4 ms·

You are kind of begging the question with your second paragraph. You argue that advertising is valuable because it's essential, but advertising is only essenti

You are kind of begging the question with your second paragraph. You argue that advertising is valuable because it's essential, but advertising is only essential because of its own existence. That doesn't make it valuable to society's broader goals.

Spooky23 10y ago
Advertising is a zero-sum game. Advancements only improve the product, there is little/no change in spending from the point of view of society.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  I might venture to say it's negative sum, because the need to advertise in order to compete diverts resources away from positive sum activities (R&D).
  - solipsism 10y ago
    "zero sum" doesn't mean "zero net benefit". It's about competition, not utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      I know, I'm saying that one company'd ad spend negates their competitor's, and vice versa, so the more everyone spends, the more everyone loses. That is non-zero-sum, in the negative direction.
manigandham 10y ago
> society's broader goals. What are these exactly? Society is a summation of it's people and the success of the ventures they start are a big part of that. > You argue that advertising is valuable because it's essential, but advertising is only essential because of its own existence. What's that even mean? Lookup the definition of marketing and you'll see that connecting product information to consumers is needed to actually sell anything, and advertising is the distribution of this message. It's not only valuable, it's critical and necessary for business success. You might not like being interrupted by ads (especially today's incarnation of ads online) but that is entirely separate from the concept of advertising itself. Saying that advertising isn't valuable is a gross misunderstanding of what advertising actually is.

Spooky23 10y ago

Advertising is a zero-sum game. Advancements only improve the product, there is little/no change in spending from the point of view of society.

nitrogen 10y ago
I might venture to say it's negative sum, because the need to advertise in order to compete diverts resources away from positive sum activities (R&D).
- solipsism 10y ago
  "zero sum" doesn't mean "zero net benefit". It's about competition, not utility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    I know, I'm saying that one company'd ad spend negates their competitor's, and vice versa, so the more everyone spends, the more everyone loses. That is non-zero-sum, in the negative direction.

manigandham 10y ago

> society's broader goals. What are these exactly? Society is a summation of it's people and the success of the ventures they start are a big part of that. > You argue that advertising is valuable because it's essential, but advertising is only essential because of its own existence. What's that even mean? Lookup the definition of marketing and you'll see that connecting product information to consumers is needed to actually sell anything, and advertising is the distribution of this message. It's not only valuable, it's critical and necessary for business success. You might not like being interrupted by ads (especially today's incarnation of ads online) but that is entirely separate from the concept of advertising itself. Saying that advertising isn't valuable is a gross misunderstanding of what advertising actually is.