7 ms·

Doubling of advertising expidenture (Which is a massive, sea change) would apparently make people 3% less happy. So basically it has a negligible impact on happ

by cm2012 7y ago

Doubling of advertising expidenture (Which is a massive, sea change) would apparently make people 3% less happy. So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. I highly doubt it is true though. It's a purely correlational study, that says from 1980-2011, advertising increased and people in general got 3% less happy. They say they accounted for GDP when doing their regression, but so many other things affect advertising spend as a whole that wouldn't show there. More globalization coming to a country (as markets open up and global firms find advertising worth their while), changes in industry make-up, political election cycles becoming more heated, internet connectivity (which would be huge in the time period they studied, and would greatly impact ad spend numbers with it), etc. It is really, really hard to actually change people's opinions with advertising. The closest you can do is convert their existing opinions into actions. There is a ton of good academic literature on this - here's a good primer: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Advertising-Uneasy-Persuasion-Dubious-American/dp/0465000800&ved=2ahUKEwihqqSaj7_iAhXyRd8KHY3YCIYQFjAAegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw0KfSud7yAwUmzwvRqc9Jye https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

jacquesm 7y ago
So, halving it would make people 3% more happy. I say halve it 30 times in a row then. These silly stats make no sense at all.
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  That doesn't follow.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
      Not really, though -- it was empirical, and the fact that an estimate of the first halving does X doesn't imply that further halving will have the same effect, so a reductio doesn't work here.
- dTal 7y ago
  Percentages don't work that way. Don't blame the stats for your own misunderstanding.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Yes, that was sort of the point.
    - dTal 7y ago
      Sorry.
kazinator 7y ago
The spending on advertizing likely has diminishing returns. The marginal decrease in satisfaction that would come from doubling the spending is possibly smaller than the baseline decrease caused by the initial expenditure.
- cm2012 7y ago
  There's nothing in their data to support this, and if the effect was there they would have seen it (since they have yearly happiness data). They describe a linear correlation.
  - macleginn 7y ago
    They describe a linear correlation because they fitted linear correlation. All kinds of interesting effects could be hidden in the residuals, but they don't show them.
anoncake 7y ago
Happiness is the one thing we should be optimizing for. 3% is not negligible if there is no trade-off.
- cm2012 7y ago
  Again, I don't think the correlation holds in the first place. But if it did, there absolutely is a trade-off. It's more or less impossible to grow any endeavor beyond local scale without ads, unless you're lucky enough to be an industry with a strong viral or press component. Take a look at the S-1s of most companies that go public. 9/10 of the companies have been able to grow because of ads.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    I don't think you understand what I mean by "there is no trade-off". Those endeavours are only useful if and to the extent they create happiness. Also: Companies need ads to grow because their competitors also have ads. That doesn't mean they'd need ads in if ads didn't exist. The one legitimate purpose ads serve – could easily be served through other mechanisms, e.g. by the press. Maybe the press would have to expand but advertising isn't free either. In any case, an independent press is much more suitable to actually inform people than the ad industry which at best informs people by accident while trying to convince people to buy $PRODUCT. Ads are like military: It's mostly necessary because it exists.
    - cm2012 7y ago
      Okay. So say you make an app that helps plumbers do their job well. If every plumber used it, plumber productivity would go up 50%, making life easier for all. It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it. There's a big plumber app on the market already, but yours is way better. How do you get plumbers to hear about your product? 1) The press? Uninterested. Plumber magazines or sites? Very low traffic - no way to scale. 2) Call or knock on doors of every plumber near you? If everyone did this, the spam would be unreal. Also inefficient and not scalable. 3) Referrals? You get some, but most plumbers aren't chomping at the bit to help their competitors. And because you started with so few, referrals are a snails pace and by no means exponential. 4) Organic postings and SEO? The big plumber app is way ahead of you. And 100 other worse apps clog up the listings. No one sees your posts. See the problem? Without ads, you can't grow many many categories of genuinely valuable products. Even if no one else is advertising, you can't really grow without them. This is barely a hypothetical by the way. I've worked with a dozen companies with similar situations.
JohnFen 7y ago
> So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. Not to those 3%, and since advertising provides very little benefit to anyone who isn't in the ad business, I would be happy to that 3%.
- cm2012 7y ago
  I don't think that correlation is accurate. But even if it is, there is a trade-off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    I understand. I'm not saying that I accept that the correlation is accurate. I'm just saying that if it is, the tradeoff to stop making 3% of people less happy is totally worthwhile. But of course, still in the hypothetical, it wouldn't be necessary for ads to disappear to accomplish this. All that would be necessary is for advertising to adhere to the ideals the ad industry itself says it holds: rather than manipulating people, ads could just inform people what the product is, what it does, and what its strengths (and, as long as I'm dreaming, weaknesses) are. But the vast majority of ads do none of that. Instead, they engage in psychological manipulation.
    - cm2012 7y ago
      I'd take issue with that. Go to https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&q=Gap&view_all_page_id=14856729724 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_t... and look up some random brands you've heard of. The vast majority of ads are on the level. The ones that aren't are when the product itself is a scam most of the time.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        I don't do Facebook, and have no clue what FB ads look like. I'm talking about advertising generally, online and off. I very rarely see ads that are like that.
FabHK 7y ago
> So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. You are wrong. The paper goes on to say, in the very next sentence, that 3% is "approximately one half the absolute size of the marriage effect on life satisfaction, or approximately one quarter of the absolute size of the effect of being unemployed", thus (while smaller), it's the same order of magnitude. Presumably you do not consider the impact of marriage or unemployment "basically negligible"? > It is really, really hard to actually change people's opinions with advertising. That may be as it may, but that is not what the paper is talking about.
- cm2012 7y ago
  I saw that. I still think it's small. 3% is 3%, even if their measure shows marriage being 6%. Changing peoples minds about their self worth is still changing their mind.
scottrogowski 7y ago
This. I am surprised to see hacker news jump on this as proof that advertising causes reduced happiness when this article can only conclude that they are correlated. The common statistical maxim is that correlation does not imply causation. A far more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that greater development is associated with both increased advertising and a reduction in happiness. And yes, the summary does state that they were able to show that it is uncorrelated with GDP but what's telling is that the prominent bar graph is "uncorrected". So, after correcting, the advertising effect may be so minor that they chose not to graph it at all. I do my best to limit advertising in my own life because I myself believe that I am a happier person without it. This study, however, is misleading and doesn't give us evidence of much of anything.
countavdhesh 7y ago
GDP measures activity involving money, but makes no distinction between useful, useless and harmful activity. the cost of cleaning up pollution is added to the GDP.

by cm2012 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

So, halving it would make people 3% more happy. I say halve it 30 times in a row then. These silly stats make no sense at all.

Matticus_Rex 7y ago
That doesn't follow.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
    Not really, though -- it was empirical, and the fact that an estimate of the first halving does X doesn't imply that further halving will have the same effect, so a reductio doesn't work here.
dTal 7y ago
Percentages don't work that way. Don't blame the stats for your own misunderstanding.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Yes, that was sort of the point.
  - dTal 7y ago
    Sorry.

kazinator 7y ago

The spending on advertizing likely has diminishing returns. The marginal decrease in satisfaction that would come from doubling the spending is possibly smaller than the baseline decrease caused by the initial expenditure.

cm2012 7y ago
There's nothing in their data to support this, and if the effect was there they would have seen it (since they have yearly happiness data). They describe a linear correlation.
- macleginn 7y ago
  They describe a linear correlation because they fitted linear correlation. All kinds of interesting effects could be hidden in the residuals, but they don't show them.

anoncake 7y ago

Happiness is the one thing we should be optimizing for. 3% is not negligible if there is no trade-off.

cm2012 7y ago
Again, I don't think the correlation holds in the first place. But if it did, there absolutely is a trade-off. It's more or less impossible to grow any endeavor beyond local scale without ads, unless you're lucky enough to be an industry with a strong viral or press component. Take a look at the S-1s of most companies that go public. 9/10 of the companies have been able to grow because of ads.
- anoncake 7y ago
  I don't think you understand what I mean by "there is no trade-off". Those endeavours are only useful if and to the extent they create happiness. Also: Companies need ads to grow because their competitors also have ads. That doesn't mean they'd need ads in if ads didn't exist. The one legitimate purpose ads serve – could easily be served through other mechanisms, e.g. by the press. Maybe the press would have to expand but advertising isn't free either. In any case, an independent press is much more suitable to actually inform people than the ad industry which at best informs people by accident while trying to convince people to buy $PRODUCT. Ads are like military: It's mostly necessary because it exists.
  - cm2012 7y ago
    Okay. So say you make an app that helps plumbers do their job well. If every plumber used it, plumber productivity would go up 50%, making life easier for all. It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it. There's a big plumber app on the market already, but yours is way better. How do you get plumbers to hear about your product? 1) The press? Uninterested. Plumber magazines or sites? Very low traffic - no way to scale. 2) Call or knock on doors of every plumber near you? If everyone did this, the spam would be unreal. Also inefficient and not scalable. 3) Referrals? You get some, but most plumbers aren't chomping at the bit to help their competitors. And because you started with so few, referrals are a snails pace and by no means exponential. 4) Organic postings and SEO? The big plumber app is way ahead of you. And 100 other worse apps clog up the listings. No one sees your posts. See the problem? Without ads, you can't grow many many categories of genuinely valuable products. Even if no one else is advertising, you can't really grow without them. This is barely a hypothetical by the way. I've worked with a dozen companies with similar situations.

JohnFen 7y ago

> So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. Not to those 3%, and since advertising provides very little benefit to anyone who isn't in the ad business, I would be happy to that 3%.

cm2012 7y ago
I don't think that correlation is accurate. But even if it is, there is a trade-off: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20034507
- JohnFen 7y ago
  I understand. I'm not saying that I accept that the correlation is accurate. I'm just saying that if it is, the tradeoff to stop making 3% of people less happy is totally worthwhile. But of course, still in the hypothetical, it wouldn't be necessary for ads to disappear to accomplish this. All that would be necessary is for advertising to adhere to the ideals the ad industry itself says it holds: rather than manipulating people, ads could just inform people what the product is, what it does, and what its strengths (and, as long as I'm dreaming, weaknesses) are. But the vast majority of ads do none of that. Instead, they engage in psychological manipulation.
  - cm2012 7y ago
    I'd take issue with that. Go to https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&q=Gap&view_all_page_id=14856729724 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_t... and look up some random brands you've heard of. The vast majority of ads are on the level. The ones that aren't are when the product itself is a scam most of the time.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      I don't do Facebook, and have no clue what FB ads look like. I'm talking about advertising generally, online and off. I very rarely see ads that are like that.

FabHK 7y ago

> So basically it has a negligible impact on happiness even if this analysis is true. You are wrong. The paper goes on to say, in the very next sentence, that 3% is "approximately one half the absolute size of the marriage effect on life satisfaction, or approximately one quarter of the absolute size of the effect of being unemployed", thus (while smaller), it's the same order of magnitude. Presumably you do not consider the impact of marriage or unemployment "basically negligible"? > It is really, really hard to actually change people's opinions with advertising. That may be as it may, but that is not what the paper is talking about.

cm2012 7y ago
I saw that. I still think it's small. 3% is 3%, even if their measure shows marriage being 6%. Changing peoples minds about their self worth is still changing their mind.

scottrogowski 7y ago

This. I am surprised to see hacker news jump on this as proof that advertising causes reduced happiness when this article can only conclude that they are correlated. The common statistical maxim is that correlation does not imply causation. A far more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that greater development is associated with both increased advertising and a reduction in happiness. And yes, the summary does state that they were able to show that it is uncorrelated with GDP but what's telling is that the prominent bar graph is "uncorrected". So, after correcting, the advertising effect may be so minor that they chose not to graph it at all. I do my best to limit advertising in my own life because I myself believe that I am a happier person without it. This study, however, is misleading and doesn't give us evidence of much of anything.

countavdhesh 7y ago

GDP measures activity involving money, but makes no distinction between useful, useless and harmful activity. the cost of cleaning up pollution is added to the GDP.