4 ms·

WTF? I know it's cute to be all anti-advertising here, but really? Shows a distinct lack of a clue about what service advertising offers people, why it's cruc

by axod 16y ago

WTF? I know it's cute to be all anti-advertising here, but really? Shows a distinct lack of a clue about what service advertising offers people, why it's crucial, and why it makes a ton of money for all involved. Advertisers don't waste money. They carefully use money by investing it in advertising which (when done properly) nets them a positive ROI.

Retric 16y ago
I wonder what you think the net benefit to society of all those years and billions of dollars for Alcohol and Tobacco advertizing where? It's possible for a parasitic relationship to be wonderful for the parasite, but that says nothing about the host. PS: For many products advertizing does not increase sales rather it allows a higher price per unit to be charged. Depending on the demand curve restricting supply, increasing price and spending money on advertizing can be better for a supplier than producing more product of identical quality.
MiguelHudnandez 16y ago
> Advertisers don't waste money. They carefully use money by investing it in advertising which (when done properly) nets them a positive ROI. Back before the Internet revolutionized advertising, this was one of my favorite quotes about advertising: "I know half of my advertising money is wasted. The problem is, I don't know which half."
cma 16y ago
Secretly murdering people and then robbing their house has a positive ROI for the murderer too; what a bogus form of argument. You don't look at one party's ROI, you look at the costs and benefits for everyone.
- axod 16y ago
  advertising rarely causes anyone harm.
  - cma 16y ago
    Two companies (let's say Coke and Pepsi) are engaged in an advertising war. Coke hires a graphic designer to draw a cool logo. Pepsi has to fire back and do the same. In the end both of their brand statures remain them same, and two artists who would rather have spent their time working on something else had their time wasted, due to a particular incentive structure. Everyone acted in their own interest, and individually had a positive ROI. Yet collectively, the ROI was negative. Coke's action had a negative externality on Pepsi; Pepsi fired back with an action that had a negative externality on Coke.

by axod 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

I wonder what you think the net benefit to society of all those years and billions of dollars for Alcohol and Tobacco advertizing where? It's possible for a parasitic relationship to be wonderful for the parasite, but that says nothing about the host. PS: For many products advertizing does not increase sales rather it allows a higher price per unit to be charged. Depending on the demand curve restricting supply, increasing price and spending money on advertizing can be better for a supplier than producing more product of identical quality.

MiguelHudnandez 16y ago

> Advertisers don't waste money. They carefully use money by investing it in advertising which (when done properly) nets them a positive ROI. Back before the Internet revolutionized advertising, this was one of my favorite quotes about advertising: "I know half of my advertising money is wasted. The problem is, I don't know which half."

cma 16y ago

Secretly murdering people and then robbing their house has a positive ROI for the murderer too; what a bogus form of argument. You don't look at one party's ROI, you look at the costs and benefits for everyone.

axod 16y ago
advertising rarely causes anyone harm.
- cma 16y ago
  Two companies (let's say Coke and Pepsi) are engaged in an advertising war. Coke hires a graphic designer to draw a cool logo. Pepsi has to fire back and do the same. In the end both of their brand statures remain them same, and two artists who would rather have spent their time working on something else had their time wasted, due to a particular incentive structure. Everyone acted in their own interest, and individually had a positive ROI. Yet collectively, the ROI was negative. Coke's action had a negative externality on Pepsi; Pepsi fired back with an action that had a negative externality on Coke.