Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence • Hacker News Board

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#301

Post by jodrellblank » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:20 AM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #234

Draiken wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that impossible? I mean, capitalism is literally profits above everything else. Since evil marketing == profits, it will never change. It will only get worse.

It's not impossible at all. Math tells me that growth capitalism can't be maintained forever. The only question is when, and under what conditions, it will end.

Why can't it be maintained forever?

If a house can be valued at $4,000 one year, and $40,000 a few decades later, and $200,0000 a few decades later, what's the reason that "value" can't keep increasing eternally? There's obviously no real substance to "the value" of a thing, only people's interpretation and desire for it, and there's plenty of "value" where there is no physical substance at all, like exclusivity, or emotional content of art, or novelty of experience. What math tells you there is anything which can be full or supplies run out?

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#302

Post by nine_k » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

clevep wrote: post #268

This article misses by far the number one benefit of advertising: it makes products and services cheaper. That notion obviously applies to the plethora of "free" (free in quotes because I am not trying to dodge the fact that you are always paying something) websites which everyone frequents, but goes beyond that as well. There's a comment on here complaining about how Hulu shows ads despite the fact that they are pay…

That is, the services don't become cheaper in total, but their cost structure changes. A part of voluntary paying is replaced by a part of involuntary seeing, and the feeling that you are letting go some valuables is blunted.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#303

Post by ClassyJacket » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:23 AM UTC

lwb wrote: post #59

The biggest offender in my opinion is not the web, where you can install ad blockers and avoid certain websites, but television, where you're forced to sit through something before you can get to the content you're trying to watch. I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it! It's also pretty bad for F2P mobile games, although the solution there is easy (p…

>I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it!

This is still better than what Netflix does, where they cram egregious product placement down your throat so you can't even just look away until it's over.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#304

Post by solitus » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:23 AM UTC

ngold wrote: post #182

enlyth wrote: post #15

To me, it is worrying how much human effort we're investing into advertising as a whole. The top minds of our generations, backed by billions of dollars in funding, are working on increasingly manipulative ways to capture people's attention and use it to generate profit. We're constantly getting better at it; who knows what path this will lead us down. I suspect it might not be the one we had wished for.

And then the math geniuses that could be the next Einstein are slaving away in cubicles writing algorithms for the stock market. So much potential lost in the pursuit of increasing someone else's wallet.

And their own. These people are writing algorithms for the stock market because it pays incredibly well. Same for the engineers at FAANG selling ads online. Our society values money/material above all else and it's making us miserable.

Money is your score at the game of life.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#305

Post by asdff » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

mayniac wrote: post #248

lwb wrote: post #59

The biggest offender in my opinion is not the web, where you can install ad blockers and avoid certain websites, but television, where you're forced to sit through something before you can get to the content you're trying to watch. I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it! It's also pretty bad for F2P mobile games, although the solution there is easy (p…

>Though if I lived in a more concentrated metro area I might feel differently. I live in a metro area. Physical adverts are the worst type in my opinion. There are methods of eliminating every other type of ad: I use adblockers on my phone and computers, my network is pi-holed, I use plex/netflix instead of traditional TV, I pay for spotify instead of listening to the radio etc. But physical adverts? There's no way o…

Physical adverts aren't nearly as intrusive and serve the interests of the locals at least. There's one right now in my town advertising addiction assistance, certainly not a bad thing. Then there's the electronic one they put downtown that is brighter than the sun and almost got me into an accident when it flashed stark white and blinded me.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#306

Post by asdff » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:27 AM UTC

lwb wrote: post #59

The biggest offender in my opinion is not the web, where you can install ad blockers and avoid certain websites, but television, where you're forced to sit through something before you can get to the content you're trying to watch. I find it especially offensive on paid services like Hulu. I'm paying for the thing, just let me watch it! It's also pretty bad for F2P mobile games, although the solution there is easy (p…

Cable TV used to be ad free when it first came out. The whole reason people were willing to pay for it was to not see ads like they got on the free broadcasts. Then once telecoms got their market share the ads trickled in, as was originally planned I'm sure.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#307

Post by cwkoss » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

cm2012 wrote: post #297

cwkoss wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fallacious thinking. If you had an app that would increase plumber productivity by 50%, plumbers would be lining up to get into the Beta. Find any plumbing supplier or trade group, and if the effects are actually that good, they'll tell their members at no-charge because that knowledge would be a service to them. Plumbers would be cold-calling other plumbers trying to get a beta invite. All you need is a marg…

This is just not true. Example: I was just hired to scale marketing for a particular app. This app currently has over 100 real reviews online, averaging 4.9 stars out of 5. Retention is nuts - 98% of people who ever started using the product (which has a monthly fee) are still using it. The company is three years old. Perfect to take off, right? But few industries are actually viral. We just doubled the number of new…

Why isn't the app growing organically?

You can certainly pay for eyeballs, the question is whether FB ads are giving users with a retention level high enough to justify the advertising expense. Users from online ads tend to much lower quality than those that come from organic traffic, I would not expect your organic retention numbers to hold.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#308

Post by asdff » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

hindsightbias wrote: post #148

noir_lord wrote: post #95

One of the nicest things about been a techie is I rarely see/hear adverts. I don’t listen to the radio (programming podcasts and music), watch broadcast tv (streaming and..other sources), ublock origin deals with the web. So I see maybe a one or two per day (billboards near work). I’m reminded how nice that is every time I touch a windows work PC that isn’t mine (I run fedora on a box I built myself), at least everyo…

The perfect VR app would be a visual ad blocker. IEMs have taken care of my ears (at least until iTunes or audible have ads).

Plenty of people are probably chomping at the bit to get AR ads rolling . I can't wait for the youtube ads to pause and wait for my eyes to re center on them before they continue.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#309

Post by User23 » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

Advertising is inherently predatory. I'm well aware of the arguments like "we're providing customers with useful information about things they might like to buy," but that's a lie. It's using propaganda and persuasion techniques that were discovered in the early 20th century and have been increasingly perfected. And that's just the first order effect. The higher order effects of advertising are even more pernicious. Advertising has destroyed far more lives than guns ever have. That's not hyperbole, the opioid epidemic is the result of predatory advertising and lobbying by pharmaceutical companies such as Purdue Pharma.

Re: Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

#310

Post by asdff » Wed, May 29, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #71

deogeo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> necessary evil Whatever convinced you it was necessary? A few cities/states banned billboards, and as far as I'm aware, the sky didn't fall.

How many big content websites do you know that are doing well without ads?

The New York Times for one.