3 ms·

Do you, really? For most of the people I know, our entertainment budget is fairly flexible. If I'd spend £100 on something and if I wanted it, I'm probably not

by arjie 10y ago

Do you, really? For most of the people I know, our entertainment budget is fairly flexible. If I'd spend £100 on something and if I wanted it, I'm probably not going to spend £100 on my second choice thing. In fact, I may not spend anything at all and just choose to spend my time on things I've already spent money on like going out to skate or something. Mostly the cash budget is substantially higher than the time budget so people aren't going to buy a thing they don't like just to fill the time. If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing.

icebraining 10y ago
This is not restricted to the entertainment budget, the claim was that ads extract from all other industries. Unless you're burning the £100 you're not spending, that's still true. If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. Maybe, but is there any evidence that they actually do?
- arjie 10y ago
  Ah. Clearly I misunderstood. If you take everything (including the savings account industry) then yes, advertisements just lead to reallocation. But that's just what money is for: it's to allocate to things you want. If that's the claim, then I'm going to bow out of this discussion because I think it's unproductive since the purpose of practically all things one does is the allocation of resources. Since it's not a distinguishing feature of advertisements, I think it's a pointless discussion.
mirimir 10y ago
> If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. Except that's not what ads are about. Ads are about selling stuff. People smoked cigarettes to be sexy, and then got cancer. Maybe they did get some extra sex, but I doubt it.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Advertising in the real world is unquestionably negative. Almost all advertising works by creating a sense of lack where none previously existed, or co-opting your decision making process by creating gratuitous associations. Advertising that accurately reflects the merits of a product in an unbiased way doesn't "work". I am not opposed to the idea of advertising, but what we have now is really a form of manipulation rather than information.
- majewsky 10y ago
  Exactly. To quote grandparent: > If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. I can name a lot of things fulfilling this role, but none of them are ads. When I built a PC, do you honestly think I looked at advertisements for components? Hell no. My primary source were subreddits like /r/BuildAPC that have guides on what to watch out for when shopping for PC components, and price comparison sites, particularly those that have a ton of filters. Those resources are either run by a devoted community, or they earn a commission when directing me to an online shop where I can buy the product of my choosing. But they're not manipulating my choice in the way that ads are designed to do.

by arjie 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

This is not restricted to the entertainment budget, the claim was that ads extract from all other industries. Unless you're burning the £100 you're not spending, that's still true. If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. Maybe, but is there any evidence that they actually do?

arjie 10y ago
Ah. Clearly I misunderstood. If you take everything (including the savings account industry) then yes, advertisements just lead to reallocation. But that's just what money is for: it's to allocate to things you want. If that's the claim, then I'm going to bow out of this discussion because I think it's unproductive since the purpose of practically all things one does is the allocation of resources. Since it's not a distinguishing feature of advertisements, I think it's a pointless discussion.

mirimir 10y ago

> If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. Except that's not what ads are about. Ads are about selling stuff. People smoked cigarettes to be sexy, and then got cancer. Maybe they did get some extra sex, but I doubt it.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

Advertising in the real world is unquestionably negative. Almost all advertising works by creating a sense of lack where none previously existed, or co-opting your decision making process by creating gratuitous associations. Advertising that accurately reflects the merits of a product in an unbiased way doesn't "work". I am not opposed to the idea of advertising, but what we have now is really a form of manipulation rather than information.

majewsky 10y ago
Exactly. To quote grandparent: > If ads help with allocation closer to people's real preferences, they're a good thing. I can name a lot of things fulfilling this role, but none of them are ads. When I built a PC, do you honestly think I looked at advertisements for components? Hell no. My primary source were subreddits like /r/BuildAPC that have guides on what to watch out for when shopping for PC components, and price comparison sites, particularly those that have a ton of filters. Those resources are either run by a devoted community, or they earn a commission when directing me to an online shop where I can buy the product of my choosing. But they're not manipulating my choice in the way that ads are designed to do.