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

81–90 of 359 posts

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#81

Post by lotsofpulp »

JohnFen wrote: post #36
nickelcitymario wrote: post #28

I'm gonna take the contrarian viewpoint here. Full disclosure: I'm in advertising. The researcher states that increasing "aspiration" (their term) leads to dissatisfaction and more unhappiness. Sure! But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. I don't disagree that ambition and aspiration can make a person unhappy. But it's also wh…

> But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need. > I consider that a good thing even if it comes at the cost of a decrease in personal happiness. We…

>Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need.

Is sending out status signals to attract a mate or business partners a genuine need?

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#82

Post by theptip »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #46
Franciscouzo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving a newish car is a pretty good idea though, they are generally way safer.

If you are talking about one from the 80s probably yes, 2009 not so much.

I don't think this is correct. A lot of the new driver assistance technologies are having a significant effect on safety:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/new-report-shows-how-many-ac...

These features are new in the last 10 years, some are new in the last couple years, and they are continually improving.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#83

Post by JohnFen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #81
JohnFen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need. > I consider that a good thing even if it comes at the cost of a decrease in personal happiness. We…

>Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need. Is sending out status signals to attract a mate or business partners a genuine need?

That depends on what mean by "status signals". If you mean attending a fancy school or owning trendy stuff, then no. Most people manage to attract mates and get business partners without doing that.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#84

Post by jbob2000 »

JohnFen wrote: post #30
jbob2000 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people in the middle class that I call "uni-purchasers". They buy one very expensive thing, and that's their "thing" that they spend their limited amounts of money on. They give up on medium-level experiences and draw everything else to a minimum to get the thing they really want.

When I started my first business, a mentor gave me advice along these lines: identify the two or three pieces of equipment that are truly key to your business, and go high-end on those. Everything else should be as cheap as possible.

Those types of goods usually aren't mass advertised, e.g. high end music or video gear, mechanic's tools, etc.

Peleton bikes, smart toilets, diamond rings, high-end purses, and so on are all things you can get the cheaper versions of and still get roughly the same experience.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#85

Post by kerkeslager »

whatshisface wrote: post #16
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…

You can also keep your house clean and perfectly staged all the time by cleaning it yourself. It's not impossible, or even difficult.

Yes, but what are you giving up to do that?

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#86

Post by adangert »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #68
JohnFen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need. > I consider that a good thing even if it comes at the cost of a decrease in personal happiness. We…

> We could not possible disagree more. I think it is straight-up immoral for anyone to intentionally make another's life worse in order to sell them stuff. I'm not sure we disagree, actually. I think you may be misunderstanding my meaning. When I tell you about a product, a number of things are happening: 1. If I'm successful in getting you to want the product, I've created (or emphasized an existing) dissatisfaction…

Woah now, I would completely disagree, heroin does not make you happy, short term pleasure is not the same thing. New information which helps people is inherently a good thing, but can be obtained through other means than ads, i.e. word of mouth. The fact is that most ads are targeted badly and thus useless for most people, and the targeted ads that do help some are breaches of privacy, the better the ad the more information you must know about the person, which leads to all types of misuse of information.

Ads also give large companies leverage to destroy small companies. Basically if two entities are trying to compete, if one has more money, and a worse product, then they have the ability to out compete the smaller company specifically by spending more on advertisements.

The incentive model for advertisments is to take away as much privacy as possible from you (which we have seen in practice) and removes the effectiveness of the free market to function properly. Case in point, we should completely remove ads and only have new information from word of mouth or people who are willing to be paid for their time.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#87

Post by iN7h33nD »

nickelcitymario wrote: post #28

I'm gonna take the contrarian viewpoint here. Full disclosure: I'm in advertising. The researcher states that increasing "aspiration" (their term) leads to dissatisfaction and more unhappiness. Sure! But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. I don't disagree that ambition and aspiration can make a person unhappy. But it's also wh…

I think that the aspirations that almost all advertisements give to people are actively harmful in every possible way.

- It is the main revenue source of most mentally harmful products like social media. A replacement created for the good of the world paid for by taxes with open data would be much preferred.

- Has masked how the world really functions via out-right lies and deception. Coke makes you happy, Happy Cows come from California, Diamonds must be given to show love

- Allows people with the most money to have the most likely chance of getting elected.

- Uses your personal information so that they are more likely to sell you things.

- Drug should not be advertised. Why the would a doctor want their patient to ask them for a specific drug???

- Convinced people that single use garbage should have a place in our society.

I am sure there are many more negatives, but for now I think this will suffice.

Perhaps with enough regulation many of these things could be changed, but I don't see it happening. Advertising can be used for good, see anti-smoking ads, but in its current state it is all bad. I can't think of an aspiration an ad has given me which gave me a problem to fix instead of a reason to consume.

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#88

Post by nickelcitymario »

s5fs wrote: post #53
nickelcitymario wrote: post #28

I'm gonna take the contrarian viewpoint here. Full disclosure: I'm in advertising. The researcher states that increasing "aspiration" (their term) leads to dissatisfaction and more unhappiness. Sure! But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. I don't disagree that ambition and aspiration can make a person unhappy. But it's also wh…

Human aspiration is built-in, we don't need help via advertising to desire more from life. Everyone seems to have adopted fire and the wheel without a marketing campaign, after all. Advertising may not be inherently bad, but given the scope and scale of modern advertising, one has to admit that we've gone too far. Google tells me we see about 5,000 ads per day, do you consider this a good or a bad thing? As a represe…

> do you consider this a good or a bad thing? As a representative of your industry I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

I wouldn't presume to speak for my industry, but here are my thoughts and I appreciate being asked the question (as opposed to simply being attacked).

1. 5000 ads seems like too much, but I'm really not sure how we could arrive at what would be considered the right amount. 100? 5? 0? And even if we could, how would that get regulated, exactly? If we restricted it, who would decide who gets to advertise and who doesn't? Some may balk at this, but I feel that would lead to a form of censorship that none of us would appreciate. So the right number seems to be either zero or unlimited.

2. That said, some places have put full on bans on certain types of advertising. I'm ok with that. People seem to like it.

3. Most advertising (there are very few exceptions) fund various types of media. With the exception of state-funded media, advertising is the reason we have TV, radio, newspapers, social media, online news, YouTube, etc. Generally speaking, no one is willing to pay the full cost of the media we all consume. It's paid for by advertising. (You're welcome.) (If anyone brings up Netflix, tell me when exactly they intend to turn a profit and become a sustainable business?)

So is it good or bad? I maintain that, like most things in life, this should be judged on a case by case basis. Blanket judgments don't work.

> Human aspiration is built-in, we don't need help via advertising to desire more from life.

Yes and no. I get it if you don't think advertising contributes a net positive to human aspirations. But do you condemn teachers, preachers, and parents for trying to get people to aspire to greater things? Maybe the assumption is that advertising only promotes things that don't need promoting. I disagree, but I won't argue. But I have a hard time believing that your position is that no one should ever try to persuade anyone of anything because we're born with all the motivation we'll ever need. If that were the case, why are we even having this conversation?

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#89

Post by tartoran »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #79
throwawaymath wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That raises profound and fascinating philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge and happiness. I wonder how many of those people would choose to forego the knowledge of what they don't have if it meant they would be happy again. On the other hand, is that even a meaningful question to ask, given it's not possible? Which of course leads to the ethical question: is it right for people to live in ignorance if…

> is it right for people to live in ignorance if it makes them happy, it it's not their choice? I wouldn't pretend to answer if it is "right" (what does it even mean), but a lot of people already do live in ignorance. Maybe not in the straight way of ignorance of not being able to recollect some information, but certainly in terms of assigning certain labels and judgements to it. So many people watch a TV with someon…

Some of those 'false' narratives are generalities that are not too far away from the truth. It is true that pursuing money does not bring happiness in itself if one is blinded by the pursuit and does not know when to stop. It is true that rich people's offspring are also rich. It is also true that a lot of what's on TV is fake or generally falls into these patterns. Just at Hollywood for example

Re: Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

#90

Post by hnaccy »

xtracto wrote: post #8

This reminds me of an anecdote a friend told me: This friend dedicates his time in going to very rural areas/towns here in Mexico to implement government programs. At some point in the past he got to a town were the cantina had just gotten the only TV in town... apparently people in the town were generally happy, and they had everything they needed... so in their view they were not poor. But once they started watchin…

Maybe we could blind all the poor people, that way we don't need to buy them decadent luxuries like refrigerators.
Post reply on HN