21–30 of 90 posts
Hard to quantify the benefits, but I think anyone other than advertisers would say it's a vast improvement. I cannot objectively prove that these cities, public spaces are more beautiful without ads, but all of us know that it is true. Then again you have places like times square where ads are integral to character of the place.
I used to know one of the great ad execs from Mama Bell and he told me nothing happens in this world until a person decides to trade a dollar for something. How do they decide such things? How do people become aware of what things are available for purchase? Another thing he said was that they knew half of their ad spend was "wasted" on people who would never buy what you have to sell. The feeling I get from the auth…
That would be a phenomenal ROI. In almost all advertising contexts the hit rate is far, far lower. Resulting in everyone drowning in ads to hit the few targets.
To the commenters saying, "but how will people/companies know what to buy?"... 1) Through the same high-quality information channels you usually use today: customer reviews, word of mouth, point of sale, and lived experience. For B2B, you could still have industry events or demos where it is essentially a physical opt-in for advertising. 2) I could not possibly care. The offsetting benefit of living in a world where I am not surrounded by messages trying to deceive me into spending money is well worth losing whatever tiny signal might be in that noise.
> What if we made all advertising illegal? It's such a wild idea that I've never heard it in the public discourse. Local jurisdictions have restricted or even forbidden outdoor advertising since it was invented.
It had always been unethical since at least the 19th century, before it was ever regulated overwhelmingly, so the regulations were mainly just codifying the common respectability that was already established from the most honest business operators.
Even if tobacco was allowed in ways that are no longer OK.
i am in favor of this. of course, in America, that would mean no 1st Amendment which I am okay with doing away with as it has served its purpose. I would say the exception would be one must speak with 100% certainty. No 'virtually no side effects' and none of this 'best burger in 200 miles'.
For sure they didn't mean right to bribe and right of companies to "speak", anyhow, so it needs to changed in any case.
i am in favor of this. of course, in America, that would mean no 1st Amendment which I am okay with doing away with as it has served its purpose. I would say the exception would be one must speak with 100% certainty. No 'virtually no side effects' and none of this 'best burger in 200 miles'.
Has it? I would love to here the reasoning behind this.
We could just start making it illegal to advertise to children. Without age verification, it's just a burden of proof with the advertiser that their ad isn't targeting children and a ban on age specific target groups for ad platforms.
I'm neither a fan of advertising nor Trump, but this reads like yet another patronizing think piece about how the wrong people get a vote and it's terrible that they use it in ways of which the author does not approve. "If only there were some way to control what these people say and hear, we would not have such problems as Trump."
The problem with controlling the flow of information, besides being morally reprehensible, is that it leads inevitably to ignoring problems that do not directly affect or concern the gatekeepers, like rural economic devastation. As well, these censorious advocates always imagine the mechanisms of control will only be used by people they agree with, never imagining the mechanisms of control will be used by their political opponents.
The author later reveals the agenda:
> “But it's free speech!” Bullshit. No one is entitled to yell at you “GET 20% OFF THIS UNDERWEAR YOU GLANCED AT YESTERDAY” with a dopamine megaphone in your bedroom. And to track 90% of your life to know when and how to say it. That's not free speech, that's harassment.
A fair and honest reckoning with the question would acknowledge the problems such a ban would introduce with free speech, not simply dismiss them as he does here. If you make a thing, and then you tell people about the thing, then you transgress against the advertising ban. The idea is nonsense.
After 30 years I've stopped watching baseball altogether because the announcers read tiny ads between pitches and at-bats and I can't stand it.
I accidentally let myself get too extreme about deciding that ads are evil. Not surprising I regret that, given the nature of extremism. For better or worse ads are a kind of information, and I should remember that I'm an adult and can tell the difference between the facts and opinions there in.