6 ms·

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance.

> They aren't free. You pay for them in high prices for good and services. Your reasoning is extremely fallacious because you're overlooking a lot of nuance. Yes, it is true that in aggregate part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. How much exactly depends on macroeconomic factors, industry dynamics, pricing power of distributors and retailers, and hundreds other variables. But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. However, advertising is valuable to advertisers because it works to some degree. And it works because people are influenced by it. Now, as an individual I have no control over what other people are doing and so I have no control over how valuable advertising is and how much is being spent on it and how much is being passed on to consumers. Therefore as an individual I look around me and prices are what they are and already have in them advertising costs which will not go up by me using service. Therefore as an individual the marginal cost of me using these services is effectively zero (imagine the ratio between the value of advertising to me and the aggregate value of advertising, that's effectively zero). As an individual those services are free. So it depends on what your definition of "free" is. A) Would prices be lower if advertising didn't exist? Yes [0]. B) Would prices be lower to me if I didn't use these services? No. The thing is that in definition A) I don't really have a choice, so it's irrelevant. I only have a choice as an individual. [0] And even here some people will disagree with you. What I call "free market fundamentalists" will argue that No, they wouldn't, because the advertising leads to higher sales and greater operational efficiency, so that advertising costs are exactly offset by lower per-unit costs.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
> But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising. > As an individual those services are free. Perhaps those are free to you, personally. Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > > But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. > If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising. > > As an individual those services are free. > Perhaps those are free to you, personally. > Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly. So you just repeated my points, but worse. For example, it is not true that the customers are paying for all of the advertising. The way to determine what customers are paying for is to see how the world with advertiising compares with the world without advertising, and there's many possibilities. A) with advertising the company revenues are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (companies pass all cost to consumers), B) with advertising company costs are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (meaning the companies pass all cost to shareholders in the form of lower margins and lower return on equity, or related metric), C) something in between. So it's not true that necessarily customers are paying for all of the advertising.
  - pbalau 9y ago
    If we are speaking about a product that I have to pay for or a paid service, then I will end up paying a share of the R&D, maintenance, advertising. If we are speaking about a service provided at no cost to me and the provider makes money off advertising, then I will end up paying some share of that if and only if my access to said service is charged by a 3rd party, eg a phone company that charges me for traffic, vs my home connection which is a flat rate, regardless if I use it or not.
sharemywin 9y ago
And as long as we as consumers and employees act as individuals and for profit companies act has collectives we will always be at a huge negotiating dis-advantage. The idea that corporations = people is foolish and obviously leading to a reality that doesn't fit the model.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil. "Oh, yes we harvested your data from all the sites you visited and used it to manipulate you in to buying stuff that harms your livelihood (gambling, say), but it's the _company_ that did it and so none of the controlling executives can be blamed!"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Except that has never, ever been the case. Before this trend of just going after the company as a whole came about, they would go after the executives. I don't believe yours is a valid concern.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil. This seems to, at best, reside outside of practical application. >The main target of the corporations-are-not-people crowd is the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling striking down limits on independent corporate spending in elections. After that case, groups sprang up to fight corporate personhood. Others rebranded themselves by newly taking aim at it. But they do not limit themselves to attacking the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Most groups make a broader attack on corporations being able to assert any First Amendment speech rights at all; and some have called for disabusing all corporations or businesses of any constitutional right. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corporations-are-people-they-should-act-like-it/385034/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corp...
  - 9y ago
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
>part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers // Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub. Not sure if your question is rhetorical or what. When you say "who else will pay "my" advertising bill". Who's "you" in this context? Are you a company, and consumer, what?
- sharemywin 9y ago
  I just said it wasn't free and we pay extra with a markup. if we just paid for it and had choices we would pay a lot less that's all I'm saying. or some kind of buying club.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago

> But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising. > As an individual those services are free. Perhaps those are free to you, personally. Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> > But you are right that in aggregate a non-zero amount of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers. > If a company's only source of revenue is customers, then, by definition, customers are paying for all of advertising. > > As an individual those services are free. > Perhaps those are free to you, personally. > Yet, on a global scale the sum is zero. If a company spends $$$ on advertising I'll eventually pay a fraction of it, directly or indirectly. So you just repeated my points, but worse. For example, it is not true that the customers are paying for all of the advertising. The way to determine what customers are paying for is to see how the world with advertiising compares with the world without advertising, and there's many possibilities. A) with advertising the company revenues are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (companies pass all cost to consumers), B) with advertising company costs are higher by the same amount on a per-unit basis (meaning the companies pass all cost to shareholders in the form of lower margins and lower return on equity, or related metric), C) something in between. So it's not true that necessarily customers are paying for all of the advertising.
- pbalau 9y ago
  If we are speaking about a product that I have to pay for or a paid service, then I will end up paying a share of the R&D, maintenance, advertising. If we are speaking about a service provided at no cost to me and the provider makes money off advertising, then I will end up paying some share of that if and only if my access to said service is charged by a 3rd party, eg a phone company that charges me for traffic, vs my home connection which is a flat rate, regardless if I use it or not.

sharemywin 9y ago

And as long as we as consumers and employees act as individuals and for profit companies act has collectives we will always be at a huge negotiating dis-advantage. The idea that corporations = people is foolish and obviously leading to a reality that doesn't fit the model.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil. "Oh, yes we harvested your data from all the sites you visited and used it to manipulate you in to buying stuff that harms your livelihood (gambling, say), but it's the _company_ that did it and so none of the controlling executives can be blamed!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Except that has never, ever been the case. Before this trend of just going after the company as a whole came about, they would go after the executives. I don't believe yours is a valid concern.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  >The idea that corporations aren't people leads to evil. This seems to, at best, reside outside of practical application. >The main target of the corporations-are-not-people crowd is the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling striking down limits on independent corporate spending in elections. After that case, groups sprang up to fight corporate personhood. Others rebranded themselves by newly taking aim at it. But they do not limit themselves to attacking the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Most groups make a broader attack on corporations being able to assert any First Amendment speech rights at all; and some have called for disabusing all corporations or businesses of any constitutional right. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corporations-are-people-they-should-act-like-it/385034/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/if-corp...
- 9y ago

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

>part of the advertising costs get passed on to consumers // Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago
> Can you tell me who else will pay my advertising bill, because it can be a complete money pit and getting someone to pay for it without using revenue from customers would be great. Let me know bub. Not sure if your question is rhetorical or what. When you say "who else will pay "my" advertising bill". Who's "you" in this context? Are you a company, and consumer, what?
sharemywin 9y ago
I just said it wasn't free and we pay extra with a markup. if we just paid for it and had choices we would pay a lot less that's all I'm saying. or some kind of buying club.