Live data from Hacker News

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

jacek.zlydach.pl

161–170 of 286 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#161
post #92

I teach people how to advertise for a living. This is how I teach it: an advert is simply the ability to buy a knock on someones front door. That is literally all you are doing when you buy an advert. All business activity you experience today is an abstraction of business we have already done, I'm sure back in the day people thought door to door sales people were annoying, and I'm sure sometimes they were not. From…

> competition drives improvement Are you saying ads helping competition? How? > customer choice is central to a functioning market, leading to innovation. Ads suppress customer choice, along with innovations. Can you recall any recent innovative carbonated drink? Marketing budgets of pepsi/coca cola make competition and innovation impossible.

Advertising is a PURE competitive move in the most fundamental sense in the business playbook, anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand business and therefore nor marketing nor sales. Sadly, that is a lot of people out there who profess to understand business.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a good that advertising does: letting people know how your product or services address some pressing need.

explain what pressing needs this BMW adv addresses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8UPg6hyDBg

You've confused an individual instance with the general category to an extraordinary extent here.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#163

I fully agree with the sentiment, and yet marvel at the apparent lack of alternatives for so many business models. I'm mildly surprised, for example, that micro-payments for web content are still not a (widespread) thing. Consumers hate ads, but they hate paying for things even more apparently.

One problem is transaction costs; you need aggregators to sit in the middle, adding up the people paying and to be paid out. Structurally, aggregators are then in a position to extract rents. Which they will do, sooner or later.

There are of course other problems, fraud, money laundering and the like, which extract taxes, and and a whole patchwork quilt of national regulations, which extracts a lot more.

Things like crypto look, feel and smell like money laundering. I don't think there's a technical solution here. The problems are social and regulatory.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#164

I fully agree with the sentiment, and yet marvel at the apparent lack of alternatives for so many business models. I'm mildly surprised, for example, that micro-payments for web content are still not a (widespread) thing. Consumers hate ads, but they hate paying for things even more apparently.

It's not really clear to me that consumers hate ads. It seems like more of a tech niche opinion; most people are perfectly fine with watching TV commercials (and look forward to them at the Super Bowl) and don't mind using ad-tier streaming plans. Ad blockers are used by a tiny, tiny percentage of total browser users. And so on.

Look at literally any poll on the topic - people hate ads universally, with advertisers not far behind. And ad blocker usage has skyrocketed. It's now up to ~30% of all internet users [1] with younger people starting to approach a majority. And it should go without saying that the only reason that's not near 100% of users is because most people don't know they exist and/or don't feel comfortable installing one.

[1] - https://backlinko.com/ad-blockers-users

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#165

This is a tad reductive. If there were no ads, how would people know that products existed? Would they just see the products on store shelves? What about services? Would labels be ads? Would how stores merchandise things be advertisements? Could businesses negotiate for specific product placement? How would you find out about stores? Would store signs be ads? How about really big ones? How about at the edge of their…

> This is a tad reductive. If there were no ads, how would people know that products existed?

The post does say:

> > Limited to honestly informing people about what's available on the market, it can serve a crucial function in enabling trade. In the real world however, it's moved way past that role. Real world advertising is not about informing, it's about convincing. Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest.

I think it's largely that incentives are in the wrong place for advertising to work as an effective means to inform people.

When trying to make an informed choice on a purchase, I'll typically look for enthusiast communities or unsponsored reviews. Marketing actually tends to actively get in the way.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#166
There are two major things missing:

1) No one actually likes this stuff, and it still exists everywhere, so it must be worth it. I feel like the article is a broad list of the author's least favorite aspects of today's information/social/economic environment. But those are just the cost of consuming all our favorite content for ~free, right? It's like saying "I think this price is oppressive, and although I am willing to pay for it, I think we should all try really hard to lower the cost."

The privacy stuff stands out because it isn't transparent to the user, which is maybe the worst part about it. Like if everyone knew what data they were providing and exactly how it was used, it wouldn't feel so abusive.

2) The size of the company has to be a major factor here. If your local shop takes out an ad in the local newspaper, I don't care what weird psychological tactics they use, does it really hit the same way? "That's just the shop down the street, why are they being so weird." Conversely, is there any ad from a massive company that doesn't come across as "this is how we want you, our loyal subjects, to see the world?"

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#167

I fully agree with the sentiment, and yet marvel at the apparent lack of alternatives for so many business models. I'm mildly surprised, for example, that micro-payments for web content are still not a (widespread) thing. Consumers hate ads, but they hate paying for things even more apparently.

Yep, it is mind boggling. Most people spend more on a single meal than on web content they consume in a single year.

If there was a simple way to get the food for free, a lot of people would stop paying for meals

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#168
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Supreme Court, they do. Regardless, this isn't really an answer. What metrics are you using to determine if an ad is misleading? Take for example the early 2000s BMW ads which were short films with various celebrities and actors. Are these "misleading" and not allowed? Again, these aren't even remotely implementable ideas without complete state control over the media.

If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world. Why not in the same way it's determined for product information on the packaging? No, it just requires the state to…

> If you mean the US Supreme Court, they could just stop being insane and change that ruling, because, as I pointed out, corporations aren't people. They are fictions. It's like claiming it is a free speech issue that people in the Wheel of Time books aren't allowed to name the evil threatening the world.

This seems odd. A corporation in this sense is a group of people deciding what to do. Should a group of people not be able to speak because a group of people is not a person?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#169
post #92

I teach people how to advertise for a living. This is how I teach it: an advert is simply the ability to buy a knock on someones front door. That is literally all you are doing when you buy an advert. All business activity you experience today is an abstraction of business we have already done, I'm sure back in the day people thought door to door sales people were annoying, and I'm sure sometimes they were not. From…

You have a very naive conception of advertising if you think it's simply "buying knocks on doors." For online advertising, which is where most ads are display now, you buy access to people's personal information (including minors) to target them with little oversight on what you're allowed to say. And now that ads are embedded in nearly every electronic device, it's not only hundreds of knocks on your door each day,…

the door knock analogy isn’t meant to trivialize the craft of advertising, advertising done right is hard...it’s just a way to strip it down to its core: you’re paying for the chance to initiate a conversation with someone who might be interested in what you have to offer. Whether you’re literally knocking on a door or placing a targeted online ad, the fundamental idea remains the same, you're buying an opportunity to engage with someone for some reason (market research, sales, whatever). modern digital advertising leverages data to target audiences, that evolution doesn’t change the basic mechanics of the process. I am old enough to remember door to door sales people, my older sister worked at DNBNB in the UK in the 90s and did demographics by sitting in cars on streets. Go back even further, baby stroller/pram salesperson would pick neighborhoods where their product is most needed, they're not going to retirement homes (although maybe they are, grandkids spcecial!) - digital advertisers use data to identify and approach likely buyers. The issues raised about privacy and oversight are valid, but they’re problems of regulation and ethics, not of the underlying competitive nature of advertising. Also like I said, ads can be used for many different things, (I wonder how many woman who like blue live in this city, lets spend $250k to find out) sometimes a team will run $500k of ads into a segement to see how it responds before they run $5MM of ads for the quarter, that's when you get ads for weird stuff that makes no sense and you don't click it, someone is trying to look at your non-click as well as the clicks (the door opens or the door slams)

Claim that advertising suppresses customer choice is hard when you consider the flip side: in a competitive market, effective advertising compels companies to innovate and differentiate their offerings. Yes, the massive budgets of giants like Pepsi and Coke can sometimes make it seem like smaller players are edged out, but actually that isn't what happens, it’s the pressure to capture consumer attention that drives these companies to continually refine their messaging and, by extension, their products. Competition in advertising forces all players to up their game, trust me, there is an annoying savvy 26 year old junior marketing manager out there causing problems for someone in a brand bigger than them, that is often the job in fact. Also, the more targeted you get the CHEAPER your advertising often becomes, I can't run $50MM ads a year against "men in america" because I can outspend Nike and Toyota, but I can spend $500mth on men between 18-26 who like tennis and live in the zipcode 90210.

sure, the medium has chaned from literl knocking on physical doors to digital but still advertising is a tool when used effectively both informs customers and drives competition. could should and will debate the ethics and side effects of current practices but dismissing advertising as a cancer on society is silly, take aim at capitalism then.

(edit: per the comment above above, I just went down to the bodega to get a drink, there are SOOO many new soda's I've never heard of before, heck I'm standing in front of a kombucha coffee infused soda, made in Canada too the advert tells me, I think I'll try it, go Canada!)

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society (2019)

#170

There are two major things missing: 1) No one actually likes this stuff , and it still exists everywhere , so it must be worth it. I feel like the article is a broad list of the author's least favorite aspects of today's information/social/economic environment. But those are just the cost of consuming all our favorite content for ~free, right? It's like saying "I think this price is oppressive, and although I am will…

> so it must be worth it.

...To someone.

That doesn't mean it's worth it to society.

No one actually likes muggings, and they still exist everywhere, but that doesn't mean that our society would be worse off without muggings.

No one actually likes the flu, and it still exists everywhere, but that doesn't mean that our society would be worse off without the flu.

The idea that "it's still around/common, therefore it must be valuable" requires subscribing pretty hard to a version of free-market ideology that ignores a lot of objective reality.

Post reply on HN