7 ms·

The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, t

by Sneakos 10y ago

The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. >Audiences "have a very visceral reaction to '#ad' or '#spon' or whatever it is, where they don't want to know people are getting paid for stuff even if they are." This is the biggest issue marketers have with those who are advertising their products. Even though you can logically assume that a person you follow is sponsoring products, it is more appalling to the consumer when a sponsorship is labeled with #ad, or the likes. If everyone was truly a self-aware consumer who knew they were being manipulated, this wouldn't be a huge issue. But the fact is that the majority of people will respond much better to subtle advertisements, then ads that label themselves as an advertisement, which most people are conditioned to ignore or dislike. For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects. As for the question "Is it an advertisement?" of course it's an advertisement. But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious.

munificent 10y ago
> For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects. And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? > But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious. Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without them even being aware of it?
- nine_k 10y ago
  Maybe the upside is that people are getting used to it. They start to expect that any message may be a manipulation, so they pay closer attention to it, put it under a greater scrutiny. It also applies to emotional manipulation; expecting and detecting it makes people more self-aware, and make them appreciate sincere things higher.
  - munificent 10y ago
    That sounds like an argument that an arms race is OK because it leaves us better equipped to defend ourselves. But we wouldn't need all of those extra defenses in the first place if we hadn't entered into an arms race. As people get more used to it, advertisers just work harder and harder to sneak under the radar. We might get more self aware, but if anything it just leads us to be cynical and untrusting of things that are sincere. The end result is likely a belief that there are two and only two kinds of media: Insincere media where I can see that I'm being advertised to. Insincere media that has outsmarted me and where I can't see that I'm being advertised to.
    - nine_k 10y ago
      I see it more like the immune system. Greater (self-)awareness looks like a good thing to me, just due to the way this whole world works. This definitely depends on your philosophy in a wide sense. On a practical note, reputation works in this circumstances: if I read a piece about, I don't know, fruit jam industry in NYT, it's likely not a blatant paid ad. This is what they monetize when selling subscriptions; should they stop, their reputation, and with it the subscription revenue, would go down.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  > What's so great about advertising that... It generates profit! Why are we still discussing this? /s
- Sneakos 10y ago
  >Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? That's not the point. The point is that these types of advertisements are effective. In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.
  - csydas 10y ago
    I disagree: >In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. I'm not quite sure what you mean by standard ads - the type of advertisements that you seem to be focusing on are relatively new; product placement, of course, has been around for ages, but we haven't really had a communication medium like the Internet prior to the Internet becoming an everyday tool. The fact that people respond better when they don't know it's an ad really shouldn't give advertisers permission to bypass false advertising laws and advertising disclosure. If it comes down to consumer rights versus corporate profit, then sorry, but consumer rights trump corporate profit. If this means that we need to restructure revenue plans for online, then so be it. Native advertising is borderline unethical as it is, especially in news articles. I cannot accept the idea of "it's the last profitable means so it is a necessity" because it's an arbitrary line to draw if the method is considered unethical. (I use unethical because it's what I consider it, but we can substitute "not wanted" or simply "not allowed" and the point stands) It's inconsistent and non-sensical to label a form of advertising "bad" or "unethical", but to then argue it should be allowed anyways when worse forms of advertising are likely more efficient. No one is arguing that advertising isn't one of the pillars upon which modern business rests; I do think that people will argue whether or not it needs to be anymore, and I know most certainly many will argue that a restructuring is probably needed to remove the need for advertising, or lighten the load. It's likely true that soon we will hit a point where sites start closing down because the ad revenue doesn't pay the bills anymore, and I think that's fine. Advertising has warped the very structure of websites for years now, and even the infrastructure for the Internet (CDNs for advertisement, ad networks, entire platforms built around advertising first then around a service to get users to advertise to) As much as advertising may enable content, it also compresses and restricts. It obfuscates it behind ad walls, behind slideshows, behind ad-ridden pages with a download or a video where you don't have the slightest clue whether or not the content is even relevant. It's warps search results, and it slowly creeps in and overtakes social media services. (Sponsored tweets, sponsored instagrams, ad bots on social networks, SMS spam, Youtube videos) There is an awful lot of infrastructure that is built out and worked on that has absolutely nothing to do with providing content to viewers, but instead providing advertisements. The balance is simply off right now, and the rebellion against ads is a direct result of that.
- criddell 10y ago
  Oy, I just imagined watching Skyfall where every time a product appears on screen, #ad appears in the corner. I have no problem agreeing that paid Instagram posts should say #ad in the image, but I think doing the same thing in a movie is going too far. I can't really defend that though.
  - bisby 10y ago
    I imagine the change in things would be that brands would stop paying so much for product placement. Which would wind up with a much more natural movie, instead of the forced placement that is usually as glaring and distracting as a #ad on the screen.
    - criddell 10y ago
      I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Daniel Craig is being paid to portray James Bond, but that doesn't need to be pointed out, right? I suspect if movies had to put #ad on screen whenever a product is placed, it would be like the California cancer warnings. They would soon become meaningless and invisible.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        > I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Can you elaborate on why this makes a difference? On the theory that people buy "sponsored" products because they wish to feel or display an affinity with the sponsor, James Bond, the fictional chracter, is a much more effective sponsor than is Daniel Craig, the actor. I wish that I could be James Bond with dry martinis, cars, and blondes, a PPK, and sharp things to say when I'm about to get it on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56
        criddell 10y ago
tedmiston 10y ago
> The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. At least in some industries. I haven't seen that attitude in tech or software at all. Besides Kim promoting her own app of course.
- sosborn 10y ago
  Software, maybe. But tech? How many times have we seen [Brand X] endorsees tweet from a [Brand Y] phone?
- blihp 10y ago
  It happens all the time with consumer devices (smart phones, laptops) and larger game launches at least. On the business/productivity side, those aren't mass market products so why waste money marketing to the masses who aren't going to buy anyway? Though there is all sorts of other nonsense that goes on here too. Just look at all of the not-too-secret courting of reviewers and YouTubers that nVidia and AMD did around their recent GPU launches, for example. (none of this is surprising: it's called marketing. But it is important IMO that it be disclosed regardless of what's being pitched or who it's being pitched too)
maerF0x0 10y ago
Where "respond better" means to the aims of the advertiser. The reason they dont "Respond better" to #ad is because the customer is responding in their own best interest, to discount the claims because they know they're biased by the remuneration . Its not obvious its an advertisement because if it were the responses would be the same.
mikeash 10y ago
Instead of "I wish we knew what was OK," what they really mean is "I wish tricking people was OK." Because it's already clear what's OK: make it obvious that the thing is an advertisement. They just don't want to. I see why they don't want to, although I don't agree. But whining about how it's unclear isn't winning them any points here. It's clear, they just don't like it.
Latty 10y ago
> The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. But not if the user knows they are being mislead. By that logic, we should allow loan sharks to not show their rates - after all, it's much easier to get a couple of customers paying 9000% than many customers paying 10%. If you show people 9000%, they stop borrowing!

by Sneakos 10y ago

munificent 10y ago

> For example, after the James Bond movie "Skyfall", in which he shaves using a cut-throat razor, razor sales were boosted by 405%. I guarantee you if they had a #ad label during that scene, we would not have seen the same effects. And would that have been a bad thing? Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? > But that doesn't mean those involved have to make it blatantly obvious. Why not? What's so great about advertising that it's OK to give it free reign to play around with human psychology and influence peoples' behavior without them even being aware of it?

nine_k 10y ago
Maybe the upside is that people are getting used to it. They start to expect that any message may be a manipulation, so they pay closer attention to it, put it under a greater scrutiny. It also applies to emotional manipulation; expecting and detecting it makes people more self-aware, and make them appreciate sincere things higher.
- munificent 10y ago
  That sounds like an argument that an arms race is OK because it leaves us better equipped to defend ourselves. But we wouldn't need all of those extra defenses in the first place if we hadn't entered into an arms race. As people get more used to it, advertisers just work harder and harder to sneak under the radar. We might get more self aware, but if anything it just leads us to be cynical and untrusting of things that are sincere. The end result is likely a belief that there are two and only two kinds of media: Insincere media where I can see that I'm being advertised to. Insincere media that has outsmarted me and where I can't see that I'm being advertised to.
  - nine_k 10y ago
    I see it more like the immune system. Greater (self-)awareness looks like a good thing to me, just due to the way this whole world works. This definitely depends on your philosophy in a wide sense. On a practical note, reputation works in this circumstances: if I read a piece about, I don't know, fruit jam industry in NYT, it's likely not a blatant paid ad. This is what they monetize when selling subscriptions; should they stop, their reputation, and with it the subscription revenue, would go down.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
> What's so great about advertising that... It generates profit! Why are we still discussing this? /s
Sneakos 10y ago
>Have we really measurably improved the world by having a huge spike in cut-throat razor sales? That's not the point. The point is that these types of advertisements are effective. In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society.
- csydas 10y ago
  I disagree: >In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Adding an ad label will eventually make these types of ads obsolete. I'm not quite sure what you mean by standard ads - the type of advertisements that you seem to be focusing on are relatively new; product placement, of course, has been around for ages, but we haven't really had a communication medium like the Internet prior to the Internet becoming an everyday tool. The fact that people respond better when they don't know it's an ad really shouldn't give advertisers permission to bypass false advertising laws and advertising disclosure. If it comes down to consumer rights versus corporate profit, then sorry, but consumer rights trump corporate profit. If this means that we need to restructure revenue plans for online, then so be it. Native advertising is borderline unethical as it is, especially in news articles. I cannot accept the idea of "it's the last profitable means so it is a necessity" because it's an arbitrary line to draw if the method is considered unethical. (I use unethical because it's what I consider it, but we can substitute "not wanted" or simply "not allowed" and the point stands) It's inconsistent and non-sensical to label a form of advertising "bad" or "unethical", but to then argue it should be allowed anyways when worse forms of advertising are likely more efficient. No one is arguing that advertising isn't one of the pillars upon which modern business rests; I do think that people will argue whether or not it needs to be anymore, and I know most certainly many will argue that a restructuring is probably needed to remove the need for advertising, or lighten the load. It's likely true that soon we will hit a point where sites start closing down because the ad revenue doesn't pay the bills anymore, and I think that's fine. Advertising has warped the very structure of websites for years now, and even the infrastructure for the Internet (CDNs for advertisement, ad networks, entire platforms built around advertising first then around a service to get users to advertise to) As much as advertising may enable content, it also compresses and restricts. It obfuscates it behind ad walls, behind slideshows, behind ad-ridden pages with a download or a video where you don't have the slightest clue whether or not the content is even relevant. It's warps search results, and it slowly creeps in and overtakes social media services. (Sponsored tweets, sponsored instagrams, ad bots on social networks, SMS spam, Youtube videos) There is an awful lot of infrastructure that is built out and worked on that has absolutely nothing to do with providing content to viewers, but instead providing advertisements. The balance is simply off right now, and the rebellion against ads is a direct result of that.
criddell 10y ago
Oy, I just imagined watching Skyfall where every time a product appears on screen, #ad appears in the corner. I have no problem agreeing that paid Instagram posts should say #ad in the image, but I think doing the same thing in a movie is going too far. I can't really defend that though.
- bisby 10y ago
  I imagine the change in things would be that brands would stop paying so much for product placement. Which would wind up with a much more natural movie, instead of the forced placement that is usually as glaring and distracting as a #ad on the screen.
  - criddell 10y ago
    I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Daniel Craig is being paid to portray James Bond, but that doesn't need to be pointed out, right? I suspect if movies had to put #ad on screen whenever a product is placed, it would be like the California cancer warnings. They would soon become meaningless and invisible.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      > I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Can you elaborate on why this makes a difference? On the theory that people buy "sponsored" products because they wish to feel or display an affinity with the sponsor, James Bond, the fictional chracter, is a much more effective sponsor than is Daniel Craig, the actor. I wish that I could be James Bond with dry martinis, cars, and blondes, a PPK, and sharp things to say when I'm about to get it on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56
      - criddell 10y ago

tedmiston 10y ago

> The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. At least in some industries. I haven't seen that attitude in tech or software at all. Besides Kim promoting her own app of course.

sosborn 10y ago
Software, maybe. But tech? How many times have we seen [Brand X] endorsees tweet from a [Brand Y] phone?
blihp 10y ago
It happens all the time with consumer devices (smart phones, laptops) and larger game launches at least. On the business/productivity side, those aren't mass market products so why waste money marketing to the masses who aren't going to buy anyway? Though there is all sorts of other nonsense that goes on here too. Just look at all of the not-too-secret courting of reviewers and YouTubers that nVidia and AMD did around their recent GPU launches, for example. (none of this is surprising: it's called marketing. But it is important IMO that it be disclosed regardless of what's being pitched or who it's being pitched too)

maerF0x0 10y ago

Where "respond better" means to the aims of the advertiser. The reason they dont "Respond better" to #ad is because the customer is responding in their own best interest, to discount the claims because they know they're biased by the remuneration . Its not obvious its an advertisement because if it were the responses would be the same.

mikeash 10y ago

Instead of "I wish we knew what was OK," what they really mean is "I wish tricking people was OK." Because it's already clear what's OK: make it obvious that the thing is an advertisement. They just don't want to. I see why they don't want to, although I don't agree. But whining about how it's unclear isn't winning them any points here. It's clear, they just don't like it.

Latty 10y ago

> The problem with finding someone to like your product is that it's much more efficient to get support from people who don't like your product but are popular, then it is get support from people who like your product, but don't reach a large audience. Business-wise, it's smarter to attempt the former than the latter. But not if the user knows they are being mislead. By that logic, we should allow loan sharks to not show their rates - after all, it's much easier to get a couple of customers paying 9000% than many customers paying 10%. If you show people 9000%, they stop borrowing!