14 ms·

This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. I bet there'

This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. It's a childish and immature opinion really. Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical.

m463 7y ago
Advertising should still be regulated for the stability of society, but regulation is always behind, and is frequently distorted by the folks being regulated. examples where better regulation is needed: robocalling, pervasive tracking and data sharing, dark advertising patterns, drug marketing, etc.
tantalor 7y ago
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
- gatherhunterer 7y ago
  The author clearly understands the use of advertising.
anoncake 7y ago
> I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. Those are outweighed by the things that don't exist because due to advertising, resources are allocated to less valuable things instead. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical. The classic non-argument of conservatives defending the status quo. People who don't depend on advertising for their income just get criticized for selfishly demanding the stop of a practice that doesn't benefit them instead.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. You're asking him to argue against himself rather than put a strong case forward for a position. And you're framing the fact he doesn't as a mental limitation. You're denying the authors agency by asserting it wasn't even a stylistic choice about presentation; he didn't present what you would have so therefore his brain must be broken.
bassman9000 7y ago
Businesses are made of people, and people have ethics. If you're running one, consider the way you advertise. Are you aiming at making mutually beneficial transactions, or are you just trying to milk you users out of their hard-earned cash? Not all advertising is inherently harmful to individuals or society. Choose the ethical option. It may cost your company some lost profits, but then again, you may gain loyal customers who'll want to reward a honest business.
colemorrison 7y ago
Indeed. We remove advertising, how many folks lose their jobs that are allowing them a level of self-actualization where they can analyze advertising effects on society at large?
smt88 7y ago
What valuable things wouldn't exist without advertising?
- blodovnik 7y ago
  Computers. And if you want to be pedantic, you'll say but they would exist for military etc!!!!! But if you're not being pedantic you'll agree that most stuff relating to computing exists in its current form in lockstep with yhe ability of companies to sell and therefore advertise their products. Not just computers but everything related to them too.
  - probably_wrong 7y ago
    I'd like to offer a counterpoint. The home PC revolution was started in big part by accident when IBM made a computer that was both cheap and easy to clone. They became the leader against other, much better recognized computer brands, clones appeared left and right, and here we are. They became the leader because their product was a better market fit, and not because of advertising. If anything, PCs actually canibalized the products that IBM was actively trying to market (mainframes come to mind). And then there's Unix and GNU/Linux, the OS of choice for servers.
  - c3534l 7y ago
    How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that computers wouldn't exist without advertising?
    - blodovnik 7y ago
      You literally replied after reading only the first word of what I wrote.
    - jdietrich 7y ago
      Home computers were initially a novelty item, sold mainly through direct-response advertisements in magazines like Popular Electronics. This early hobbyist market created the economies of scale that made a mass market home computer a possibility. In the late 70s and early 80s, most people simply had no idea why they would want a computer; The first home computer adverts in the mainstream media didn't really sell the benefits of one computer over another, but sold the idea of the computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_j_ABrkn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_j_ABrkn8 Without that kind of advertising, it's entirely plausible to believe that home computers might have been a fad, with the computer resigned to being a specialist tool for business and industry. There's a parallel universe where the home computer and video game boom never happened because nobody told consumers why they might want a computer, the 6502 and Z80 remained niche microprocessors for embedded applications, Woz went back to HP and Bill Gates finished his degree and got a job at Honeywell.
alanbernstein 7y ago
There is a wide range of aggression in advertising tactics, and the arguments made in the article apply in proportion to that aggressiveness. It is not necessary to eliminate all advertising to start recognizing and addressing these problems.
kelnos 7y ago
There must be a way to do advertising that respects the consumer, and doesn't use some form of sketchy manipulation to achieve the desired goal. And yet the vast majority of advertising is (to me) offensive. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. That's a rather childish and immature rejoinder. The world of employment simply doesn't work that way, and people's job mobility is not infinite and frictionless.
- blodovnik 7y ago
  People were offended by advertising in the same way in the 1970s. Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    > Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at. People won't be less affected if advertising is less harmful or pervasive...? You aggregation function is broken. The impact of advertising is a not a boolean value.
  - randcraw 7y ago
    I won't be offended if advertisers can figure out which ads I won't respond to and then refrain from smacking me in the face with them. Or if they can avoid annoying me with moronic gimmicks like dancing lizards selling insurance. I'm ready. Go ahead advertisers. Delight me with silence.
  - prophesi 7y ago
    That's because we discovered psychological manipulation for advertising in the 30's thanks to Freud's nephew, Bernays. And it was brought to light when psychology hit center stage in the 70's after the psychedelics lash-back. So our current advertising methodology is a very recent phenomenon.
  - badrequest 7y ago
    This suggests (disingenuously) that they were offended in the same way.
lbrito 7y ago
>I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. That isn't relevant regarding the truthfulness of the author's claim. Whether or not ads are vital for any industry, product or technology (an extremely complex question by the way, not to be easily dismissed with a dogmatic "X would not exist without advertising") has no logical relation whatsoever to any opinion one might have about ads.
archy_ 7y ago
Maybe they're valuing inferior products they only prefer due to advertisements? Imagine how much better our world would look without advertising. Will some adtech devs lose their job? Yes, but honestly it would probably be worth it. They'll find work in a non-scummy industry and can be a net positive for humanity.
nxc18 7y ago
I've worked at an organization that failed to advertise its products, causing massive inefficiency & waste - lots of people have access to our technology but don't know about it and end up implementing the same basic CRUD app over and over. Don't underestimate the economic loss caused by people just not knowing there's a better way.
- randcraw 7y ago
  Informational promotion is not the same thing as advertising. A PSA is not an ad. There are many ways to inform the public of services or resources other than interrupting a media stream with ill-targeted spots. Getting someone credible to favorably review your product would be a far better way to differentiate your innovation than web ads or TV spots. The waste you speak of sounds the result of misjudging demand rather than spamming too little. Or maybe people were informed about the merits of your better mousetrap, but just didn't care. Startups often guzzle that kool-aid. Advertising is the last place I'd go to learn if someone's novelty is better. Who trusts ads?
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Right, but there's a difference between the occasional text or non-animated static image ad and the sorts of browser-fingerprinting spyware prevalent today. There's also a time and place for ads, and the article's examples (like actual medical documents) are neither.
- LeifCarrotson 7y ago
  The main thesis of the article: Real world advertising is not about informing, it's about convincing. Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. There's a huge difference between informational advertising, which I support, and manipulative advertising, which is reprehensible. Telling people that their custom CRUD app could be ready quicker, cheaper to support, and contain fewer bugs if they used your product is great. Bombarding people who already know about your product and its half dozen competitors with subconscious messages that your competitors are evil and that if they use your product their sex appeal will increase is dishonest and stupid. I work at an organization that does almost no marketing; we mostly spread by word of mouth. We have no shortage of customers or work, and growth would be harmful to the quality of our product, so we're pretty content with our place in the market.
autoexec 7y ago
> I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. There aren't many things that can only exist because of advertising. Most of the things people things think depend on advertising already existed in some form before advertising took over and would continue to exist in some form if ads went away.
blodovnik 7y ago
I note the author is very much involved in companies projects and social media platforms that all depend on advertising. http://jacek.zlydach.pl/index.html http://jacek.zlydach.pl/index.html I'd respect his position more if he was not on LinkedIn or Facebook and did not work on commercial projects.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I'm not involved in those, I merely use them for obvious reasons almost everyone uses them - network effect. Facebook is the XXI century rolodex (also, I was very young when I got on it, and it looked differently then); LinkedIn account I maintain for the off chance it could be useful in finding a job. Also, that doesn't mean I like how these services work. I fortunately avoided being ever involved in anything directly related to adtech, and I plan on staying that way.
  - megaman821 7y ago
    It is almost like your are advertising yourself on these networks. Couldn't people just find you from word of mouth?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Using Facebook to talk to your friends is literally a form of exchanging word of mouth. It's not a dating site for me, I don't advertise myself there. A LinkedIn profile is technically an advertisement, but it's not one I push on people. Someone needs to go and look for it to find it. It's akin to an entry in a product catalog. I consider this kind of advertising to be fine, and I said so in the article. (Also incidentally, all the jobs I ever had I got through the word of mouth.)
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  Do I really need to link Mr. Gotcha on HN[1]? I think LinkedIn is despicable but I have a LinkedIn account because it’s basically expected that you have one for recruiting purposes by many employers. [1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha
subjectsigma 7y ago
Found the ad tech guy. We do not have to accept the current state of advertising because it may or may not have had good effects in the past (practically by accident). Wanting things to change for the better is the opposite of dogma, and I daresay most advertising is much more childish and immature than this blog post. It is not hypocritical to hate ads and be subjected to them/benefit from them as they are so pervasive as to be unavoidable; they can also still have a net harm even if you think that orgs "depend" on them for income, which is dubious. And just for the record, I work for a nonprofit who advertises minimally, and definitely not to the public.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  The problem is nobody is having a proper discourse on how to make ads better. There is a real problem here that we can fix and need to fix if we want to keep the internet economy from eventually collapsing when everyone gets too sick of ads to avoid adblockers.
TheCapn 7y ago
He doesn't directly call for the completely abolishment of marketing/advertising and actually recognizes the free markets have a place for advertising but is using that blog as a place to complain about the cancer it has become. "It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. Limited to honestly informing people about what's available on the market, it can serve a crucial function in enabling trade. In the real world however, it's moved way past that role." Its definitely one of those pieces that merely points out the flaws without suggesting any solutions. You can take those articles how you will but I think its dishonest to take his overall message as being advertising is bad entirely and without exception.
iamaelephant 7y ago
My brother has the same view of advertising as this author but also loves MotoGP and other motorsports and doesn't see the conflict staring him right in the face as sponsor-branded bikes fly past. I agree it's childish and short-sighted, and I'm certain the author would have a different viewpoint if the time came to market his own small business.
- blodovnik 7y ago
  Does he own any motorbike brand related stuff?
  - iamaelephant 7y ago
    Of course, he rides bikes relevant to the series and wears gear from the sponsors involved. Not to mention all of the non-motorbike sponsors like energy drink companies, insurance companies, tech companies etc...
picometer 7y ago
On the contrary, I think the author addresses this via the "cancer" metaphor: > It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. > Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. I interpret the loose analogy as: if controlled advertising is like normal cell growth, then out-of-control resource-consuming advertising is like cancerous cell growth. It's much easier to control advertising if its deployment has more friction, e.g. in a physical newspaper or billboard. On the internet, it's different. We haven't figured out how to control advertising on the internet yet, such that it doesn't have all the harmful side effects cited by the author. I bet that if we do figure it out, it will be because we've made significant technological advancements in customer<=>product matchmaking* combined with an unrelenting focus on preserving humane values. * This will also probably entail us, as a society, somehow reframing the way that customer<=>product matchmaking happens, putting more control into the customer's hands. I think there is room for a bit of optimism here, but it means admitting that there are serious problems with the current system.
- ameister14 7y ago
  Yeah, the problem with that is it's a completely flawed premise. "It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them." No, it isn't. It's an expansion of the idea that people are more likely to buy things they have heard of. If it was just to connect people with what they already want to buy, there would be no product development, no product roll-outs, because people don't know they want to buy something that has never existed before. Also 'over time it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest' is a joke. It's been dishonest since the start. Criers lying about the effectiveness of some tonic, the attractiveness of some woman, the strength and wisdom of some leader.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    You are being a bit pedantic and misdirectional with that first quote. It's not an important thesis of the article that people already know about the products ahead of time. In no way have you demonstrated a "completely flawed premise". > It's been dishonest since the start How is it a rebuttal to the say that advertising was always dishonest and manipulative...?
khawkins 7y ago
"Dogmatic viewpoints" are the real cancer on society. Actually "lupus" might be a more apt comparison. Take a very broad issue like "advertising", which nearly everyone has had a negative experience with but performs a vital function. Highlight some damaging anecdotes and envision a world free from the issue. Thus, we have laid the groundwork that the issue is actually a problem. The stated or unstated solution is obviously to get rid of the problem, but the specifics of how to accomplish this are hazy at best. The conclusion boils down to anything which helps get rid of the issue must be good, and anything which supports the issue is bad. The resulting actions of true believers attack everything blindly because the moral logic has been simplified. Lupus causes the immune system to start attacking your own tissue in the same way. Instead of identifying specific problems and working to eliminate them, it starts attacking everything, making the body weaker as it destroys an otherwise healthy organ.
perfunctory 7y ago
> Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical. It's the same as saying that living in China and criticising communism is deeply hypocritical. I believe it's actually the opposite. It takes courage to criticise something your livelihood depends on.
davidivadavid 7y ago
It's the average opinion of people who are uninformed, and who've never had to sell anything for a living. They live in a fantasy world where ad people are wizards who can control people's brains and make them buy things they don't need by making them sad. Absolute nonsense that wouldn't survive a 5 minute test in reality. Unfortunately it's more convenient to let other people at your company do that "dirty job", while mocking the "stupid sales jocks" and their "suits", while assuming you have a great understanding of what they're doing. It's really the mirror image of nerd bullying, and it's not any better.

m463 7y ago

Advertising should still be regulated for the stability of society, but regulation is always behind, and is frequently distorted by the folks being regulated. examples where better regulation is needed: robocalling, pervasive tracking and data sharing, dark advertising patterns, drug marketing, etc.

tantalor 7y ago

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

gatherhunterer 7y ago
The author clearly understands the use of advertising.

anoncake 7y ago

> I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. Those are outweighed by the things that don't exist because due to advertising, resources are allocated to less valuable things instead. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical. The classic non-argument of conservatives defending the status quo. People who don't depend on advertising for their income just get criticized for selfishly demanding the stop of a practice that doesn't benefit them instead.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>This is a dogmatic viewpoint I think often seen in very technical people who are unwilling to see the interconnectedness of how our society works. You're asking him to argue against himself rather than put a strong case forward for a position. And you're framing the fact he doesn't as a mental limitation. You're denying the authors agency by asserting it wasn't even a stylistic choice about presentation; he didn't present what you would have so therefore his brain must be broken.

bassman9000 7y ago

Businesses are made of people, and people have ethics. If you're running one, consider the way you advertise. Are you aiming at making mutually beneficial transactions, or are you just trying to milk you users out of their hard-earned cash? Not all advertising is inherently harmful to individuals or society. Choose the ethical option. It may cost your company some lost profits, but then again, you may gain loyal customers who'll want to reward a honest business.

colemorrison 7y ago

Indeed. We remove advertising, how many folks lose their jobs that are allowing them a level of self-actualization where they can analyze advertising effects on society at large?

smt88 7y ago

What valuable things wouldn't exist without advertising?

blodovnik 7y ago
Computers. And if you want to be pedantic, you'll say but they would exist for military etc!!!!! But if you're not being pedantic you'll agree that most stuff relating to computing exists in its current form in lockstep with yhe ability of companies to sell and therefore advertise their products. Not just computers but everything related to them too.
- probably_wrong 7y ago
  I'd like to offer a counterpoint. The home PC revolution was started in big part by accident when IBM made a computer that was both cheap and easy to clone. They became the leader against other, much better recognized computer brands, clones appeared left and right, and here we are. They became the leader because their product was a better market fit, and not because of advertising. If anything, PCs actually canibalized the products that IBM was actively trying to market (mainframes come to mind). And then there's Unix and GNU/Linux, the OS of choice for servers.
- c3534l 7y ago
  How on Earth did you come to the conclusion that computers wouldn't exist without advertising?
  - blodovnik 7y ago
    You literally replied after reading only the first word of what I wrote.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    Home computers were initially a novelty item, sold mainly through direct-response advertisements in magazines like Popular Electronics. This early hobbyist market created the economies of scale that made a mass market home computer a possibility. In the late 70s and early 80s, most people simply had no idea why they would want a computer; The first home computer adverts in the mainstream media didn't really sell the benefits of one computer over another, but sold the idea of the computer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_j_ABrkn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7_j_ABrkn8 Without that kind of advertising, it's entirely plausible to believe that home computers might have been a fad, with the computer resigned to being a specialist tool for business and industry. There's a parallel universe where the home computer and video game boom never happened because nobody told consumers why they might want a computer, the 6502 and Z80 remained niche microprocessors for embedded applications, Woz went back to HP and Bill Gates finished his degree and got a job at Honeywell.

alanbernstein 7y ago

There is a wide range of aggression in advertising tactics, and the arguments made in the article apply in proportion to that aggressiveness. It is not necessary to eliminate all advertising to start recognizing and addressing these problems.

kelnos 7y ago

There must be a way to do advertising that respects the consumer, and doesn't use some form of sketchy manipulation to achieve the desired goal. And yet the vast majority of advertising is (to me) offensive. > Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. That's a rather childish and immature rejoinder. The world of employment simply doesn't work that way, and people's job mobility is not infinite and frictionless.

blodovnik 7y ago
People were offended by advertising in the same way in the 1970s. Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  > Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at. People won't be less affected if advertising is less harmful or pervasive...? You aggregation function is broken. The impact of advertising is a not a boolean value.
- randcraw 7y ago
  I won't be offended if advertisers can figure out which ads I won't respond to and then refrain from smacking me in the face with them. Or if they can avoid annoying me with moronic gimmicks like dancing lizards selling insurance. I'm ready. Go ahead advertisers. Delight me with silence.
- prophesi 7y ago
  That's because we discovered psychological manipulation for advertising in the 30's thanks to Freud's nephew, Bernays. And it was brought to light when psychology hit center stage in the 70's after the psychedelics lash-back. So our current advertising methodology is a very recent phenomenon.
- badrequest 7y ago
  This suggests (disingenuously) that they were offended in the same way.

lbrito 7y ago

>I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. That isn't relevant regarding the truthfulness of the author's claim. Whether or not ads are vital for any industry, product or technology (an extremely complex question by the way, not to be easily dismissed with a dogmatic "X would not exist without advertising") has no logical relation whatsoever to any opinion one might have about ads.

archy_ 7y ago

Maybe they're valuing inferior products they only prefer due to advertisements? Imagine how much better our world would look without advertising. Will some adtech devs lose their job? Yes, but honestly it would probably be worth it. They'll find work in a non-scummy industry and can be a net positive for humanity.

nxc18 7y ago

I've worked at an organization that failed to advertise its products, causing massive inefficiency & waste - lots of people have access to our technology but don't know about it and end up implementing the same basic CRUD app over and over. Don't underestimate the economic loss caused by people just not knowing there's a better way.

randcraw 7y ago
Informational promotion is not the same thing as advertising. A PSA is not an ad. There are many ways to inform the public of services or resources other than interrupting a media stream with ill-targeted spots. Getting someone credible to favorably review your product would be a far better way to differentiate your innovation than web ads or TV spots. The waste you speak of sounds the result of misjudging demand rather than spamming too little. Or maybe people were informed about the merits of your better mousetrap, but just didn't care. Startups often guzzle that kool-aid. Advertising is the last place I'd go to learn if someone's novelty is better. Who trusts ads?
yellowapple 7y ago
Right, but there's a difference between the occasional text or non-animated static image ad and the sorts of browser-fingerprinting spyware prevalent today. There's also a time and place for ads, and the article's examples (like actual medical documents) are neither.
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
The main thesis of the article: Real world advertising is not about informing, it's about convincing. Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. There's a huge difference between informational advertising, which I support, and manipulative advertising, which is reprehensible. Telling people that their custom CRUD app could be ready quicker, cheaper to support, and contain fewer bugs if they used your product is great. Bombarding people who already know about your product and its half dozen competitors with subconscious messages that your competitors are evil and that if they use your product their sex appeal will increase is dishonest and stupid. I work at an organization that does almost no marketing; we mostly spread by word of mouth. We have no shortage of customers or work, and growth would be harmful to the quality of our product, so we're pretty content with our place in the market.

autoexec 7y ago

> I bet there's any number of things this person values that simply wouldn't exist without advertising. There aren't many things that can only exist because of advertising. Most of the things people things think depend on advertising already existed in some form before advertising took over and would continue to exist in some form if ads went away.

blodovnik 7y ago

I note the author is very much involved in companies projects and social media platforms that all depend on advertising. http://jacek.zlydach.pl/index.html http://jacek.zlydach.pl/index.html I'd respect his position more if he was not on LinkedIn or Facebook and did not work on commercial projects.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I'm not involved in those, I merely use them for obvious reasons almost everyone uses them - network effect. Facebook is the XXI century rolodex (also, I was very young when I got on it, and it looked differently then); LinkedIn account I maintain for the off chance it could be useful in finding a job. Also, that doesn't mean I like how these services work. I fortunately avoided being ever involved in anything directly related to adtech, and I plan on staying that way.
- megaman821 7y ago
  It is almost like your are advertising yourself on these networks. Couldn't people just find you from word of mouth?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Using Facebook to talk to your friends is literally a form of exchanging word of mouth. It's not a dating site for me, I don't advertise myself there. A LinkedIn profile is technically an advertisement, but it's not one I push on people. Someone needs to go and look for it to find it. It's akin to an entry in a product catalog. I consider this kind of advertising to be fine, and I said so in the article. (Also incidentally, all the jobs I ever had I got through the word of mouth.)
AlexandrB 7y ago
Do I really need to link Mr. Gotcha on HN[1]? I think LinkedIn is despicable but I have a LinkedIn account because it’s basically expected that you have one for recruiting purposes by many employers. [1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha

subjectsigma 7y ago

Found the ad tech guy. We do not have to accept the current state of advertising because it may or may not have had good effects in the past (practically by accident). Wanting things to change for the better is the opposite of dogma, and I daresay most advertising is much more childish and immature than this blog post. It is not hypocritical to hate ads and be subjected to them/benefit from them as they are so pervasive as to be unavoidable; they can also still have a net harm even if you think that orgs "depend" on them for income, which is dubious. And just for the record, I work for a nonprofit who advertises minimally, and definitely not to the public.

cameronbrown 7y ago
The problem is nobody is having a proper discourse on how to make ads better. There is a real problem here that we can fix and need to fix if we want to keep the internet economy from eventually collapsing when everyone gets too sick of ads to avoid adblockers.

TheCapn 7y ago

He doesn't directly call for the completely abolishment of marketing/advertising and actually recognizes the free markets have a place for advertising but is using that blog as a place to complain about the cancer it has become. "It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. Limited to honestly informing people about what's available on the market, it can serve a crucial function in enabling trade. In the real world however, it's moved way past that role." Its definitely one of those pieces that merely points out the flaws without suggesting any solutions. You can take those articles how you will but I think its dishonest to take his overall message as being advertising is bad entirely and without exception.

iamaelephant 7y ago

My brother has the same view of advertising as this author but also loves MotoGP and other motorsports and doesn't see the conflict staring him right in the face as sponsor-branded bikes fly past. I agree it's childish and short-sighted, and I'm certain the author would have a different viewpoint if the time came to market his own small business.

blodovnik 7y ago
Does he own any motorbike brand related stuff?
- iamaelephant 7y ago
  Of course, he rides bikes relevant to the series and wears gear from the sponsors involved. Not to mention all of the non-motorbike sponsors like energy drink companies, insurance companies, tech companies etc...

picometer 7y ago

On the contrary, I think the author addresses this via the "cancer" metaphor: > It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. > Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. I interpret the loose analogy as: if controlled advertising is like normal cell growth, then out-of-control resource-consuming advertising is like cancerous cell growth. It's much easier to control advertising if its deployment has more friction, e.g. in a physical newspaper or billboard. On the internet, it's different. We haven't figured out how to control advertising on the internet yet, such that it doesn't have all the harmful side effects cited by the author. I bet that if we do figure it out, it will be because we've made significant technological advancements in customer<=>product matchmaking* combined with an unrelenting focus on preserving humane values. * This will also probably entail us, as a society, somehow reframing the way that customer<=>product matchmaking happens, putting more control into the customer's hands. I think there is room for a bit of optimism here, but it means admitting that there are serious problems with the current system.

ameister14 7y ago
Yeah, the problem with that is it's a completely flawed premise. "It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them." No, it isn't. It's an expansion of the idea that people are more likely to buy things they have heard of. If it was just to connect people with what they already want to buy, there would be no product development, no product roll-outs, because people don't know they want to buy something that has never existed before. Also 'over time it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest' is a joke. It's been dishonest since the start. Criers lying about the effectiveness of some tonic, the attractiveness of some woman, the strength and wisdom of some leader.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  You are being a bit pedantic and misdirectional with that first quote. It's not an important thesis of the article that people already know about the products ahead of time. In no way have you demonstrated a "completely flawed premise". > It's been dishonest since the start How is it a rebuttal to the say that advertising was always dishonest and manipulative...?

khawkins 7y ago

"Dogmatic viewpoints" are the real cancer on society. Actually "lupus" might be a more apt comparison. Take a very broad issue like "advertising", which nearly everyone has had a negative experience with but performs a vital function. Highlight some damaging anecdotes and envision a world free from the issue. Thus, we have laid the groundwork that the issue is actually a problem. The stated or unstated solution is obviously to get rid of the problem, but the specifics of how to accomplish this are hazy at best. The conclusion boils down to anything which helps get rid of the issue must be good, and anything which supports the issue is bad. The resulting actions of true believers attack everything blindly because the moral logic has been simplified. Lupus causes the immune system to start attacking your own tissue in the same way. Instead of identifying specific problems and working to eliminate them, it starts attacking everything, making the body weaker as it destroys an otherwise healthy organ.

perfunctory 7y ago

> Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise. Loathing advertising and at the same time depending on it for income is deeply hypocritical. It's the same as saying that living in China and criticising communism is deeply hypocritical. I believe it's actually the opposite. It takes courage to criticise something your livelihood depends on.

davidivadavid 7y ago

It's the average opinion of people who are uninformed, and who've never had to sell anything for a living. They live in a fantasy world where ad people are wizards who can control people's brains and make them buy things they don't need by making them sad. Absolute nonsense that wouldn't survive a 5 minute test in reality. Unfortunately it's more convenient to let other people at your company do that "dirty job", while mocking the "stupid sales jocks" and their "suits", while assuming you have a great understanding of what they're doing. It's really the mirror image of nerd bullying, and it's not any better.