Why Don’t We Just Ban Targeted Advertising?

Post by throwaway5466 » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #17

coldpie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah our societies functioned for centuries without targeted ads, and we can do it again. It's only the past decade or two that we've had targeted ads. I think you could compare targeted ads to selling drugs: there's clearly a market for it and it will sustain many peoples' livelihoods, but as a society we've seen the ill effects of letting them run rampant and decided we're better off highly regulating them. It's ti…

We also functioned for centuries without electricity, hot and cold running water, or good sanitation. The fact that we functioned without something doesn't imply that we're better off without it.

Post by clarry » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #23

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

The argument for massive Pigouvian taxes on advertising seems much clearer. Advertising imposes massive costs on society and the viewers. These costs aren't borne by the advertiser, so they should be captured through massive taxes and put to good use. And many brands wouldn't feel much of an impact: what matters to Coke is that it spends more than Pepsi. If their $6B on advertising only buys 1/10th as many ads as it…

And it's a shame really - I find most budget colas have a far richer cola flavour than either Coke or Pepsi. Coke especially is very bland.

Post by Mountain_Skies » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #24

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't we just ban advertising? Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. Distributors become kingmakers. If the incumbent's product is in the grocery stores and the upstart can't advertise, there's no path to entry apart from winning over a distributor. Niche products become nonviable. If you can't reach out to your customers, they have to reach out to you. That requires they know (a) th…

>Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. In my eyes, this would be a win. Journalism ideally should serve the readers. Aligning the business model (patronage/subscription-only) with the ideal seems like a good thing in the long run. Journalism (including but not limited to print) is filled with essentially noise that wouldn't be economically viable if the publishers had to justify the value…

Post by clarry » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

ddevault wrote: post #7

Why don't we just ban advertising?

> Why don't we just ban advertising? Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. Distributors become kingmakers. If the incumbent's product is in the grocery stores and the upstart can't advertise, there's no path to entry apart from winning over a distributor. Niche products become nonviable. If you can't reach out to your customers, they have to reach out to you. That requires they know (a) th…

Post by avalys » Mon, Mar 23, 2020, 1:14 PM UTC

clarry wrote: post #37

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don't we just ban advertising? Newspapers would need to be subscription-only or patronage-based. Distributors become kingmakers. If the incumbent's product is in the grocery stores and the upstart can't advertise, there's no path to entry apart from winning over a distributor. Niche products become nonviable. If you can't reach out to your customers, they have to reach out to you. That requires they know (a) th…

> Niche products become nonviable. If you can't reach out to your customers, they have to reach out to you. Umm, I think this is largely the reality for niche products right now, with advertising. I don't see ads for niche products, and I don't see producers of niche products paying for ads because a small campaign wouldn't reach the right audience and a large campaign would be too expensive for a niche product.