This feels very similar in my mind to blanket concepts like "let's ban lobbying". There are certainly specific modes or practices in lobbying that are damaging to society, but lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.
Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.
In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.
Why should we be open to nuance when we’re being actively manipulated? Cease manipulating me and I will hear them out on the nuances, provided the advertisers can articulate it.
Someone telling you about a product is not manipulating you. Tracking or certain ad practices might be manipulative, and it's fine to push back against or ban that manipulation, but that is not at all inherent to advertising.
You might want to read up on Edward Bernays[1] if you think modern advertising is "just telling you about a product". It most decidedly is not. It is a century of of human effort poured into exploiting human evolutionary biases in order to increase sales. It's an exercise in inducing demand, not in fulfilling preexisting demand.
>What the advertiser needs to know is not what is right about the product but what is wrong about the buyer. And so the balance of business expenditures shifts from product research to market research, which means orienting business away from making products of value and toward making consumers feel valuable. The business of business becomes pseudo-therapy; the consumer, a patient reassured by psychodramas.[2]
Feeding people lines about what “they need” or what their neighbors might be doing is manipulative. All advertising attempts to be manipulative, IMO.
But, I’ll play along for a moment: If trying to convince people they need something that oftentimes they simply don’t isn’t manipulation, then what is it? It isn’t simply informative because it’s attempting to change one’s mind.
I think we might disagree in terms of the kinds of advertising we're talking about.
The best advertising for me is showing me a product and showing me how it's used -- the "Coca Cola will make you have friends and have a good time" style ads could be construed as manipulative, I totally get that, but if I see an ad that just says "here's the product, here's what it does" for a product that _actually_ solves a problem I have, that's pretty great in my book, and is a win-win for me and whoever makes the product.
Belongs in catalogues, store listings, the manufacturers website, product search engines, not forced into view when you’re trying to do something else.
It’d be perfectly reasonable even to have sites listing or aggregating new and updated products, or social media accounts that post about interesting [new or otherwise] products, as long as they’re not paid to place or promote products, too.
I'd say you're underestimating how much anxiety there is in the world because advertisers and influencers bombard people with the idea that they are not enough, or that they don't have enough.
It becomes very clear when you move to a different country where you don't speak the language. Suddenly, advertisers cannot tell you that you need their products. And it is very emancipating mentally.
Oh totally, don't get me wrong, I hate the majority of ads (playing the "guess what this ad is even for" game reveals just how terrible most ads are.)
The nuance for me is that sometimes (mostly online) I see ads for a tool or game or product that just shows it in action, and while 95% of the time I still don't want it, there's the small fraction of the time where I think "Hey that actually looks nice" (and I'm fine with the other 95% that just show me the product).
Commercials for insurance are basically always terrible though; if you're advertising anything besides rates, coverage, or service, then what does it have to do with your product?
This is interesting and I think it speaks to your point about us having a disagreement in terms. I don't see many ads online. I've been very happy with my pihole + ublock origin + firefox setup. Honestly if I see ads online I take action to make sure I don't see them anymore, because that's in my control! My gripe is almost entirely with IRL "meatspace" ads, though I'd be happy to give up the arms race online.
Are you regularly exposed to ads? I don’t understand this at all. Advertisement has next to nothing to do with “telling you about a product” which is why old ads are funny today. They hadn’t figured out a lot of the techniques we use to elevate advertising so far beyond that. An easy example, which some old ads even caught onto, would be associating the product with something else the consumer desires. Ever see an ad for a car with a happy family in it? Ever see an ad for a sportier car with a guy driving around an attractive lady? Is the happy family related to the function of the car? Of course not; the goal is to tie the thing the consumer wants (a happy family) to the thing they don’t yet (the car).
> Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.
Journalists exist.
The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products. Companies can also promote a product by sending it to reviewers.
So ads are not the only way to inform consumers, and the benefits IMO don't outweigh the cost.
> The best way to learn about new products is through influencers/reviewers/experts in their field. I'd even say its superior, which is why advertising companies ~sponsor~ bribe influencers to promote their products.
In the same sentence, you give a possible solution and the reason why it wouldn't work.
Ban ads and companies are going to pay more and more for sponsored content to the point you can't differentiate what is legit from what is not.
Sponsored content should be considered an ad too and banned in this scenario.
Many “influencers” would have to go back to being amateurs. That’s ok. Some would accept backhanders, but they risk prosecution, which is actually possible [0].
The cash flow is:
you -> merchant -> manufacturer -> advertising department -> google -> influencer
So if ads go away, theres two scenarios:
A: the influencer was worth your money and you pay him directly
B: he's not worth your money
I know, I'm making quite a few assumptions about how the market will correct, so I will also point that many Twitch-Streamer and YouTube channels already are financed through crowdfunding. It's not unrealistic that people will pay for good content.
If they provide something of value to their audience, they can take money from their audience, in exchange for that value. If they do not provide value for their audience, them ceasing to exist is not a loss for society.
There are a very few areas where there are good reviewers. Sadly most "reviewers" just repeat marketing materials, read stats from the box, and talk about themselves.
No I don’t think so. I would genuinely guess that 97% of the ads I see are irrelevant garbage or, more commonly, bids by products I know to raise awareness to increase the probability of their sale. I discover the vast majority of what I care about through word of mouth and I suspect I’d be fine without ads. There are so many negative externalities that it’s actually ridiculous.
Word of mouth is an amplification mechanism that also filters. It seems silly to imagine a product spreading by word of mouth because of how bad today’s products often are. Rather than having to earn spread through appeal, companies can pay money to shortcut the process. In an advertising-less world word of mouth would carry farther because the products would adapt to the filter to be better. It would probably take awareness plenty far to enable a business owner to tell you, 4-6 hops away, about his/her innovative new vacuum or whatever.
People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market.
Reading (unpaid) reviews.
There are vastly many ways that unbiased, factual information about a new product can be disseminated to those who are looking for it that are not advertising.
> People who come across the product in a shop or in/on a market.
The salespeople at the shop and market are paid to like and sell the product.
Even getting your product into a store shelf is a marketing activity, and chain stores charge a lot of money for the privilege.
> Reading (unpaid) reviews.
This can be a hobby, but most people need to make money from the work they do. This is why this area is covered by companies that employ and pay people to use and review products.
Also, this is recursive - where did this unpaid reviewer hear about the product?
> unbiased, factual information
What is an unbiased fact? Is vim better or emacs? How do you decide between the two? First you “hear” about them, and hopefully they didn’t “bias” you on way or another, and then because they’re (luckily) free, you can try both and decide for yourself what the “facts” are. But what about vscode and jetbrains and etc? They’re backed by corporations, and have marketing behind them, but they’re great products too!
You see where this is going once you generalize across industries? People pay for ads so that they can tell people what they think is an unbiased fact about their product. If they’re lucky, they also get word of mouth. But in a massively populated world with millions of products, this obviously creates a market for said “word of mouth”. And in turn, attracts bad actors, who lie about their product or manipulate you for politics etc. Some cases are clear cut, but others are not. It’s up to the viewer to decide at the end of the day.
Just give the responsibility for policing it to the tax authorities. The lobbyist might be able to hide the money but the recipient has to spend it or it is worthless so it will be detectable and the transactions punishable.
Also, that we won't be able to make it perfect is not an argument against trying to improve.
Anyone who has found out about a useful product through advertising that you wouldn’t have know about otherwise, purchased it, and been pleased with your purchase, raise your hand.
Anyone?
This whole “advertising is useful” thing sounds like the spherical cow of marketing to me. It might make sense in abstract but it doesn’t reflect reality.
It is useful in specialist domains. If you love fashion then fashion magazine ads are worth studying, because you read them with a critical eye. If you're into any sort of nerd hobby (model trains, synthesizers, board games...) then the specialist magazines/video channels/forums for that hobby are interesting, again because you have a critical eye. Sure, there are ads that target the newbie with 'the first and last ______ you'll ever need!' but as you get more experienced in the hobby you quickly learn to distinguish which manufacturers are selling the dream vs offering their product. This remains true even on forums for particular vendors that have a cult following. Likewise for many professional trade news outlets.
But it only works where you have specialized focus and experienced/informed consumers that are able to separate the sizzle from the steak. For example, doctors and other medical professionals are generally well qualified to assess the claims of pharmaceutical advertising, consumers are not - even though I am comfortable reading the fine print in such ads and even reading papers about clinical trials, I still rate my evaluative ability as mediocre compared to a professional.
Mass market advertising for general consumers is generally cancer, imho.
I think we should separate ads that people seek out from ads that people put up with. They’re very different in purpose and effect. When the ad is the thing you actually want to see, I have no problem with it. The issue is ads that you’d rather not see, but are either attached to something you do want to see, or are placed where you have no choice.
Many people, otherwise advertising wouldn’t work at all and the industry wouldn’t exist. Even if you hear it via some other source, they may have heard of it via some form of advertising.
Sure, if nobody has ever heard of you then making them aware of you is a necessary step in making them more likely to buy your stuff.
But that doesn’t mean it’s a major benefit of advertising. There are plenty of other ways to discover products, and most advertising is done by established brands to people who already know about them. How much advertising do Apple, Coca-Cola, Toyota, etc. do? How many people are unaware that their products exist?
I'd be happy to give an example I gave below: rake hands.
I hate the step after raking where you have to use the rake and one hand to carry the leaves to the bin. There was an ad for "rake hands" where you just hold a small hand-formed rake in each hand and scoop them both.
Twenty bucks, vastly improved yardwork experience, and I would have literally never thought to look for something like that.
Yes, happens often. Plus all the products that have been recommended by (a friend that became aware of them through)+ advertising. And all the products that only exist because of advertising.
Also: sales. I have bought things in sales that I would not have bought otherwise (because its value to me is higher than the sale price but lower than the normal price) where I was only aware of the sales from ads.
> lobbying itself (specifically, informing lawmakers about your specific perspective and desires) is a valid and desirable function.
If it were a truly demotic activity you would have a point. But as it is, lobbying (in the US at least) is almost exclusively by/for large/moneyed interests, and the part of it which isn't is considerably less effective than that which is.
Every time you communicate something to a politician, submit a submission on a Bill, or write a letter to the editor criticising a political policy, you are lobbying.
That you don't bother engaging and others do doesn't give them an unfair advantage.
That being said, the US system sounds like a shitshow of bribery and corruption.
Likewise, advertising on its own at its core is useful: there might be something that adds value to your life that someone else is trying to provide and the only missing link is that you don't know about it.
In both cases, it seems totally fine to have strict guardrails about what kinds of practices we deem not okay (e.g. banning advertising to children, or banning physical ads larger than some size or in some locations), but the extreme take of the article felt like it intentionally left no room for nuance.