4 ms·

I'm going to spin it around: It reduces revenue from ads, thereby reducing advertising. Now the question is, how much content do you think is both something you

I'm going to spin it around: It reduces revenue from ads, thereby reducing advertising. Now the question is, how much content do you think is both something you truly want to listen to and something few people are willing to directly support financially. Personally, I'm starting to think that maybe all the crud advertising enables is just another downside to ads, not the benefit in the cost-benefit analysis.

ucaetano 8y ago
So you'd kill advertising and content for everyone else just because you're personally willing to fork up money?
- jlarocco 8y ago
  I don't know about the OP, but I would. The advertising industry has repeatedly shown itself to be sleazy and underhanded and willing to throw everybody under the bus to make money for themselves. Spam, malware, pop-up ads, tracking cookies, extra loud volume commercials, etc. They can't go out of business fast enough, IMO. You probably wouldn't defend a pay-day loan business, so why defend advertisers?
- rebuilder 8y ago
  I don't have that power, and even if I did, I wouldn't ban advertising. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying I'm growing skeptical that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer, and am starting to think it may actually be harmful. A lot of media is designed to be addictive, hooking the consumer in order to create a captive audience for ad delivery. I'm no longer sure the ads themselves, or even the tracking they often entail, are the worst thing about the whole system. That's why I'm not too bothered about giving people the tools to not see or hear ads if they so choose.
  - jeena 8y ago
    > that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer They are not, advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game. They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game You're plainly, absolutely, completely, wrong. But, as you made the claim, I'll wait for your burden of proof. > They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product. You just stated a very narrow case, as if it represented the whole. Your argument is essentially "if you're selling well without ads, then ads will not add value", which is self-evident, but irrelevant.
      - jeena 8y ago
        How am I wrong that ads are a 0-sum game for the society? Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I really don't see where the value is for society. I understand that it's not for the advertiser, but for society?
        ucaetano 8y ago
        Advertising enables product discovery, price discovery, and so on. That should be enough to answer your question. Putting up a sign in front of your shop saying "New Mousetrap - Improved Design" is advertising. If you make a better mousetrap and nobody knows about it, your mousetrap is irrelevant. Sure, not all advertising generates benefits to society, just as not all products do.
        jeena 8y ago
        There is a difference though, if I want to know something then I search for information, I go from one shop to another and do research to discover the best product. Which is kind of a pull mechanism. What advertising does is a push mechanism, where they try to flood my brain with nonsense so that I get confused and don't buy the best product for me, but instead buy something the advertiser sells. Product and price discovery can be done by me doing research, so saying that it's advertising enabling that is just dishonest.

ucaetano 8y ago

So you'd kill advertising and content for everyone else just because you're personally willing to fork up money?

jlarocco 8y ago
I don't know about the OP, but I would. The advertising industry has repeatedly shown itself to be sleazy and underhanded and willing to throw everybody under the bus to make money for themselves. Spam, malware, pop-up ads, tracking cookies, extra loud volume commercials, etc. They can't go out of business fast enough, IMO. You probably wouldn't defend a pay-day loan business, so why defend advertisers?
rebuilder 8y ago
I don't have that power, and even if I did, I wouldn't ban advertising. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying I'm growing skeptical that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer, and am starting to think it may actually be harmful. A lot of media is designed to be addictive, hooking the consumer in order to create a captive audience for ad delivery. I'm no longer sure the ads themselves, or even the tracking they often entail, are the worst thing about the whole system. That's why I'm not too bothered about giving people the tools to not see or hear ads if they so choose.
- jeena 8y ago
  > that the content advertising finances is actually valuable to the consumer They are not, advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game. They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > advertisement never creates value for the society, it's a 0-sum game You're plainly, absolutely, completely, wrong. But, as you made the claim, I'll wait for your burden of proof. > They never add value they only shift the stream of money from a producer which makes a good product which would sell without ads to a producer which has money to invest in ads to trick people to buy the worse product. You just stated a very narrow case, as if it represented the whole. Your argument is essentially "if you're selling well without ads, then ads will not add value", which is self-evident, but irrelevant.
    - jeena 8y ago
      How am I wrong that ads are a 0-sum game for the society? Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I really don't see where the value is for society. I understand that it's not for the advertiser, but for society?
      - ucaetano 8y ago
        Advertising enables product discovery, price discovery, and so on. That should be enough to answer your question. Putting up a sign in front of your shop saying "New Mousetrap - Improved Design" is advertising. If you make a better mousetrap and nobody knows about it, your mousetrap is irrelevant. Sure, not all advertising generates benefits to society, just as not all products do.
        jeena 8y ago
        There is a difference though, if I want to know something then I search for information, I go from one shop to another and do research to discover the best product. Which is kind of a pull mechanism. What advertising does is a push mechanism, where they try to flood my brain with nonsense so that I get confused and don't buy the best product for me, but instead buy something the advertiser sells. Product and price discovery can be done by me doing research, so saying that it's advertising enabling that is just dishonest.