7 ms·

GDPR discussion aside, this seems like an example of something I've been thinking about: why are we (societally etc) okay with ads that have basically nothing t

GDPR discussion aside, this seems like an example of something I've been thinking about: why are we (societally etc) okay with ads that have basically nothing to do with the product?

chrisseaton 8y ago
Seems a funny thing to moralise over. Is it a problem?
- mrob 8y ago
  The usual excuse for advertising being morally acceptable is that it informs potential customers about the product. If it has nothing to do with the product then its only possible purpose is deception.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    If an advert doesn’t mention the product it seems very hard to say that it’s deveiving you about what the product will do, doesn’t it?
    - chongli 8y ago
      It's deceiving you in a far less obvious and ham-fisted way: it's associating a brand with your lifestyle and your identity. It's using insights gained from psychology research to try to hack your brain into thinking that this brand is part of your tribe. And it works. To an obscene degree, really.
  - gingerbread-man 8y ago
    The iconic "1984" Apple ad was about as abstract as anything on today's screens. It did tell users about the product, indirectly, by telling them about the values of the Apple brand and company. And I'd much prefer to watch that than the harrowing "Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead" commercial.
    - masonic 8y ago
      telling them about the values of the Apple brand and company It was ad genius but said nothing about any Apple "values". It instead attacked the IBM/DOS world as an Orwellian nightmare disrupted by a hot, busty female. It was about destruction, not "values".
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      > And I'd much prefer to watch that than the harrowing "Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead" commercial. Haha that commercial is so entertaining in its absurdism
  - feri339 8y ago
    I wouldn't say deception. It's more a manipulation. I'm sure there are hundreds studies in neuroscience and behavioral economics that tell advertisers exactly which buttons to push. Most ads, especially brand advertisement aren't supposed to effect an immediate reaction. Way down the line they may influence you subconsciously though.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > The usual excuse for advertising being morally acceptable is that it informs potential customers about the product. And it's a bullshit excuse at that. Advertising uses concepts developed in propaganda and psychological warfare to play on human insecurities in order to make them feel inadequate without your product.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  I would say it can be because it makes ads manipulative. Think for example of the Axe ads that try to tell people that the deodorant will turn them into attractive romantic partners, I don't think that's very likely. Advertisement in a good sense increases the information a consumer has about a product, and would help a consumer make a more accurate choice. Advertisement that just plays to the lizard part of our brains accomplishes the opposite. The entire advertisement industry is basically a hundreds of billions dollar experiment on how to reshape human attention. If a group of scientists or a government would run an experiment of that size on the human cognition, people would probably be very concerned.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    How do you think a reputable perfume manufacturer should advertise their product? Should they not? What dry information can they give you about their product to better inform you with images and audio alone?
    - chongli 8y ago
      I don't think people need perfume, thank you. The fact that a perfume manufacturer is "reputable" has more to do with the efforts of their marketing department than it does with any sort of merit.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        I think this is such an extreme and oppressive vision of society that it's probably not worth trying to debate it with you.
        chongli 8y ago
        Oppressive? Did I say we should ban perfume or perfume manufacturers? No. Just because I think they're unethical doesn't mean I think they should be illegal.
        deleted 8y ago
- BurritoAlPastor 8y ago
  Sure. The simplest, and in my view strongest, argument for why we as a society should accept and tolerate advertising is that it provides a mechanism for consumers to learn about things they want. But, if you accept that, then you have to deal with this problem: why do we still allow advertising which cannot inform? Like, what societal value is provided by an ad for your local power utility? Either you already knew about them, or you don’t need to know about them. Conversely, what value is presented by an ad which is designed to not inform me about anything?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > The simplest, and in my view strongest, argument for why we as a society should accept and tolerate advertising is that it provides a mechanism for consumers to learn about things they want. This is a solid argument, but it's used mostly as motte-and-bailey, a bait-and-switch. Ads are important because they are the mechanism for product discovery. But in reality, most ads are not like that - they're no longer about discovery, but about shifting where the spending goes. Personally, I'd be fine if all ads except purely discovery-related were to disappear.
- bredren 8y ago
  No matter his personal practices, this guy was basically a secular saint. So I personally do think it matters that his name and image would be used to sell smartphones. I realize the production company has a good sized staff, a board and ambitions to carry on their mission. But paying for it this way looks cheap and like they aren’t really trying. Given the weight and voice of this brand I suspect they could have earned just as much through some kind of crowdfund. I think it is a bad sign of things to come w regard to the use of me Rogers content, unfortunately. This taps into a bigger question about the use of a dead persons name and image to make money. This came up when Kurt Cobain was made to sing any song on Rock Band a few years ago: https://www.alistdaily.com/media/bon-jovi-weighs-in-on-cobain-guitar-hero-controversy/ https://www.alistdaily.com/media/bon-jovi-weighs-in-on-cobai... While I carry no celebrity, it would matter to me if my name and image were exploited in a way that was against my values. One of the things that supposedly sets us apart from “animals” is that we have respect for and bury our dead. I’d say that foundations, organizations or “estates” that need to exploit the persons image for financial reasons fail to meet this test.
DaveWalk 8y ago
To me, it's the end game for consumerism. The products themselves just get in the way -- the feeling is what you really want to have. It's not new, I think. Just perhaps a little more blatant, and for more companies, than previously.
- Pulcinella 8y ago
  It is at least the end game for marketing and advertising. E.g. Red Bull marketing wants to sell you the feelings of a life style, not a caffeinated beverage. It’s definitely been around for a long time for some companies (I think auto manufacturers have been trying to sell cars = personal freedom and status as long as the car has existed) and you could argue that governments and religions have been doing it all of history, but I do agree that a lot more companies have been doing it the past several decades. Every damn podcast ad has to be about how a razor, mattress, or pair of underwear is a defining, empowering lifestyle choice.
  - brett40324 8y ago
    Yep, this. It's branding 101. Rolex is not in the wristwatch business! They sell luxury, period.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    I think there is a danger, because to many having a car is a person freedom (and a not inconsiderable one). If you are selling the benefits, selling the benefit that you can go anywhere you want with a car is a pretty obvious choice. As for the style: conspicuous consumption may have been the first consumption, after basic subsistence.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I think that is a pitfall of specialization and fiefdoms actually. To focus on finer and finer details they must start to disregard or abstract away the other portions because otherwise they aren't specialists by definition. While needed at times it comes with disadvantages of focusing on the 'art' as it were as opposed to the end result and it crops up in all sorts of large projects. The car actually being controllable gets in the way of making it more powerful.
rukuu001 8y ago
If the ad is engaging, that's enough for consumers.
rayiner 8y ago
Because we live in the end stage of our civilization.
brandonmenc 8y ago
Because products are rarely compelling enough on their own to occupy brain space, but feelings and experiences are.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Which is one of the reason I call most ads abuse (and got into a lengthy subthread because of that recently). If a product is not compelling enough on its own to occupy brain space, what entitles the seller to perform emotional trickery to gain the place in people's minds they're not supposed to?
pesmhey 8y ago
The lifestyle depicted IS the product. It’s an entire ecosystem of values, where buying a Pixel allows you to participate.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  This is the bullshit ads try to sell you. Few of the products have actual ecosystem of shared values, much less have those values shared by the company making the product.
Nasrudith 8y ago
I think it is occupational ease more than anything else in marketing. Having to deal with the actual details is 'boring' even if it is relevant and advertising is all about what sounds good instead of actually being good. That is a widespread issue with society in itself and trend following. And metric-itis operates based upon things like 'was the ad or brand remembered' as opposed to 'did it actually improve sales'? You get what you measure for. As for being okay with it the whole thing falls into tautology logic - it works because it works until it doesn't. If people actually cared enough about relevance than the problem would take care of itself by being absolutely useless.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  Let's not assume the industry is irrational in it's metrics. Coca-cola sells 5 cents of sugar water for $1.75 via advertising, except the advertising for some reason is about poorly-animated polar bears or some demographically-balanced group of people having a good time. Maybe they know more than we do.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Coca-Cola plays in different league than 99% of companies. Coca-Cola and McDonalds are ages-old established brands, a huge parts of western culture. They can't possibly get any more exposure than they already have. I do not know what is their exact strategy, but to me it seems more about maintaining constant level of presence in people's minds, so that everyone just remembers they're still there and still good.
  - selimthegrim 8y ago
    Seeing as they made their name an adjective in Japan “I feel Coke”, I believe it.
qbrass 8y ago
We'd rather be entertained then listen to some boring talk about a product we don't really care about.
99_00 8y ago
consumers are ok with ads that have basically nothing to do with the product because we aren't paying for them and they are not offensive. companies who pay for them are ok with them because they work.
brycehamrick 8y ago
How could you possible draw any kind of line in the sand on how closely the advertising needs to be to the product being advertised? I don't think that's possible. For something tangible, like an iPhone, sure. Show the product, talk about its features, whatever. But lots of things aren't that tangible, or if you talked about them that way the people who saw the ad wouldn't even understand what was being offered. #1 rule of sales is that people don't buy products, they buy transformation. The product is the tool to get that transformation, so it's often more effective and more relevant to pitch the end result (which can be something immeasurable like a feeling) instead of the actual product. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The issue here is different entirely. It's making a person a brand rep without their consent, because they're conveniently deceased.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > #1 rule of sales is that people don't buy products, they buy transformation. It is so, and yet here I believe is the point where ads/sales become dishonest. I'd gladly seen all of them banned past this point. Ethical ads should communicate existence of a product/service, the products it solves, and the special features it utilizes. They shouldn't abuse people's emotions.
lucozade 8y ago
I can't speak for society but, personally, I don't have any more issues with brand advertising than I do with product advertising. And, equally personally, I wouldn't want anyone to do anything about this. I find it quite useful. I realised some time ago (actually is was when Claudia Schiffer advertised a Citroen, but that's not important) that, if the ad agency wants you to be distracted from a product, that's valuable information about the product.

GDPR discussion aside, this seems like an example of something I've been thinking about: why are we (societally etc) okay with ads that have basically nothing to do with the product?

chrisseaton 8y ago

Seems a funny thing to moralise over. Is it a problem?

mrob 8y ago
The usual excuse for advertising being morally acceptable is that it informs potential customers about the product. If it has nothing to do with the product then its only possible purpose is deception.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  If an advert doesn’t mention the product it seems very hard to say that it’s deveiving you about what the product will do, doesn’t it?
  - chongli 8y ago
    It's deceiving you in a far less obvious and ham-fisted way: it's associating a brand with your lifestyle and your identity. It's using insights gained from psychology research to try to hack your brain into thinking that this brand is part of your tribe. And it works. To an obscene degree, really.
- gingerbread-man 8y ago
  The iconic "1984" Apple ad was about as abstract as anything on today's screens. It did tell users about the product, indirectly, by telling them about the values of the Apple brand and company. And I'd much prefer to watch that than the harrowing "Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead" commercial.
  - masonic 8y ago
    telling them about the values of the Apple brand and company It was ad genius but said nothing about any Apple "values". It instead attacked the IBM/DOS world as an Orwellian nightmare disrupted by a hot, busty female. It was about destruction, not "values".
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    > And I'd much prefer to watch that than the harrowing "Head-On: Apply directly to the forehead" commercial. Haha that commercial is so entertaining in its absurdism
- feri339 8y ago
  I wouldn't say deception. It's more a manipulation. I'm sure there are hundreds studies in neuroscience and behavioral economics that tell advertisers exactly which buttons to push. Most ads, especially brand advertisement aren't supposed to effect an immediate reaction. Way down the line they may influence you subconsciously though.
- ionised 8y ago
  > The usual excuse for advertising being morally acceptable is that it informs potential customers about the product. And it's a bullshit excuse at that. Advertising uses concepts developed in propaganda and psychological warfare to play on human insecurities in order to make them feel inadequate without your product.
Barrin92 8y ago
I would say it can be because it makes ads manipulative. Think for example of the Axe ads that try to tell people that the deodorant will turn them into attractive romantic partners, I don't think that's very likely. Advertisement in a good sense increases the information a consumer has about a product, and would help a consumer make a more accurate choice. Advertisement that just plays to the lizard part of our brains accomplishes the opposite. The entire advertisement industry is basically a hundreds of billions dollar experiment on how to reshape human attention. If a group of scientists or a government would run an experiment of that size on the human cognition, people would probably be very concerned.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  How do you think a reputable perfume manufacturer should advertise their product? Should they not? What dry information can they give you about their product to better inform you with images and audio alone?
  - chongli 8y ago
    I don't think people need perfume, thank you. The fact that a perfume manufacturer is "reputable" has more to do with the efforts of their marketing department than it does with any sort of merit.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      I think this is such an extreme and oppressive vision of society that it's probably not worth trying to debate it with you.
      - chongli 8y ago
        Oppressive? Did I say we should ban perfume or perfume manufacturers? No. Just because I think they're unethical doesn't mean I think they should be illegal.
        deleted 8y ago
BurritoAlPastor 8y ago
Sure. The simplest, and in my view strongest, argument for why we as a society should accept and tolerate advertising is that it provides a mechanism for consumers to learn about things they want. But, if you accept that, then you have to deal with this problem: why do we still allow advertising which cannot inform? Like, what societal value is provided by an ad for your local power utility? Either you already knew about them, or you don’t need to know about them. Conversely, what value is presented by an ad which is designed to not inform me about anything?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > The simplest, and in my view strongest, argument for why we as a society should accept and tolerate advertising is that it provides a mechanism for consumers to learn about things they want. This is a solid argument, but it's used mostly as motte-and-bailey, a bait-and-switch. Ads are important because they are the mechanism for product discovery. But in reality, most ads are not like that - they're no longer about discovery, but about shifting where the spending goes. Personally, I'd be fine if all ads except purely discovery-related were to disappear.
bredren 8y ago
No matter his personal practices, this guy was basically a secular saint. So I personally do think it matters that his name and image would be used to sell smartphones. I realize the production company has a good sized staff, a board and ambitions to carry on their mission. But paying for it this way looks cheap and like they aren’t really trying. Given the weight and voice of this brand I suspect they could have earned just as much through some kind of crowdfund. I think it is a bad sign of things to come w regard to the use of me Rogers content, unfortunately. This taps into a bigger question about the use of a dead persons name and image to make money. This came up when Kurt Cobain was made to sing any song on Rock Band a few years ago: https://www.alistdaily.com/media/bon-jovi-weighs-in-on-cobain-guitar-hero-controversy/ https://www.alistdaily.com/media/bon-jovi-weighs-in-on-cobai... While I carry no celebrity, it would matter to me if my name and image were exploited in a way that was against my values. One of the things that supposedly sets us apart from “animals” is that we have respect for and bury our dead. I’d say that foundations, organizations or “estates” that need to exploit the persons image for financial reasons fail to meet this test.

DaveWalk 8y ago

To me, it's the end game for consumerism. The products themselves just get in the way -- the feeling is what you really want to have. It's not new, I think. Just perhaps a little more blatant, and for more companies, than previously.

Pulcinella 8y ago
It is at least the end game for marketing and advertising. E.g. Red Bull marketing wants to sell you the feelings of a life style, not a caffeinated beverage. It’s definitely been around for a long time for some companies (I think auto manufacturers have been trying to sell cars = personal freedom and status as long as the car has existed) and you could argue that governments and religions have been doing it all of history, but I do agree that a lot more companies have been doing it the past several decades. Every damn podcast ad has to be about how a razor, mattress, or pair of underwear is a defining, empowering lifestyle choice.
- brett40324 8y ago
  Yep, this. It's branding 101. Rolex is not in the wristwatch business! They sell luxury, period.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  I think there is a danger, because to many having a car is a person freedom (and a not inconsiderable one). If you are selling the benefits, selling the benefit that you can go anywhere you want with a car is a pretty obvious choice. As for the style: conspicuous consumption may have been the first consumption, after basic subsistence.
Nasrudith 8y ago
I think that is a pitfall of specialization and fiefdoms actually. To focus on finer and finer details they must start to disregard or abstract away the other portions because otherwise they aren't specialists by definition. While needed at times it comes with disadvantages of focusing on the 'art' as it were as opposed to the end result and it crops up in all sorts of large projects. The car actually being controllable gets in the way of making it more powerful.

rukuu001 8y ago

If the ad is engaging, that's enough for consumers.

rayiner 8y ago

Because we live in the end stage of our civilization.

brandonmenc 8y ago

Because products are rarely compelling enough on their own to occupy brain space, but feelings and experiences are.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Which is one of the reason I call most ads abuse (and got into a lengthy subthread because of that recently). If a product is not compelling enough on its own to occupy brain space, what entitles the seller to perform emotional trickery to gain the place in people's minds they're not supposed to?

pesmhey 8y ago

The lifestyle depicted IS the product. It’s an entire ecosystem of values, where buying a Pixel allows you to participate.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
This is the bullshit ads try to sell you. Few of the products have actual ecosystem of shared values, much less have those values shared by the company making the product.

Nasrudith 8y ago

I think it is occupational ease more than anything else in marketing. Having to deal with the actual details is 'boring' even if it is relevant and advertising is all about what sounds good instead of actually being good. That is a widespread issue with society in itself and trend following. And metric-itis operates based upon things like 'was the ad or brand remembered' as opposed to 'did it actually improve sales'? You get what you measure for. As for being okay with it the whole thing falls into tautology logic - it works because it works until it doesn't. If people actually cared enough about relevance than the problem would take care of itself by being absolutely useless.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Let's not assume the industry is irrational in it's metrics. Coca-cola sells 5 cents of sugar water for $1.75 via advertising, except the advertising for some reason is about poorly-animated polar bears or some demographically-balanced group of people having a good time. Maybe they know more than we do.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Coca-Cola plays in different league than 99% of companies. Coca-Cola and McDonalds are ages-old established brands, a huge parts of western culture. They can't possibly get any more exposure than they already have. I do not know what is their exact strategy, but to me it seems more about maintaining constant level of presence in people's minds, so that everyone just remembers they're still there and still good.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  Seeing as they made their name an adjective in Japan “I feel Coke”, I believe it.

qbrass 8y ago

We'd rather be entertained then listen to some boring talk about a product we don't really care about.

99_00 8y ago

consumers are ok with ads that have basically nothing to do with the product because we aren't paying for them and they are not offensive. companies who pay for them are ok with them because they work.

brycehamrick 8y ago

How could you possible draw any kind of line in the sand on how closely the advertising needs to be to the product being advertised? I don't think that's possible. For something tangible, like an iPhone, sure. Show the product, talk about its features, whatever. But lots of things aren't that tangible, or if you talked about them that way the people who saw the ad wouldn't even understand what was being offered. #1 rule of sales is that people don't buy products, they buy transformation. The product is the tool to get that transformation, so it's often more effective and more relevant to pitch the end result (which can be something immeasurable like a feeling) instead of the actual product. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The issue here is different entirely. It's making a person a brand rep without their consent, because they're conveniently deceased.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> #1 rule of sales is that people don't buy products, they buy transformation. It is so, and yet here I believe is the point where ads/sales become dishonest. I'd gladly seen all of them banned past this point. Ethical ads should communicate existence of a product/service, the products it solves, and the special features it utilizes. They shouldn't abuse people's emotions.

lucozade 8y ago

I can't speak for society but, personally, I don't have any more issues with brand advertising than I do with product advertising. And, equally personally, I wouldn't want anyone to do anything about this. I find it quite useful. I realised some time ago (actually is was when Claudia Schiffer advertised a Citroen, but that's not important) that, if the ad agency wants you to be distracted from a product, that's valuable information about the product.