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

Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

jacek.zlydach.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 657 posts

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#381

Post by ameister14 »

justforyou wrote: post #228
gambiting wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to judge a social impact of something before you ban it. The reason why soft drinks are under fire is because there is a lot of people who drink them literally every day. I know several people who drink 8-12 cans of diet coke every single day. On the other hand people usually don't eat cake or ice-cream everyday. I mean, I have no doubt that you could find someone who does, but it's not a widespread behaviou…

If we're basing this on anecdotal evidence, I've worked with entire departments who ate cake or ice-cream every day. That doesn't mean cake and cookies should be banned, nor should soda. It's nanny state nonsense, and one of the more steeply graded slippery slopes... If you're really concerned for people's wellbeing, ensuring access to healthcare goes a lot further than denying people snacks..

Really? Entire departments that ate cake and ice cream every day of the year? Where was this and why?

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#382

Post by waterhouse »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #348
sgeisler wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only a problem if healthcare is taxpayer-funded. Otherwise it's your and your insurer's problem to price this in somehow, maybe even offering cheaper plans for people living healthy (e.g. meeting weight goals).

The whole idea behind insurance is that the unlucky ones who require more care than average have their costs covered by those who require less than average. Taxpayer funding systems are literally the same thing. Yes you can get cheaper premiums by living healthy, but how far do you want to go? Are you going to let your insurance company log everything you eat and how many steps you walk every day? Seems much easier t…

When I got my driver's license at age 17 (or possibly the learner's permit? I forget), we learned that the car insurance company would reduce the premium for me if we regularly submitted them some kind of proof that I was getting good grades. It's possible this was some kind of "public-service program to encourage desired behavior", but I suspect that at least part of why they did it was because straight-A students are less likely to get into accidents.

For medical insurance, it seems they could at least do something like "if you send us evidence of healthy exercise/diet/weight, then we'll lower your premiums; otherwise you'll get a premium based on the estimated risk of the set of people who don't do this". (If the government doesn't forbid it. healthcare.gov says "They also can’t take your current health or medical history into account", which sounds like it might rule out some of that.)

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#383

Post by amiune »

amiune wrote: post #86
wpietri wrote: post #23

He doesn't quite say it by name, but most advertising is a classic arms race. Especially given how the internet now makes information easily available, a great deal of advertising is about manipulating consumers to pick company A's products over those from competitors B, C, and D. This forces those other companies to spend to get and keep customers. It's pure waste. For example, everybody on the planet is now familia…

If every company stopped advertising then google and facebook and twitter will disappear. Are all these companies pure waste? How do you fund a replacement for them? Should these services be provided by governments?

It seems that the cancer creates, allows or at least sustain a coordination that society can't achieve by other ways.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#384

Post by crimsonalucard »

anoncake wrote: post #337
crimsonalucard wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah only a strong central government could redirect resources and restrict freedom of speech in such a manner. In theory this works, in practice it doesn't. Nobody is quite sure about what the dichotomy is between the theory and actual results. Basically by allowing commercial interests to control the direction of capital you get useless areas of inn-efficiency like advertising. The weird thing is, these types of econ…

That's why a strong central government is important. To make sure resources are allocated to useful purposes rather than garbage like advertising.

But then you wouldn't have services provided by companies like google.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#386

Post by philwelch »

cm2012 wrote: post #357
TeMPOraL wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without advertising being a crucial part of that environment, they'd have to focus on making a better and cheaper product than their competition, instead of engaging in a shouting match.

Without advertising, no matter how good your product is, people will never find you. People would just go with whatever product they happened to know (the market incumbent, usually), or just not have access to that category of product.

I have never seen advertising for Zojirishi rice cookers, and yet I somehow own one. The same is true for my shoes, which I bought at a shoe store. I don’t really see advertising for firearms but I have purchased some, and particular models thereof for that matter. I have seen advertising for the mattress brand I own, but it was sleeping on a friend’s mattress of the same brand that made the difference. Most of my net worth is in a brokerage I have never seen advertised. My primary credit card was one I learned of by way of mouth; it’s seemingly-deliberately advertised nowhere. I have booked airlines I’ve never heard of before. My charitable donations go to a charity that does not seem to advertise. The beer I drink has a funny name, but I saw it in the beer store and tried it and I’ve been drinking it ever since despite no advertising that I’ve seen. And none of these individual decisions are particularly rare or hipsterish; in fact, the main reason I give my business to most of these companies is because other people do so as well and recommended it.

Likewise, all the advertising in the world didn’t seem to save a particular obnoxiously-promoted product that one is meant to “apply DIRECTLY to the FOREHEAD!”

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#387

Post by buboard »

_virtu wrote: post #98
bluetwo wrote: post #16

I would say the theft of attention and concentration is a cancer on society, but I agree overall. To those who say there is no other model, you are not correct.

I haven't read the article yet, but I was thinking about this yesterday. I was sitting in my car and a sign that had "RENT TO OWN" on it where "RENT TO" was flashing. I felt offended by the fact that my attention was taken from me all for the sake of drawing me in to spend my money on something I didn't care about or need to know about during that time. I know that there are physical limitations on what you can say i…

that is making the case for targeted advertising

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#388

Post by ameister14 »

picometer wrote: post #250
blodovnik wrote: post #8

This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. It's a childish and immature opinion really. Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loa…

On the contrary, I think the author addresses this via the "cancer" metaphor: > It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. > Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. I interpre…

Yeah, the problem with that is it's a completely flawed premise.

"It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them."

No, it isn't. It's an expansion of the idea that people are more likely to buy things they have heard of. If it was just to connect people with what they already want to buy, there would be no product development, no product roll-outs, because people don't know they want to buy something that has never existed before.

Also 'over time it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest' is a joke. It's been dishonest since the start. Criers lying about the effectiveness of some tonic, the attractiveness of some woman, the strength and wisdom of some leader.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#389

Post by buboard »

natalyarostova wrote: post #34

Anyone else find the user of 'cancer' in these terms to be frustrating? Having had to experience the pain of people I care about having cancer, it immediately just makes me feel like shit. I guess maybe I'm just sensitive...

Yep unfortunately, cancer has become a cancerous meme. It's bad taste language, i dont know who started the trend but i hope it ends soon.

Re: Advertising Is a Cancer on Society

#390

Post by kiliantics »

wpietri wrote: post #23

He doesn't quite say it by name, but most advertising is a classic arms race. Especially given how the internet now makes information easily available, a great deal of advertising is about manipulating consumers to pick company A's products over those from competitors B, C, and D. This forces those other companies to spend to get and keep customers. It's pure waste. For example, everybody on the planet is now familia…

> It's pure waste.

And yet capitalism is still lauded as the most efficient economic system...

Post reply on HN