5 ms·

Yeah I think he can determine his buying habits far better than you.

by rndmind 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago
My point is that it isn't always about buying habits, at least not immediately (and sometimes never). Sometimes advertising is about awareness. Sometimes that's brand awareness, but it's also issue awareness. There are ads about social issues. They are often about making sure you are aware of the organization that put the ad out in case you want to get involved/help financially, but often it's also just to raise awareness about the issue. In what way is a site showing an ad about children going hungry in America (as Hulu used to play quite often) and him not clicking on it scamming the organization that put the ad out? In what way is his blanket rejection of the ad before actually seeing it making helping that organization? As I said, a very naive view.
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> In what way is a site showing an ad about children going hungry in America (as Hulu used to play quite often) and him not clicking on it scamming the organization that put the ad out? It's one 'view' (well page-load, because I'm not going to view it regardless) that's going to get them nowhere that they don't have to pay for. >> In what way is his blanket rejection of the ad before actually seeing it making helping that organization? Again, they don't have to pay for me to completely ignore them. Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? I'm not sure who has the more naive view here...
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content), so I thought casting it in light of a hopefully less nefarious cause might cause you to look at it more objectively. The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. There are many arguments for ad-blockers that can be put forth, but I don't believe taking the moral high-ground is a valid one. Edit: s/arguments against/arguments for/
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. I think there is nothing to predict here - they have no goal towards 'Nursie, or any other particular viewer. Advertising on-line is done by carpet-bombing the whole Internet with cheap ads, hoping that enough people get hit.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        How does that affect the argument in any way? They are willing to pay to have this add viewed by a visitor on a site at a particular time, and the site is willing to display it along with the content. Their goal, in the broadest and most general sense is to have the ad displayed. You can't assume they are trying to get you to buy something by clicking on it (it may not even be available yet), you can't assume they are trying to have you buy something later (it could be a brand-awareness campaign where you may not have a need for what they are selling, but you may tell someone who does), you can't assume they are even selling a product or service (they may not be, it could be a social issue awareness ad). I stand by my assertion that thinking you know exactly what the intention of an ad that was is naive. And that's before considering that you wouldn't even see it in this case, you would just block it and assume blindly.
    - Nursie 11y ago
      >> No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content) I have said I will be happy to include a header in my http requests that says I will not render ads, and I already am happy to pay for content in other media. I will now explore that on the web. At the moment, however, I request content from web servers and they send it to me. I make no guarantees implied or otherwise about what I will do with it or how I will render it. >> The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, They want my money. I'm well aware of this much. >> and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. Well perhaps not, but in the simple case I will repeat - if I notice you're advertising your brand at me, I will not buy your stuff. >> There are many arguments against ad-blockers that can be put forth, but I don't believe taking the moral high-ground is a valid one. There are very many arguments for ad-blockers that do occupy the moral high-ground. Advertising is manipulative and it's not immoral to block these attempts at manipulation.

Yeah I think he can determine his buying habits far better than you.

by rndmind 11y ago

Yeah I think he can determine his buying habits far better than you.

My point is that it isn't always about buying habits, at least not immediately (and sometimes never). Sometimes advertising is about awareness. Sometimes that's brand awareness, but it's also issue awareness. There are ads about social issues. They are often about making sure you are aware of the organization that put the ad out in case you want to get involved/help financially, but often it's also just to raise awareness about the issue. In what way is a site showing an ad about children going hungry in America (as Hulu used to play quite often) and him not clicking on it scamming the organization that put the ad out? In what way is his blanket rejection of the ad before actually seeing it making helping that organization? As I said, a very naive view.

Nursie 11y ago
>> In what way is a site showing an ad about children going hungry in America (as Hulu used to play quite often) and him not clicking on it scamming the organization that put the ad out? It's one 'view' (well page-load, because I'm not going to view it regardless) that's going to get them nowhere that they don't have to pay for. >> In what way is his blanket rejection of the ad before actually seeing it making helping that organization? Again, they don't have to pay for me to completely ignore them. Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? I'm not sure who has the more naive view here...
- kbenson 11y ago
  > Are you trying to argue that I should watch all advertising that comes my way in case some of it is socially responsible? No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content), so I thought casting it in light of a hopefully less nefarious cause might cause you to look at it more objectively. The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. There are many arguments for ad-blockers that can be put forth, but I don't believe taking the moral high-ground is a valid one. Edit: s/arguments against/arguments for/
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. I think there is nothing to predict here - they have no goal towards 'Nursie, or any other particular viewer. Advertising on-line is done by carpet-bombing the whole Internet with cheap ads, hoping that enough people get hit.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      How does that affect the argument in any way? They are willing to pay to have this add viewed by a visitor on a site at a particular time, and the site is willing to display it along with the content. Their goal, in the broadest and most general sense is to have the ad displayed. You can't assume they are trying to get you to buy something by clicking on it (it may not even be available yet), you can't assume they are trying to have you buy something later (it could be a brand-awareness campaign where you may not have a need for what they are selling, but you may tell someone who does), you can't assume they are even selling a product or service (they may not be, it could be a social issue awareness ad). I stand by my assertion that thinking you know exactly what the intention of an ad that was is naive. And that's before considering that you wouldn't even see it in this case, you would just block it and assume blindly.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> No, but I think your view on advertising and the content it supports is hypocritical (because you still accept the desired content) I have said I will be happy to include a header in my http requests that says I will not render ads, and I already am happy to pay for content in other media. I will now explore that on the web. At the moment, however, I request content from web servers and they send it to me. I make no guarantees implied or otherwise about what I will do with it or how I will render it. >> The naivety I reference is specifically in your belief that you can correctly predict the desires of multiple large and small complex business entities in their goal to advertising in front of you, They want my money. I'm well aware of this much. >> and make decisions in their best interest that are against their expressed desire. Well perhaps not, but in the simple case I will repeat - if I notice you're advertising your brand at me, I will not buy your stuff. >> There are many arguments against ad-blockers that can be put forth, but I don't believe taking the moral high-ground is a valid one. There are very many arguments for ad-blockers that do occupy the moral high-ground. Advertising is manipulative and it's not immoral to block these attempts at manipulation.