Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

Post by nickelcitymario » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

sifar wrote: post #305

nickelcitymario wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you are replacing state benevolence with the advertising industry's benevolence :). If the news/media organizations cannot survive and profit without either help, then shouldn't they be allowed to wither ? Instead of imposing this garbage on everyone, young ones included. Or do we consider them an essential industry now ? BTW, that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can s…

Post by nickelcitymario » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

endothrowho333 wrote: post #262

nickelcitymario wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting challenge. What would constitute proof? I'm not being facetious and I honestly don't know if I could prove it. It's simply a value we hold dear and we're up front about it with our clients and our team. We refuse to be dishonest, because it's bad for business. For context: we're a small agency in a small city. If we either lied to our clients or produced dishonest advertising, we believe we'd be out of bu…

I believe you believe what you wrote. I will say the same for the same people chastising you. It all comes down to a difference in perspective, values, and outlook. I don't believe the hate you're getting is justified, but for someone that works in marketing: your copy is unconvincing ;) Perhaps you didn't frame properly for your audience? You seem more on the defensive instead of the offensive, morphing your positio…

Post by Nasrudith » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #167

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using advertising to create demand is only a tiny part of the advertising market, and arguably the worst way to spend your ad budget. Most advertising is to maintain your market share in already established and very competitive markets. E.g., Coca-Cola plastering their logo everywhere to prevent Pepsi from doing the same. It's certainly not to convince those who don't drink Coke to start doing so.

It seems like as a society if we agreed not to have advertising, we would save both companies (b|m)illions of dollars. This isn't an argument for advertising, it's an argument that advertising is an infectious disease: once one company in an industry starts advertising, the others have to advertise to compete. And that hurts consumers because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar that comes out of the pockets…

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:00 PM UTC

nickelcitymario wrote: post #312

kerkeslager wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertising helps businesses. Businesses serve consumers. No, businesses serve themselves. Corporations are not your friends. Sometimes their interests align with consumers' but not always. > Has any advertiser ever claimed to give you the full picture? Both sides of the argument? No, of course not. It's a sales pitch. You know it's a sales pitch. They know you know it's a sales pitch. They know that you know that…

Never claimed it was altruistic. Is altruism the only acceptable way to make a living? And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of lying. So does the dictionary.

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #315

kerkeslager wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like as a society if we agreed not to have advertising, we would save both companies (b|m)illions of dollars. This isn't an argument for advertising, it's an argument that advertising is an infectious disease: once one company in an industry starts advertising, the others have to advertise to compete. And that hurts consumers because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar that comes out of the pockets…

It is a symptom/emergent result of competition really and differentiating themselves. Not having competition would obviously lead to more stagnation which would lead to things being worse for consumers. Really advertising is sort of an analog to reproductive signaling burdens like males deliberately showing fitness by making themselves obvious to predators.