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

Advertising as a source of dissatisfaction: cross-national evidence

voxeu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 537 posts

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

#501

Post by davidjnelson »

mikelyons wrote: post #496
kaybe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that's not true any more. We do have a war to fight, the war against destruction of our planet by humanity. (Hoping our politicians would fix it has turned out to be ineffective so far.) If we could have a war against drugs or terror we can also have a war against climate change, soil degradation, desertification, insect decline and biodiversity loss.

What nobody is willing to admit or even consider is that it is a spiritual war. Progress on this front cannot be made without the collective consciousness of humanity moving toward higher/greater awareness.

It’s a good point. It all starts within. It’s a bit counterintuitive that to win the war we have to first fully accept things as they are, right now. It’s nice that on the external level there are people creating technology to protect us psychologically, ie: ad blockers.

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

#502

Post by rexpop »

kortilla wrote: post #404
jcora wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no economic calculation problem: http://flowing.systems/economy/politics/2017/08/16/calculati...

>The Mises Institute has put it up for free, which is surely off-message but whatever. Ah, a clearly well-rationed article is at foot. Here’s a hint, if someone isn’t able to model free things in their understanding of capitalist systems, they don’t understand them enough to critique them. Anyway, the rest of that “critique” isn’t actually a critique. It’s just goal post shifting to the point where it assumes sociali…

> the most efficient mechanism we have discovered so far is markets?

This thread originated in a discussion of the detriments of advertising, I would remind you. The "markets" we're currently employing to "discover demand" find greater profit in engendering it.

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

#503

Post by LifeLiverTransp »

coldtea wrote: post #443
slavaukraini wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow it's crazy to think the world wasn't always like this... and I guess it's even crazier that you can't really imagine a world without adverts using things like celebrity endorsements. It's insane how much effect seemingly minor things can have on society.

Well, a constant barrage of promotional messages, playing with people's feelings, taking advantage of psychology, hurting their self-worth to hook them (buy these clothes to be like those beautiful people, fat? you need this product, buy this gadget and enter the lifestyle of the persons using it in the ad), embedded covertly in TV, movies, celebrities and openly in tv, billboards, print, webpages, video games, mobil…

They are using a core mechanism of humanity though. There where always risk-affine outliers, who developed new techniques, tasted forbidden berries, and thus we copy those who stumbled upon success. It was a good strategy until it was hacked.

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

#504

Post by [deleted] »

dalore wrote: post #468
3xblah wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PR" was invented by the military. I learned this from someone in PR who was trained in the service during WWII and then went on to work in the "public relations profession" as a civilian. I suspect the military trained Bernays. He may have invented the "profession", but he did not invent PR.

> "PR" was invented by the military. That's a bold claim, with your only supporting evidence some anecdotal claim by some guy you knew who claimed it. If you are refuting the article and making your own bold claim, surely you can offer more evidence then "some guy I know told me"

[deleted]

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

#505

Post by JohnFen »

ionised wrote: post #419
JohnFen wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stop rewarding it and they'll stop. Here's the thing... I'd taken quite a lot of advertising courses during my education, and among the many truly scary things that I learned in them, one stood out above all others: Knowing how advertising manipulates you, and even noticing it in the moment that it's happening, in no way makes it less effective. People who claim that they aren't affected by advertising are incorrec…

I would never say 'advertising doesn't work on me' but it definitely doesn't seem to have the intended effect (persisting the brand in my memory for future sales) in a lot of cases. Example 1: Coca Cola adverts. I can't stand coke, it tastes like soap to me. No amount of viewing their adverts (which are everywhere) will make me want a coke. Example 2: I find most adverts cringey and embarassing and they serve only to…

> I can't stand coke, it tastes like soap to me.

No amount of advertising will be able to convince you to like something that you dislike. Advertising is manipulative, but it's not mind control.

But advertising is not trying to (for example) make you like cola if you don't like cola. What it's trying to do is make you choose one brand of cola over another.

For certain types of advertising, such as soft drinks, they're aiming to influence a particular moment. As a Pepsi executive once explained, they're aiming for that half-second when you're reaching for a soft drink and are making a spur-of-the-moment decision about which one. That sort of advertising is about influencing that spur-of-the-moment decision so you're more likely to choose theirs. It's effective because, in the absence of thought, you're overwhelmingly likely to choose a brand that you recognize the most or have the most positive associations with.

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

#506

Post by nanny »

chrisseaton wrote: post #454
ionised wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art and music aren't produced with the intention of fostering addictions in people. They don't cause death and suffering simply by being sold, or even being abused (how would one abuse art or music?). So no, that's not my logic at all. There was already a need for art and music. There wasn't already a need for Coca Cola and Lucky Strikes.

I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.

If they're an "honest product" then why do they put caffeine in them? Caffeine doesn't change the flavor to make it "as delicious as possible".

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

#507

Post by 3xblah »

dalore wrote: post #468
3xblah wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PR" was invented by the military. I learned this from someone in PR who was trained in the service during WWII and then went on to work in the "public relations profession" as a civilian. I suspect the military trained Bernays. He may have invented the "profession", but he did not invent PR.

> "PR" was invented by the military. That's a bold claim, with your only supporting evidence some anecdotal claim by some guy you knew who claimed it. If you are refuting the article and making your own bold claim, surely you can offer more evidence then "some guy I know told me"

Turow, Joseph (2008), Media Today: An Introduction to Mass Communication, Routledge (New York), at 627, 631

"If you are refuting the article..."

The article made no mention of public relations nor Bernays. I was responding to a comment that cited a YouTube description. I am familiar with Curtis' documentaries, including the one in the video. I enjoy them. However, I believe he makes them as art, for entertainment purposes, not as a teaching tool. His comments in interviews seem to support this view.

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

#508

Post by loco5niner »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #473
nothal wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a nearsighted appraisal of people in these industries. Advertising is effective and so is the myth that money gives you actualization, to me it makes perfect sense that smart kids are going into a high paying industry while missing it's harmful effect.

If they were really smart they would see the bigger picture.

Very smart people are often smart only within a somewhat narrow field. I imagine they are often lacking in general experience and wisdom.

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

#509

Post by rexpop »

mbrock wrote: post #418
kortilla wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Mises Institute has put it up for free, which is surely off-message but whatever. Ah, a clearly well-rationed article is at foot. Here’s a hint, if someone isn’t able to model free things in their understanding of capitalist systems, they don’t understand them enough to critique them. Anyway, the rest of that “critique” isn’t actually a critique. It’s just goal post shifting to the point where it assumes sociali…

Also in true socialism there will be no exchange of consumption goods between people. How will this be enforced? Hmm, let’s not think about that.

It's not a question of enforcement, but incentivization.

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

#510

Post by jodrellblank »

titzer wrote: post #471
jodrellblank wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because any exponential growth rate will eventually reach the physical limitations (i.e. carrying capacity) of the underlying processes that produce goods, whether that is fish or molybdenum. Eventually, even if we can keep scaling exponential growth by spreading to other planets and stars, the growth is fundamentally limited by the speed of light, which means expansion in space is limited by O(n^3), and oh yes, even…

Yes, I've watched Albert Bartlett's lecture several times; and if we get to talking about converting literally everything to pure computronium in a sphere expanding in all directions at approximately light speed, I admit that's a lot further into "forever" than I was imagining.

I was more thinking of the near-term future of resource scarcity, to make the point that "value" doesn't run out just because gold or oil extraction from the Earth runs out; people value intangible things and the economy runs on that being real value.

Post reply on HN