3 ms·

It seems to me like reviews and word-of-mouth can and already do a good job of all this. When I find out about new things, it's generally through social network

It seems to me like reviews and word-of-mouth can and already do a good job of all this. When I find out about new things, it's generally through social networks. And when I'm looking to buy something new I usually look for reviews. > How will I promote my new movie? Or book? The same way that people do today. Talk shows, trailers (which you let people organically share, rather than paying to put it in front of people), movie/book reviewers. > Besides, how many months go by with you happily using your razor before you sit down to research whether there are better options? I feel like you're countering your own point here. Buying a new razor when you're already happy with the one you're using is exactly the kind of consumerism that advertising encourages. > We've already got this dearth of creativity and risk-taking in Hollywood. Imagine how much worse it'd be if they couldn't advertise something new! I disagree. Imagine if advertising didn't exist, and the only way to get the word out about new movies was through movie reviews, and so studios were actually encouraged to make good movies. I think we would have a lot less riding on established IP.

moduspol 9y ago
> It seems to me like reviews and word-of-mouth can and already do a good job of all this. They do now, as part of a society that includes advertising. That word of mouth comes as a result of people being aware of things. Reviewers focus on reviewing things people are interested in reading about. All of these benefit from advertising. > Talk shows, trailers (which you let people organically share, rather than paying to put it in front of people), movie/book reviewers. We're going to get in pretty deep if people appearing on talk shows to promote something doesn't count as an advertisement. Even trailers have to be promoted somehow. They run the trailers in ads because they're effective! They're effective because a significant chunk of people wouldn't have seen the movie, who otherwise would have if they had known about it. They would have known about it if the general word of mouth and close friends on social networks were enough. But it isn't. Clearly reviews and word of mouth are not sufficient. > I feel like you're countering your own point here. Buying a new razor when you're already happy with the one you're using is exactly the kind of consumerism that advertising encourages. Me continuing to drive to a Target to pay $7 for a four-blade razor with special proprietary blade cartridges because I assume better options don't exist due to not spending time researching the purchase is not reduced materialism or consumerism. It's just protecting the status quo. > I disagree. Imagine if advertising didn't exist, and the only way to get the word out about new movies was through movie reviews, and so studios were actually encouraged to make good movies. I think we would have a lot less riding on established IP. Putting aside that movie reviews are not as inherently separate from advertising as you're suggesting, I totally disagree. Only a small subset of moviegoers actually read reviews ahead of time and use that to influence a decision. We'd only see more people showing up to see brands they already know well (e.g. Star Wars, Transformers) and less likely to attend movies they've heard / seen nothing about. The people who don't value reviews won't suddenly start valuing them, and the gap between "things movie critics like" and "thing general moviegoers like" won't close. Same with buying a soda from a company other than Coke/Pepsi. Same with buying an unknown shampoo brand, or an unknown car brand, etc. Except it's really even worse in other industries because people aren't looking for or expecting a new shampoo. And so we just stick to whatever we've been buying, even if it's some huge megacorp milking their brand because competitors have no platform to make the case that they're better.
- seanwilson 9y ago
  I agree with you. Obviously I'm against manipulative, deceptive and obnoxious advertising but it's beneficial to consumers and companies for consumers to find out about new products through ads that will save them time, save them money, be enjoyable etc. It doesn't seem realistic at all to me that someone would invest piles of money into a product that solved a problem people didn't know they have or significantly improves on an existing product where you're only route to communicate this with customers would be to ask for reviews, hope that your target market actively looks for reviews and hope word of mouth spreads. Don't we hear all the time on hackernews about how building a great product isn't enough if you don't have a marketing strategy? I find it hard how you can disagree with ads for entertainment especially. Why would you be against knowing a sequel to a movie or game you like but don't actively follow just came out? There must be some happy middle ground between obnoxious privacy invading ads and no ads at all.
- acoard 9y ago
  >They do now, as part of a society that includes advertising. That word of mouth comes as a result of people being aware of things. Word of mouth has worked fine long before mass media advertising became a thing. Is our society and economy dependant on advertising? Absolutely. Has it always been this way, and must it always be this way? Not so much.

moduspol 9y ago

> It seems to me like reviews and word-of-mouth can and already do a good job of all this. They do now, as part of a society that includes advertising. That word of mouth comes as a result of people being aware of things. Reviewers focus on reviewing things people are interested in reading about. All of these benefit from advertising. > Talk shows, trailers (which you let people organically share, rather than paying to put it in front of people), movie/book reviewers. We're going to get in pretty deep if people appearing on talk shows to promote something doesn't count as an advertisement. Even trailers have to be promoted somehow. They run the trailers in ads because they're effective! They're effective because a significant chunk of people wouldn't have seen the movie, who otherwise would have if they had known about it. They would have known about it if the general word of mouth and close friends on social networks were enough. But it isn't. Clearly reviews and word of mouth are not sufficient. > I feel like you're countering your own point here. Buying a new razor when you're already happy with the one you're using is exactly the kind of consumerism that advertising encourages. Me continuing to drive to a Target to pay $7 for a four-blade razor with special proprietary blade cartridges because I assume better options don't exist due to not spending time researching the purchase is not reduced materialism or consumerism. It's just protecting the status quo. > I disagree. Imagine if advertising didn't exist, and the only way to get the word out about new movies was through movie reviews, and so studios were actually encouraged to make good movies. I think we would have a lot less riding on established IP. Putting aside that movie reviews are not as inherently separate from advertising as you're suggesting, I totally disagree. Only a small subset of moviegoers actually read reviews ahead of time and use that to influence a decision. We'd only see more people showing up to see brands they already know well (e.g. Star Wars, Transformers) and less likely to attend movies they've heard / seen nothing about. The people who don't value reviews won't suddenly start valuing them, and the gap between "things movie critics like" and "thing general moviegoers like" won't close. Same with buying a soda from a company other than Coke/Pepsi. Same with buying an unknown shampoo brand, or an unknown car brand, etc. Except it's really even worse in other industries because people aren't looking for or expecting a new shampoo. And so we just stick to whatever we've been buying, even if it's some huge megacorp milking their brand because competitors have no platform to make the case that they're better.

seanwilson 9y ago
I agree with you. Obviously I'm against manipulative, deceptive and obnoxious advertising but it's beneficial to consumers and companies for consumers to find out about new products through ads that will save them time, save them money, be enjoyable etc. It doesn't seem realistic at all to me that someone would invest piles of money into a product that solved a problem people didn't know they have or significantly improves on an existing product where you're only route to communicate this with customers would be to ask for reviews, hope that your target market actively looks for reviews and hope word of mouth spreads. Don't we hear all the time on hackernews about how building a great product isn't enough if you don't have a marketing strategy? I find it hard how you can disagree with ads for entertainment especially. Why would you be against knowing a sequel to a movie or game you like but don't actively follow just came out? There must be some happy middle ground between obnoxious privacy invading ads and no ads at all.
acoard 9y ago
>They do now, as part of a society that includes advertising. That word of mouth comes as a result of people being aware of things. Word of mouth has worked fine long before mass media advertising became a thing. Is our society and economy dependant on advertising? Absolutely. Has it always been this way, and must it always be this way? Not so much.