4 ms·

Advertising is a race to the bottom. The way I shop is I figure out what my needs are, I survey the state of the art, I narrow down some options, compare them

by camgunz 10y ago

Advertising is a race to the bottom. The way I shop is I figure out what my needs are, I survey the state of the art, I narrow down some options, compare them (price, stats, reviews, company rep, etc.) and then buy. Advertising, on the other hand, exists to subtly influence an emotional, impulsive, subconscious choice, and it's far more effective in the macro. The problem is that when your brain is engaged, you resent advertising and it has the opposite effect on you. Once you're wise to it, it just sours you on the whole thing. Advertisers could cultivate a lot more loyalty with me (and I assume most people) if they made honest pitches. You know, "hey you're looking for an x86 NUC with 2 ethernet ports, here's what we got, also here's some other socially responsible things we do". Anything past that ought to be banned. You can see the effect this has. Look at ever increasing ad budgets by large corporations, or small businesses wasting precious resources trying to compete with the huge ad budgets, people's general cynicism about businesses and endorsements, etc. It has an undermining effect culturally and an entrenchment effect economically. It's honestly just all bad.

manigandham 10y ago
You are never as rational as you think you might be when it comes to shopping or anything else. And advertising drives the economy and is quite literally the reason the company you work for is in business - so it's just not that simple to say "it's all bad" because it isn't. In fact it's quite the opposite.
- camgunz 10y ago
  Yeah my post gives that impression, but I know that rationality is elusive: people are very suggestible. That's precisely why I think we ought to protect people from advertising. I don't accept that business requires manipulative advertising. I don't want to get into the weeds of "what is advertising anyway?" or "if no one knows about your products, how can they buy them?", so let's just stipulate that there's "advertising" (i.e. what I describe above) and "manipulative advertising". People are entirely, obviously capable of buying things without a team of behavioral psychologists tricking them into it, and businesses are entirely capable of selling things without manipulating consumers into it. The problem arises when companies are free to put resources into manipulative advertising; it's a classic race to the bottom. Company A spends $X on ads; Company B spends $X + $Y on ads. We quickly reach the status quo, except we spent $$$ on manipulating people into buying products instead of improving them, wasting tons of resources and probably causing people to spend money buying our stuff unwisely by preying on their hopes and insecurities. It is at least unfathomably wasteful, and maybe also evil. (Also -- and this probably comes off as more hostile than I intend it to -- you don't know anything about me, if I work for a company, if I'm unemployed, if I work for a government, a university, etc. You can argue that modern business requires advertising without making assumptions like this).
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Some people may be. But the vast majority, who feed the dynamic, are not. And hence the downward spiral.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    What downward spiral? This isn't unique to adtech, this is human behavior. We all influence each other. When your friend recommends a product, they are influencing you, but might not know what's actually good for you or what your needs/wants are and might not even be honest with you. At least with advertising there are some standards and it's that same human behavior/influence harnessed and purchased through technology. Politics, news, communications, etc. It's all the same.
    - camgunz 10y ago
      Advertising companies do not act in the interests of consumers. We're not their customers. Any benefit is totally coincidental. The following would be helpful to us: - "These products from a different company look more like what you're after" - "Based on your income/debt/bills, you probably shouldn't buy this" - "A better version of this will be out in a few days, just wait!" - "This product explodes, buy this other one instead" Of course advertising companies will never do this, because it would be acting against the interest of their actual customers (companies). Can I even hire an ad firm to help me shop? The very idea sounds ridiculous. It's just not what advertising is for. Advertising exists only to convince more people to buy goods and services. It specifically employs devices to do this even if: - the consumer doesn't want or need them - the consumer can't afford them - the consumer could get a better deal or product elsewhere - the product is defective Advertising is really good at reframing this stuff (your post is a pretty good example of it actually), but given these facts I don't know how to think of advertising in positive light.

by camgunz 10y ago

manigandham 10y ago

You are never as rational as you think you might be when it comes to shopping or anything else. And advertising drives the economy and is quite literally the reason the company you work for is in business - so it's just not that simple to say "it's all bad" because it isn't. In fact it's quite the opposite.

camgunz 10y ago
Yeah my post gives that impression, but I know that rationality is elusive: people are very suggestible. That's precisely why I think we ought to protect people from advertising. I don't accept that business requires manipulative advertising. I don't want to get into the weeds of "what is advertising anyway?" or "if no one knows about your products, how can they buy them?", so let's just stipulate that there's "advertising" (i.e. what I describe above) and "manipulative advertising". People are entirely, obviously capable of buying things without a team of behavioral psychologists tricking them into it, and businesses are entirely capable of selling things without manipulating consumers into it. The problem arises when companies are free to put resources into manipulative advertising; it's a classic race to the bottom. Company A spends $X on ads; Company B spends $X + $Y on ads. We quickly reach the status quo, except we spent $$$ on manipulating people into buying products instead of improving them, wasting tons of resources and probably causing people to spend money buying our stuff unwisely by preying on their hopes and insecurities. It is at least unfathomably wasteful, and maybe also evil. (Also -- and this probably comes off as more hostile than I intend it to -- you don't know anything about me, if I work for a company, if I'm unemployed, if I work for a government, a university, etc. You can argue that modern business requires advertising without making assumptions like this).
dredmorbius 10y ago
Some people may be. But the vast majority, who feed the dynamic, are not. And hence the downward spiral.
- manigandham 10y ago
  What downward spiral? This isn't unique to adtech, this is human behavior. We all influence each other. When your friend recommends a product, they are influencing you, but might not know what's actually good for you or what your needs/wants are and might not even be honest with you. At least with advertising there are some standards and it's that same human behavior/influence harnessed and purchased through technology. Politics, news, communications, etc. It's all the same.
  - camgunz 10y ago
    Advertising companies do not act in the interests of consumers. We're not their customers. Any benefit is totally coincidental. The following would be helpful to us: - "These products from a different company look more like what you're after" - "Based on your income/debt/bills, you probably shouldn't buy this" - "A better version of this will be out in a few days, just wait!" - "This product explodes, buy this other one instead" Of course advertising companies will never do this, because it would be acting against the interest of their actual customers (companies). Can I even hire an ad firm to help me shop? The very idea sounds ridiculous. It's just not what advertising is for. Advertising exists only to convince more people to buy goods and services. It specifically employs devices to do this even if: - the consumer doesn't want or need them - the consumer can't afford them - the consumer could get a better deal or product elsewhere - the product is defective Advertising is really good at reframing this stuff (your post is a pretty good example of it actually), but given these facts I don't know how to think of advertising in positive light.