20 ms·

>I view it are advertisements pretending to be personal videos. She loves it. Your wife has a normal response to ads when the topic is interesting to the viewe

by jasode 8y ago

>I view it are advertisements pretending to be personal videos. She loves it. Your wife has a normal response to ads when the topic is interesting to the viewer. That's the holy grail of "relevant ads": the boundaries of the "ad" get blurred and the message of the product being sold is better received. Women buy Vogue Magazine for the ads of fashion. It's not just a female thing. Some males bought Computer Shopper[1] specifically for the ads. Why would consumers pay for ads?!? Because they're relevant to their interests. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Computer+Shopper+magazine&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=Computer+Shopper+magazine&so...

benjaminjackman 8y ago
I remember looking forward to the Sunday paper for the electronics store ads more than the paper itself (except maybe the sports section).
- badwolf 8y ago
  I was always excited to see what amazing deals Fry's Electronics had
- isostatic 8y ago
  Most people prefer the superbowl adverts to the actual game
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Truly, I think that’s an indictment of the game, and to some extent the audience, not an endorsement of the advertisements.
    - hermitdev 8y ago
      I don't necessarily think it's and indictment of the game, but by the time it gets to the Super Bowl, 30/32 fans have had their team eliminated, so it's kind of become a fun tradition. For me, personally, it is probably the only NFL game I do not watch tape delayed to skip the boring ever repetitive commercials. Seriously, if you watch a game live, you're going to see the same handful of commercials probably at least a dozen times each over the 3 hours a typical game last. Gets annoying and repetitive.
acjohnson55 8y ago
This reminds me of having a wealth manager that is broker/dealer. They recommend investments, but those investments don't have to be the best ones the advisor knows of for your situation. They merely need to be suitable. So while you may not be paying management fees for advisory services, the broker is compensated by commission, so it's basically advertising dressed up as advice.
- jasode 8y ago
  >This reminds me of having a wealth manager that is broker/dealer. [...], so it's basically advertising dressed up as advice. And your comment reminds me of one of my other examples of the "buyers buying ads": It isn't just small subscription amounts where people buy the ads in magazines; sometimes people will pay $12000 to be bombarded with ads. Who are those people and why would they do this?!? The example is the attendees to the Milken Institute conferences[0]. The ticket price is ~$12000 and it allows attendees to listen to "ad presentations" from fund managers. (Example.[1]) Yes, it's formally called a "discussion panel" but everybody knows that the fund managers on the stage are really advertising their firms' investing expertise without the vulgarity of explicitly labeling it "ads". If one only has an uncompromising view that _all_ ads are evil, it will not make any sense why pension fund custodians would pay thousands to view ads. On the other hand, if there's wiggle room for "relevant ads", the payment of $12k for ad presentations is perfectly rational. [0] https://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/ https://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFOPHUhRBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFOPHUhRBg
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Do the attendees pay for their own tickets, or are they able to get their fund to pay? If the latter, it just tells us that the fringe benefits of the conference are worth more than zero, and nothing about the benefits of ads.
    - jasode 8y ago
      >Do the attendees pay for their own tickets, or are they able to get their fund to pay? There's a mixture of both. The pension officer for institutions like California Retirement System will have his/her ticket paid but other folks that run their own small fund will pay their own way. The attendees all have the problem of "where do I put my institution's money?" and they go to the conference to listen to various presentations to be persuaded. Yes, there are also chances for networking and "meet & greet" but the event is largely a marketplace hub for "sellers" (funds) and "buyers" (institutions). The sellers (e.g. the hedge funds and the billionaire managers that appear on the stage) sponsor the show which in effect also funds Milken's 501c charity institution.
leereeves 8y ago
I can see the appeal of watching ads to learn what new products are available, but I would like to see them clearly identified as ads so people know they should be skeptical of any claims they make. Edit: and apparently that's required by the FTC as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18824620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18824620
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zrobotics 8y ago
That is essentially the sole reason I (edit:used to) read cycle world (plus the Kevin Cameron tech articles). Oftentimes the ads would be almost as interesting as the articles, since it was one of the most effective ways of keeping track of any interesting new models. And there is an excellent reason equipment manufacturers send electronics test equipment to the EEVblog channel. Even though there's a good chance it will be reviewed harshly, that channel definitely drove my last scope purchase. And I don't have a problem with this, since I don't find the content objectionable. I DO have a problem when the promotion is disguised or not disclosed, it is deceitful to not mention the product was free or that the company has compensated you. And there's no good reason not to, in fact I become suspicious otherwise.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >that channel definitely drove my last scope purchase. Did you buy a Rigol like everyone else? ;) Agreed on that channel, but as gruff and seemingly honest as that guy (Dave) is, at some point he’ll likely fall victim to some advertising shanannagans, it seems everyone does eventually.
- pjc50 8y ago
  It's not just a good idea, it's the law (in the UK): https://www.asa.org.uk/news/making-ads-clear-the-challenge-for-advertisers-and-vloggers.html https://www.asa.org.uk/news/making-ads-clear-the-challenge-f...
  - scoot 8y ago
    Where does the law stand if a promotional video made where disclosure is not required is available in the UK?
gowld 8y ago
There's a qualitative difference between being interested in learning the facts of the market -- what's on offer -- and being interested in editorial content that is actually an ad. For one, market facts (price, features, etc) are more likely to be honest, and for two, self-touting advertisements aren't hiding their bias. Advertorial content is doubly deceptive -- the content is biased AND the bias is hidden.
- efsavage 8y ago
  Bias is ever-present. Even a listing of "facts" is biased by what's included in the list, what order it's displayed in, what features are listed, etc. If you read/watch all of these types of pieces as opinion, you'll likely end up with a more accurate understanding of your choices.
  - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
    The fact that it's impossible to eliminate bias completely isn't a reason to avoid doing to reduce and make explicit bias in information sources. Perfect vs good
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  The difference between computer products and make-up products is that computer products are aimed at people who think they are too smart to be sold anything they don't really want, so the advertisement must be subtle. But that's it. Marketing products means advertising them to consumers. There's no gettting around that, no matter what the product is.
  - Distant_horizon 8y ago
    Respectfully, makeup shoppers are chemists and biologists these days – they are also unaware that they're being sold, until their bathroom drawer overflows with $2000 worth of jars.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Men have lifestyle/fashion magazines too GQ, Esquire, Men's Health, etc..
simias 8y ago
>Your wife has a normal response to ads when the topic is interesting to the viewer. That's the holy grail of "relevant ads": the boundaries of the "ad" get blurred and the message of the product being sold is better received. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that it's normal to love "relevant ads" when you know that it's actually an ad and not organic content? Because I personally disagree, I absolutely hate that and I feel scammed when it happens to me. It's fundamentally dishonest because it plays on the trust you have for the person doing the "ad". They betray this trust by pushing a product for money, not because they genuinely like it. Now if they actually say something like "okay, this is a sponsored video but I actually genuinely like this product" I can give it a pass. But if you don't actually care about the product and are just pushing the script given to you by the marketing dept without any obvious disclaimers then it's plain and simple scam in my book. Actually I expect that it's probably illegal in many places, especially when it's about gambling websites like in TFA. Now if you're saying that it's normal to like this content if you don't know it's an ad then yeah, I agree, but that's the scam. >Women buy Vogue Magazine for the ads of fashion. It's not just a female thing. Some males bought Computer Shopper[1] specifically for the ads. Why would consumers pay for ads?!? Because they're relevant to their interests. It's not the same thing, those are explicitly ads. The equivalent would be those fake articles that you can find in some magazines (especially the free newspapers they distribute in the subway in my experience, but also in online publications) where they mimic the format of real articles to push an ad. I actually fell for those a couple of times, generally you only have a small disclaimer in the top or bottom margin saying "this is sponsored content" or something similar. It's clearly meant to deceive.
docker_up 8y ago
I used to watch boring Saturday morning TV shows as a kid, because I knew they would have Atari 2600 ads during the breaks. It was the only exposure you would get to them as a kid in the 70s/80s.
xg15 8y ago
Indeed. Still doesn't change the fact that they are deceptive and manipulative. If I want to be a good homo economicus and update my information about the market, it's probably not the best idea to do so via a means that is by definition one-sided and actively tries to undermine my attempts at rational descision making. You wouldn't consume data from a web service that actively tries to hack you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by jasode 8y ago

benjaminjackman 8y ago

I remember looking forward to the Sunday paper for the electronics store ads more than the paper itself (except maybe the sports section).

badwolf 8y ago
I was always excited to see what amazing deals Fry's Electronics had
isostatic 8y ago
Most people prefer the superbowl adverts to the actual game
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Truly, I think that’s an indictment of the game, and to some extent the audience, not an endorsement of the advertisements.
  - hermitdev 8y ago
    I don't necessarily think it's and indictment of the game, but by the time it gets to the Super Bowl, 30/32 fans have had their team eliminated, so it's kind of become a fun tradition. For me, personally, it is probably the only NFL game I do not watch tape delayed to skip the boring ever repetitive commercials. Seriously, if you watch a game live, you're going to see the same handful of commercials probably at least a dozen times each over the 3 hours a typical game last. Gets annoying and repetitive.

acjohnson55 8y ago

This reminds me of having a wealth manager that is broker/dealer. They recommend investments, but those investments don't have to be the best ones the advisor knows of for your situation. They merely need to be suitable. So while you may not be paying management fees for advisory services, the broker is compensated by commission, so it's basically advertising dressed up as advice.

jasode 8y ago
>This reminds me of having a wealth manager that is broker/dealer. [...], so it's basically advertising dressed up as advice. And your comment reminds me of one of my other examples of the "buyers buying ads": It isn't just small subscription amounts where people buy the ads in magazines; sometimes people will pay $12000 to be bombarded with ads. Who are those people and why would they do this?!? The example is the attendees to the Milken Institute conferences[0]. The ticket price is ~$12000 and it allows attendees to listen to "ad presentations" from fund managers. (Example.[1]) Yes, it's formally called a "discussion panel" but everybody knows that the fund managers on the stage are really advertising their firms' investing expertise without the vulgarity of explicitly labeling it "ads". If one only has an uncompromising view that _all_ ads are evil, it will not make any sense why pension fund custodians would pay thousands to view ads. On the other hand, if there's wiggle room for "relevant ads", the payment of $12k for ad presentations is perfectly rational. [0] https://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/ https://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFOPHUhRBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpFOPHUhRBg
- mikeash 8y ago
  Do the attendees pay for their own tickets, or are they able to get their fund to pay? If the latter, it just tells us that the fringe benefits of the conference are worth more than zero, and nothing about the benefits of ads.
  - jasode 8y ago
    >Do the attendees pay for their own tickets, or are they able to get their fund to pay? There's a mixture of both. The pension officer for institutions like California Retirement System will have his/her ticket paid but other folks that run their own small fund will pay their own way. The attendees all have the problem of "where do I put my institution's money?" and they go to the conference to listen to various presentations to be persuaded. Yes, there are also chances for networking and "meet & greet" but the event is largely a marketplace hub for "sellers" (funds) and "buyers" (institutions). The sellers (e.g. the hedge funds and the billionaire managers that appear on the stage) sponsor the show which in effect also funds Milken's 501c charity institution.

leereeves 8y ago

I can see the appeal of watching ads to learn what new products are available, but I would like to see them clearly identified as ads so people know they should be skeptical of any claims they make. Edit: and apparently that's required by the FTC as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18824620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18824620

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

zrobotics 8y ago

That is essentially the sole reason I (edit:used to) read cycle world (plus the Kevin Cameron tech articles). Oftentimes the ads would be almost as interesting as the articles, since it was one of the most effective ways of keeping track of any interesting new models. And there is an excellent reason equipment manufacturers send electronics test equipment to the EEVblog channel. Even though there's a good chance it will be reviewed harshly, that channel definitely drove my last scope purchase. And I don't have a problem with this, since I don't find the content objectionable. I DO have a problem when the promotion is disguised or not disclosed, it is deceitful to not mention the product was free or that the company has compensated you. And there's no good reason not to, in fact I become suspicious otherwise.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>that channel definitely drove my last scope purchase. Did you buy a Rigol like everyone else? ;) Agreed on that channel, but as gruff and seemingly honest as that guy (Dave) is, at some point he’ll likely fall victim to some advertising shanannagans, it seems everyone does eventually.
pjc50 8y ago
It's not just a good idea, it's the law (in the UK): https://www.asa.org.uk/news/making-ads-clear-the-challenge-for-advertisers-and-vloggers.html https://www.asa.org.uk/news/making-ads-clear-the-challenge-f...
- scoot 8y ago
  Where does the law stand if a promotional video made where disclosure is not required is available in the UK?

gowld 8y ago

There's a qualitative difference between being interested in learning the facts of the market -- what's on offer -- and being interested in editorial content that is actually an ad. For one, market facts (price, features, etc) are more likely to be honest, and for two, self-touting advertisements aren't hiding their bias. Advertorial content is doubly deceptive -- the content is biased AND the bias is hidden.

efsavage 8y ago
Bias is ever-present. Even a listing of "facts" is biased by what's included in the list, what order it's displayed in, what features are listed, etc. If you read/watch all of these types of pieces as opinion, you'll likely end up with a more accurate understanding of your choices.
- BoiledCabbage 8y ago
  The fact that it's impossible to eliminate bias completely isn't a reason to avoid doing to reduce and make explicit bias in information sources. Perfect vs good
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
The difference between computer products and make-up products is that computer products are aimed at people who think they are too smart to be sold anything they don't really want, so the advertisement must be subtle. But that's it. Marketing products means advertising them to consumers. There's no gettting around that, no matter what the product is.
- Distant_horizon 8y ago
  Respectfully, makeup shoppers are chemists and biologists these days – they are also unaware that they're being sold, until their bathroom drawer overflows with $2000 worth of jars.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Men have lifestyle/fashion magazines too GQ, Esquire, Men's Health, etc..

simias 8y ago

>Your wife has a normal response to ads when the topic is interesting to the viewer. That's the holy grail of "relevant ads": the boundaries of the "ad" get blurred and the message of the product being sold is better received. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that it's normal to love "relevant ads" when you know that it's actually an ad and not organic content? Because I personally disagree, I absolutely hate that and I feel scammed when it happens to me. It's fundamentally dishonest because it plays on the trust you have for the person doing the "ad". They betray this trust by pushing a product for money, not because they genuinely like it. Now if they actually say something like "okay, this is a sponsored video but I actually genuinely like this product" I can give it a pass. But if you don't actually care about the product and are just pushing the script given to you by the marketing dept without any obvious disclaimers then it's plain and simple scam in my book. Actually I expect that it's probably illegal in many places, especially when it's about gambling websites like in TFA. Now if you're saying that it's normal to like this content if you don't know it's an ad then yeah, I agree, but that's the scam. >Women buy Vogue Magazine for the ads of fashion. It's not just a female thing. Some males bought Computer Shopper[1] specifically for the ads. Why would consumers pay for ads?!? Because they're relevant to their interests. It's not the same thing, those are explicitly ads. The equivalent would be those fake articles that you can find in some magazines (especially the free newspapers they distribute in the subway in my experience, but also in online publications) where they mimic the format of real articles to push an ad. I actually fell for those a couple of times, generally you only have a small disclaimer in the top or bottom margin saying "this is sponsored content" or something similar. It's clearly meant to deceive.

docker_up 8y ago

I used to watch boring Saturday morning TV shows as a kid, because I knew they would have Atari 2600 ads during the breaks. It was the only exposure you would get to them as a kid in the 70s/80s.

xg15 8y ago

Indeed. Still doesn't change the fact that they are deceptive and manipulative. If I want to be a good homo economicus and update my information about the market, it's probably not the best idea to do so via a means that is by definition one-sided and actively tries to undermine my attempts at rational descision making. You wouldn't consume data from a web service that actively tries to hack you.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]