5 ms·

>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 advertis

by 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.
Latty 10y ago
Necessary by who's definition? Sure, I like the way adverts allow me not to pay for content directly (or ask people to pay for things I produce directly). That's great. However, some things I value more than that. Misleading advertising is too far, I won't accept it. If advertising isn't effective enough to be worth doing, fine. We'll find other ways. Yeah, micropayments have never caught on, but maybe there is an alternative, or maybe they won't be so bad once we accept we need a replacement for adverts. I'm willing to bet non-misleading ads will still be worth enough the whole ecosystem won't collapse.
Lagged2Death 10y ago
In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Are you arguing that without the revenue from product placements, Skyfall's budget just couldn't be made to work, and it wouldn't have been a profitable production? That seems really unlikely.
doomtop 10y ago
> And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society. Ads may be necessary to today's society, but I'm not so sure everything we have in today's society is all that necessary. Call me naive.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
munificent 10y ago
> And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society. I work at Google, so I fully understand how much of today's economy rests on top of advertising. But that doesn't mean society needs to, just that it has chosen to. I haven't heard compelling arguments that advertising is much of a net boon to humanity. To me, it mostly looks like tools to steal my precious attention in order to make me feel bad about not having a product I didn't know I was missing out on in the first place.

by Sneakos 10y ago

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.

Latty 10y ago

Necessary by who's definition? Sure, I like the way adverts allow me not to pay for content directly (or ask people to pay for things I produce directly). That's great. However, some things I value more than that. Misleading advertising is too far, I won't accept it. If advertising isn't effective enough to be worth doing, fine. We'll find other ways. Yeah, micropayments have never caught on, but maybe there is an alternative, or maybe they won't be so bad once we accept we need a replacement for adverts. I'm willing to bet non-misleading ads will still be worth enough the whole ecosystem won't collapse.

Lagged2Death 10y ago

In an world where standard ads are being phased out, these types of product placements are becoming more and more necessary. Are you arguing that without the revenue from product placements, Skyfall's budget just couldn't be made to work, and it wouldn't have been a profitable production? That seems really unlikely.

doomtop 10y ago

> And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society. Ads may be necessary to today's society, but I'm not so sure everything we have in today's society is all that necessary. Call me naive.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

munificent 10y ago

> And it is very naive to think that ads aren't necessary in today's society. I work at Google, so I fully understand how much of today's economy rests on top of advertising. But that doesn't mean society needs to, just that it has chosen to. I haven't heard compelling arguments that advertising is much of a net boon to humanity. To me, it mostly looks like tools to steal my precious attention in order to make me feel bad about not having a product I didn't know I was missing out on in the first place.