3 ms·
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 consum
by 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.