a different viewpoint if the time came to market his own small business.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#189

Post by dooglius »

kyruzic wrote: post #100
amiune wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every company stopped advertising then google and facebook and twitter will disappear. Are all these companies pure waste? How do you fund a replacement for them? Should these services be provided by governments?

Each of those companies has a FOSS competitor that does not rely on advertising money yet still exists.

There's a FOSS competitor to Google?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#190

Post by yellowapple »

archy_ wrote: post #76
dudul wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I moved from Europe to the US I just couldn't believe it. In my home country there is one commercial break during a 2 hour movie. It's a little longer than the breaks in the US, but there is only one. There is also one during a 45minute TV show, and none during a 20minute show. I can't tell you the shock when I started watching American TV. I couldn't believe people were putting up with this.

I wish America would group TV ads together, it would make them much easier to skip and would remove the need for forced cutoffs (you really notice them when watching on non-cable sources)

I'd go the other direction: don't group them (a lot of shows already account for / include commercial breaks, so it ain't like they're that disruptive) but make them shorter. The shorter the commercial, the less likely a viewer is to skip them or change the channel, which means more engagement. The ad's subject wins (more engagement), the viewer wins (less ads), the channel wins (more engagement + less supply = more leverage to charge higher prices for ad slots). Win-win-win.

----

If I had the resources and know-how, I'd start a radio station on this premise. I've noticed that most radio stations feel like they play more commercials than actual music, with the sole exception of one station in Reno (96.1 Bob FM) that does hour-long non-stop music split up by very short (1-2 minutes at most) commercial breaks. I've also noticed that I never feel the need to switch from Bob FM to some other station because I know that the music will come back soon. Unsurprisingly, those commercials are way more impactful than the ones on other stations specifically because I'm actually listening to them instead of skipping them.

I'd like to take that to a greater extreme with 29-minute music blocks separated by single 30-second commercials (with 15-second station identification blurbs on either side of it, or perhaps combining them into a 30-second news update for e.g. traffic and weather). Companies probably wouldn't pay a premium for these ads at first, but I suspect once they see the upticks in customer engagement they'll be more willing to bid higher for those slots.

Post reply on HN