151–160 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The formalized ad business would be a good place to start. At least you'd kill the ad supported business model because clarity of the transaction required.
I think the GP's question is not so much "where does it start", as "where does it end".
If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…
>humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? [...] How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion? I'm (genuinely) surprised that someone with your financial background knowledge would write those sentences about "free market". I think you already know that the "free" in "free market" mean…
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
> The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. Largely, I agree. But, this is an editorial decision and not an absolute. We used to get better news when we paid straight up for it (newspaper cover price/subscriptions). But, lets not forget, those papers had advertising too. The difference is that the ads were not the only form of revenue and the papers with the best jour…
Also, all the businesses that are real margin-calls on an advertising model if they clickbait the shit out of us will have to find something better. They're going to have to do this anyway - the revenue from advertising is shrinking. This just speeds up the timeline. Oh, and newspapers are in that group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love a paid search service that excluded all the crap and just gave me the good stuff with no ads, let me set my own filter preferences for what I call "the good stuff".
And would you be willing to spend $17,500 a year on said service? That's the figure cited in the Economist. And even if you were willing to spend that sum, it'd be far beyond the means of most people. Heck, almost the average global income of $18,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? [...] How can the free market work if everyone is so easily affected by suggestion? I'm (genuinely) surprised that someone with your financial background knowledge would write those sentences about "free market". I think you already know that the "free" in "free market" mean…
Well we gotta call it something, kinda like communism and democracy. It means a lot of things to different people, but those things still vaguely refer to similar ideas. I tend not to support stringent definitions on things ("The US is a republic, not a democracy") because basically it ends up being word games. If you look at economics, the idea is that people are rational agents. At least the orthodox idea which peo…
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve long thought something along similar lines: in a world with instant search, advertising becomes irrelevant if the search actually helps you to find products. It is in this way that google has actually failed. If you look for a product you get a whole load of dross back. It’s impossible to filter by spec, you can add keywords but this rarely gives you more sensible results these days. The products get lost in the…
one site i frequently consult for electronics is https://geizhals.at because it lets one filter by various product characteristics. it is mainly for DACH region. i guess their business model is whitelabeling for other sites which want to include the functionality, never noticed any bias.
I am beginning to believe that advertising (at all, on any medium) is an evil we need to do without. The "free stuff" that we get in return is never without consequences, as we're finding out. The "hey we built a thing you might want to buy" function can be done in different forms, better, I think. Probably by newspapers. I think we could start by taxing all advertising revenue by, say, 50%.
“People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the wo…
But if anyone reacts to an ad with this degree of paranoia and self-loathing, it speaks more to their own fragility than it does than the nature of advertising.
If we know that humans have all sorts of cognitive biases, how come it's ok to use that fact while at the same time we insist there's some kind of free market? Say you discover that putting good-looking women next to cars causes the sale of cars to increase. Why does nobody question whether it is legitimate to do so? It's as if there's a line between actively lying ("Studies show that men who buy this car will find m…