4 ms·

Sadly advertising went to away, it'll just shift back to less efficient forms. I remember that there used to be an even worse ad to content ratio and I would pa

Sadly advertising went to away, it'll just shift back to less efficient forms. I remember that there used to be an even worse ad to content ratio and I would pay every month for TV and magazines and there would still be a ton of ads. Ads are bad but I don't see nearly as many anymore (the main thing is to avoid some of the different news sites and blogs that have way too many).

TeMPOraL 7y ago
You see less ads because you exploit a local inefficiency (adtech is busy pursuing easier targets). This too shall pass, if left unchecked. Efficiency in advertising, measured from the POV of profit made by advertisers, is not a good thing for people at large.
- tdb7893 7y ago
  Why is advertising efficiency inherently harmful? I'm not sure I'm following
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    I imagine ad efficiency from customer point of view is seeing perfect ads for things they didn't know existed that they actually need right now to improve their wellbeing. Efficiency from advertiser's point of view is showing ads to people who would buy the things advertised, as in the case above but also including when customers don't need them, can't afford them, when they are actively harmful (say gambling ads for gambling addicts), shown at the most psychologically effective times (when you are vulnerable, desperate, not thinking clearly, etc). There is a small overlap in those two cases, but the money is on the harmful end.
    - jpadkins 7y ago
      > psychologically effective times if this were true, then billions of dollars would be spent advertising in bars and therapy centers (where people are most vulnerable). I agree psychological tricks can be used by advertising ("one weird trick to...") but it's not a major practice to advertise when they are vulnerable. > don't need 90% of what we buy are not necessities. So this is not just a problem for advertising but for 90% of what we produce. It's okay for people to buy (and advertise) things that they want, not need. In the modern era, we have wealth way beyond covering necessities. > can't afford them is this a problem with advertising or people's finical responsibility? > they are actively harmful Is advertising the problem here? If a product or service is actively harmful, why is it legal? Or you prefer a system where there are legal harmful products, but we just can't talk about them? It seems there are businesses that are bad (or you don't agree with), but you are projecting advertising as the root of the problem. Maybe consider it's the core business you don't like?
      - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
        > I agree psychological tricks can be used by advertising ("one weird trick to...") but it's not a major practice to advertise when they are vulnerable. That might be a current technical limitation, I'm sure facebook is working on that as we speak. A breakthrough or two in psychology, some improvements in data gathering and crunching, and no user would have a chance against professionals whose job it is to find what exactly to show and when to induce that sale. Humans generally can't exactly install firewalls in their heads and keep it up to date, not against a motivated onslaught. > can't afford them is this a problem with advertising or people's finical responsibility? With truly effective persuasion techniques, lines of 'responsibility' will become gray. If you drive through and intersection and somebody shone a bright light and blinded you temporarily, are you responsible for the accident? If you go about your day and somebody distracted you while their partner pick-pocketed your wallet, are you responsible for not guarding your valuables? If herbalife salesman cornered you in a coffee shop and (using half-truths, exaggerations, outrageous promises, pushing on your greed and confusion, social proofs and other sales-fu) sold you a garage-full of product, are you responsible of that mistake? Um, I was going to create a series of less and less clear-cut examples, but run out of imagination, hopefully idea is legible. > It seems there are businesses that are bad (or you don't agree with), but you are projecting advertising as the root of the problem. I'm sure I was imagining worst examples when writing that, but incentives mostly push towards selling more of the stuff you make, regardless of its effect, even for benign businesses. There are exceptions I'm sure, but I expect they are driven by external forces -- regulations, owner's direction that is not profit related, etc. In presence of truly effective ad tech and barring any friction (like regulation, social blowback, etc), actors who use it will eat those who don't. Markets are red in tooth and nail. Release the hypnodrones!
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Because almost all advertising is inherently harmful. 'UnFleshedOne described what I meant in a parallel comment.
- jpadkins 7y ago
  > measured from the POV of profit made by advertisers, is not a good thing for people at large. Why? Sorry this statement is not self evident. If I have the perfect ad system, that only targets people who will buy my product at 100% rate and no one else, why is that not a good thing for people at large?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

You see less ads because you exploit a local inefficiency (adtech is busy pursuing easier targets). This too shall pass, if left unchecked. Efficiency in advertising, measured from the POV of profit made by advertisers, is not a good thing for people at large.

tdb7893 7y ago
Why is advertising efficiency inherently harmful? I'm not sure I'm following
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  I imagine ad efficiency from customer point of view is seeing perfect ads for things they didn't know existed that they actually need right now to improve their wellbeing. Efficiency from advertiser's point of view is showing ads to people who would buy the things advertised, as in the case above but also including when customers don't need them, can't afford them, when they are actively harmful (say gambling ads for gambling addicts), shown at the most psychologically effective times (when you are vulnerable, desperate, not thinking clearly, etc). There is a small overlap in those two cases, but the money is on the harmful end.
  - jpadkins 7y ago
    > psychologically effective times if this were true, then billions of dollars would be spent advertising in bars and therapy centers (where people are most vulnerable). I agree psychological tricks can be used by advertising ("one weird trick to...") but it's not a major practice to advertise when they are vulnerable. > don't need 90% of what we buy are not necessities. So this is not just a problem for advertising but for 90% of what we produce. It's okay for people to buy (and advertise) things that they want, not need. In the modern era, we have wealth way beyond covering necessities. > can't afford them is this a problem with advertising or people's finical responsibility? > they are actively harmful Is advertising the problem here? If a product or service is actively harmful, why is it legal? Or you prefer a system where there are legal harmful products, but we just can't talk about them? It seems there are businesses that are bad (or you don't agree with), but you are projecting advertising as the root of the problem. Maybe consider it's the core business you don't like?
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      > I agree psychological tricks can be used by advertising ("one weird trick to...") but it's not a major practice to advertise when they are vulnerable. That might be a current technical limitation, I'm sure facebook is working on that as we speak. A breakthrough or two in psychology, some improvements in data gathering and crunching, and no user would have a chance against professionals whose job it is to find what exactly to show and when to induce that sale. Humans generally can't exactly install firewalls in their heads and keep it up to date, not against a motivated onslaught. > can't afford them is this a problem with advertising or people's finical responsibility? With truly effective persuasion techniques, lines of 'responsibility' will become gray. If you drive through and intersection and somebody shone a bright light and blinded you temporarily, are you responsible for the accident? If you go about your day and somebody distracted you while their partner pick-pocketed your wallet, are you responsible for not guarding your valuables? If herbalife salesman cornered you in a coffee shop and (using half-truths, exaggerations, outrageous promises, pushing on your greed and confusion, social proofs and other sales-fu) sold you a garage-full of product, are you responsible of that mistake? Um, I was going to create a series of less and less clear-cut examples, but run out of imagination, hopefully idea is legible. > It seems there are businesses that are bad (or you don't agree with), but you are projecting advertising as the root of the problem. I'm sure I was imagining worst examples when writing that, but incentives mostly push towards selling more of the stuff you make, regardless of its effect, even for benign businesses. There are exceptions I'm sure, but I expect they are driven by external forces -- regulations, owner's direction that is not profit related, etc. In presence of truly effective ad tech and barring any friction (like regulation, social blowback, etc), actors who use it will eat those who don't. Markets are red in tooth and nail. Release the hypnodrones!
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Because almost all advertising is inherently harmful. 'UnFleshedOne described what I meant in a parallel comment.
jpadkins 7y ago
> measured from the POV of profit made by advertisers, is not a good thing for people at large. Why? Sorry this statement is not self evident. If I have the perfect ad system, that only targets people who will buy my product at 100% rate and no one else, why is that not a good thing for people at large?