Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 359 posts

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#211

Post by jedberg »

andyjsong wrote: post #42
logjammin wrote: post #5

I spent a lot of time in Vermont many years ago. I'd been there a little while, blissfully unaware, before someone told me "yeah, they banned billboards here in the sixties - you didn't notice?" I hadn't consciously noticed, no, but I'd spent my time there until that comment driving around stunned at how beautiful the place was. Now I knew the reason for that (well, partial reason - billboards or not, it's a pretty p…

This is why I take 280 instead of 101 when traveling to and from SF to South Bay even though it's slightly longer.

The distance is a few miles longer but the average speed is higher so it ends up being the same time, just much more pleasant because of the lack of billboards and wider lanes.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#212

Post by pascalxus »

I have a hard time relating to these findings.

Advertisement almost never works on me. And, the few times it does work on me, I'm actually quite glad and appreciative because I only buy products I really want or really need.

If I look at all my credit card, amazon and ebay purchases for the last several years, which i do often, i see it's just the things I need/want: gas, maintenance, groceries a few times going out to eat, etc. almost 0 merchandise, those things don't make me happier.

It's pretty rare that I see an appealing advertisement (to me). but it does happen.

ads don't really say much about the product. but, I do find them interesting because they say a huge amount about segments of our population: their hopes, their dreams, their perceptions, how they want to be seen, how much they care what others think, etc. it's a great case study for humanity.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#213

Post by nickelcitymario »

kaibee wrote: post #208
nickelcitymario wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so how about "as long as you don't mind another recession"?

There's two things about recessions. First, they end. Second, it does not follow that banning/severely regulating advertising to consumers would trigger another recession.

Well, it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

If it doesn't, then what's all the fuss about?

Recessions in North America (can't speak for any other context unfortunately) have ended due to concerted efforts to get people to spend more: lowering interest rates mostly, forgiving debts, and political leaders outright telling people that their patriotic duty was to go out there and shop.

Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

That's not a risk I'm interested in taking, personally. But you do, you rebel you.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#215

Post by salawat »

uoaei wrote: post #164
CamperBob2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect appears to be negative if anything. That article is starkly (and suspiciously) alone in its conclusions, if you look at what's been happening statistically over the last few years. The systems will get better, but for the time being, they mostly serve to let drivers think they can get away with paying even less attention to the road than usual.

This is a "get off my lawn" sort of comment, but: Easy cars are making worse drivers. People rarely check their blind spot now because the little light on their sideview mirror lights up instead. People are less concerned about driving unsafely because their cars are thicker, heavier, and bigger than the other participants on the road. This has been especially troubling to watch develop from the bike lane, as visibil…

Let's not fall into "cager" rhetoric. I've been on the opposite side of that where I've rolled down my window to ask some cyclists to not dwell behind my A pillar when driving in the city, just to be ignored.

We're all locomoters, and we have finite road to share, but I do agree that some of these safety systems are probably having a deleterious effect on driving skill and overall awareness in that all the driver assist mechanisms are not being treated as instruments that can fail. They should be considered no replacement for human attention, which I think is unfortunately what is happening. Similar to how safety device advances in football have actually made the injuries more severe due to the players taking greater risks.

As long as we're all on the same infrastructure, we've all got to commit to respecting each other's presence. Cyclist and motorist alike.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#216

Post by kaibee »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #206
kaibee wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How should they be funded instead? > I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising. A radical take: not all businesses currently funded by advertisement should exist. A less radical take: if the audience feels that CNN/Fox/MSNBC provide a valuable service to them, they will be willing to pay for it directly. If "the people" feel…

So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill. (I'm from Canada so our equivalent would be CBC and TVO.) My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted…

> So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.

New York Times, The Young Turks, etc. If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.

> My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.

Billionaires are not healthy for a democracy. The fact that the news media has to exploit their credibility with the audience to compete with a few wealthy individuals is a testament to that.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#217

Post by tombert »

pascalxus wrote: post #209
slumdev wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frightening is that advertising does work on all of us, even when we find it offensive. I buy warehouse store house-brand laundry detergent, but if you put me on Family Feud and asked me to name a detergent brand, it'd be Tide.

Name/brand recognition doesn't mean it "worked". In order for it to have worked, you need to actually spend money on the product or cause someone else to spend money on the product.

I'm reasonably certain that advertising works on most people, even if they don't realize it. Being told a modified and heavily-biased narrative of the world repeatedly, for literal hours a day is likely to have an effect, even if it's subtle.

Maybe you're one of the lucky people that advertising truly does not work on, and fair enough, but I seriously doubt that these big megacorporations would spend billions of dollars on ads if there weren't some measurable effect on a majority of people.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#218

Post by nkrisc »

newnewpdro wrote: post #110
nkrisc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That stuff exists, it just costs a lot of money. Well, except for a functional family, money can't buy that. Want a house that looks clean and perfectly staged all the time? Hire a full-time cleaner to come every day and sweep, pick up, do the dishes, etc. The lie in those commercials is that their target audience can never afford something like that. So in a sense, you're right, they're showing "you" what you can ne…

The traditional home with a stay at home housewife readily delivers this result. I was raised in one, growing up all my childhood friends would visit once and never want to return saying things like "your house is like a museum, everything's clean and you're not allowed to touch anything or make any noise." Which didn't bother me one bit, I wanted to play at other homes anyways, they were absolutely correct, it was m…

> The traditional home with a stay at home housewife readily delivers this result.

It's the same amount of work.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#219

Post by CamperBob2 »

interestica wrote: post #183
uoaei wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a "get off my lawn" sort of comment, but: Easy cars are making worse drivers. People rarely check their blind spot now because the little light on their sideview mirror lights up instead. People are less concerned about driving unsafely because their cars are thicker, heavier, and bigger than the other participants on the road. This has been especially troubling to watch develop from the bike lane, as visibil…

Aren't we seeing our first requests from manufacturers to remove sideview mirrors entirely? To be replaced by cameras and video screens.

Not necessarily a bad thing, see my other comment about how ridiculously bad exterior visibility is becoming. It seems that each new model year brings higher beltlines, less glass... and more distracting "safety" gadgets that only sort of work.

Few drivers use their mirrors, and even fewer adjust them properly, so they might as well be next on the chopping block.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#220

Post by dibujaron »

pascalxus wrote: post #212

I have a hard time relating to these findings. Advertisement almost never works on me. And, the few times it does work on me, I'm actually quite glad and appreciative because I only buy products I really want or really need. If I look at all my credit card, amazon and ebay purchases for the last several years, which i do often, i see it's just the things I need/want: gas, maintenance, groceries a few times going out…

"Advertising doesn't work on me" is a lie that nearly everyone tells themselves. Advertisers love this.

Ads rarely makes anyone rush out to go buy x out of the blue, but if someone is choosing between x product and y product, they're much more likely to pick x if has been advertised to them before. The substance of the ad is almost irrelevant; just because they've heard the name of x repeatedly before, they're much more likely to choose it.

Post reply on HN