Advertising Is a Cancer on Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#451

Post by hinkley » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #341

hinkley wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such thing has been proven. Brand recognition is higher even for brands whose ads piss you off. Over time you forget why you were so mad. I had a coworker who insisted you could just chose not to participate. My argument to him was the same I’ll make to you: the other side is using psychological warfare. It’s privatization of propaganda tactics. That requires something a bit more vigorous in response than taking y…

There's nothing stopping anyone from not buying the product. Just because you recognize their brands doesn't mean you have to buy it. I really don't get it. For example, I used to hate the Dodge ads: they really rubbed me the wrong way. It's very easy for me to not buy Dodge products. and as far as pyschological warfare goes. Just don't let it affect you. Only buy things you want or need and don't let yourself be man…

Yeah that’s why it’s called warfare and not conversation. You’re tricking the person into doing something they don’t want to do by overcoming their defenses and reasoning to work against their own interests.

You are either a zen monk or have a huge blind spot. Who else would offer this sort of advice?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#452

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

aeternus wrote: post #313

logfromblammo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Coke does not buy the large ad campaign, the available advertising resources can be used by the next-highest bidder, and that bidder might potentially be selling something with a higher social utility function value. Since the ad infrastructure does not get as much money from that transaction, less is then reinvested into ad infrastructure. If McDonald's stopped advertising on billboards, billboard advertising wou…

And how do you measure social utility? Price is currently the best measure of 'social utility' that we have. People choose to spend their hard-earned dollars on the products that provide the most utility. Companies spend their hard-earned dollars on the vehicles that allow them to sell the most product.

That's the problem with saying Coke shouldn't buy so many ads. Coke got all their ad spend from people who gave them money in exchange for Coke's products.

Coke is rich because society likes drinking Coca-Cola and pals.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#453

Post by chipotle_coyote » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #295

dwild wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. Most ads isn't about manipulation, it's just about getting your attention and reminding you that this product exists. Ads are the only way to reach her market. You could argue that search is a good one too (which is true), but sadly people have trouble paying to watch videos onl…

> I would have agreed in the past but now that my SO has started an escape room, if your ideal world existed, she would be bankrupt right now. In the old days, if her product -in this case escape room- would be good, she'd get enough customers by word of mouth alone.

How old are the days you're talking about? Archeologists have found commercial messages going back to ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. According to some historians, the first printed advertisements go back to the Song dynasty a thousand years ago.

I just don't buy the argument that all kinds of advertising for anything at any time are intrinsically evil and must be stamped out. Even in a post-scarcity utopia, writers, artists and other creators would very likely be promoting their creations in an effort to reach people who might not otherwise hear about them.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#454

Post by ehmish » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #447

Zeklandia wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to tell people they need something then they don't need it. Escape rooms are an entertainment luxury. When there is essential work that needs to be done (infrastructure, healthcare, education, &c.), it makes sense that it takes psychological manipulation to convince people that what they really need to do with their time and effort is temporary entertainment. If you want more customers, provide something…

Your argument sounds an awful lot like "how dare you do anything escapist when there are big problems in the world."

No it's more that I'd your product fulfills a real need, people will find you. The fact that people don't without advertising says it isn't a real need.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#455

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

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.

> Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.

People won't be less affected if advertising is less harmful or pervasive...?

You aggregation function is broken. The impact of advertising is a not a boolean value.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#456

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:55 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #436

Zeklandia wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference, whose significance seems to be lost on you, between peer-to-peer, voluntary communication and centralized, forced distribution. You are not forced to read pamphlets nor do they insert the content of the pamphlets into your newspapers and letters. Typically the only thing you are forced to do by someone distributing pamphlets is to tell them whether you'd like to take one. If advertisements had…

> If advertisements had to ask whether you wanted to see them, the entire industry would collapse. Online ads - and most ads tbh - don't force you to do that either. They want to attract your attention but you re free to ignore them. I used pamphlets as the equivalent of advertising in older times, i m sure people would consider them just as pushy/spammy back then as we consider online ads now. They are not peer-to-p…

You aren't free to ignore them. To even look at them to identify whether they are advertisements takes time. Even if it took a millisecond, with a billion people looking at it that's 12 days of man-hours lost on every advertisement.

Pamphlet distribution is peer-to-peer. People have to distribute them to other people. However, Advertising is usually lopsided: typically a group of people working together, like a magazine corporation, or a machine, like with Facebook, is distributing content to people. And again, receiving ads from these places is not voluntary. You cannot engage with the activity but refuse receiving advertisements, unlike my experience of walking around on university campuses and refusing pamphlets I am offered.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#457

Post by Zeklandia » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:58 PM UTC

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #447

Zeklandia wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to tell people they need something then they don't need it. Escape rooms are an entertainment luxury. When there is essential work that needs to be done (infrastructure, healthcare, education, &c.), it makes sense that it takes psychological manipulation to convince people that what they really need to do with their time and effort is temporary entertainment. If you want more customers, provide something…

Your argument sounds an awful lot like "how dare you do anything escapist when there are big problems in the world."

There are so many other ways to escape, something virtually everyone needs to do at some point, that don't require someone else's time and effort to do. There are even productive ways to escape, like sports (can keep you healthy). If your escape detracts from essential efforts, it is counter-productive.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#458

Post by cameronbrown » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #446

cameronbrown wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strawman argument. When advertising works it has some upside for everyone (customers, platforms and advertisers), dumping toxic waste only benefits the dumper.

I don't see the upside of the crapton of billboards I pass daily, or the flashing, potentially malware-inducing garbage I would see everywhere on the Internet if I turned my ad blocker. Advertising has ridiculous externalities; this is what makes it similar to the toxic waste scenario.

That's because companies have abused the ecosystem and created all this garbage. The irony is lost on them that they're going to be less profitable because they've devalued ads so much.

I truly believe we can find an equilibrium which works.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#459

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #153

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.

I used to just ignore them. Now I click the shit out of the ones with pretty women modelling skimpy clothing. More and more, those types of ads dominate my targeted ad stream and it's beautiful.

Did you drop the "/s"?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#460

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 11:05 PM UTC

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #277

hinkley wrote: post #33

Long, long ago, someone suggested their extremely simple fix for advertising: stop letting companies declare it as a business expense. The Law of Unintended Consequences always gets you in weird ways, and I'm not a lobbyist or a public policy person, nor do I know anyone highly placed in those fields. But one of the ways companies slowly fail is by choosing to sell harder instead of making their product better. If we…

there's a better way. Just have consumers stop buying products that are advertised. it's so easy. i can only imagine that consumers love the advertisements, otehrwise, why would they buy the product?

It's a tragedy of the commons. The best solution to such problems is regulation, which is often difficult to do well.

Fortunately, there isn't a law of the universe that says we can't get better at implementing effective and fair regulations where appropriate.