3 ms·

> Public relations != advertising. Not a distinction I care to make. The problems with both are fundamentally the same. > Ed Bernays != spokesperson for all P

> Public relations != advertising. Not a distinction I care to make. The problems with both are fundamentally the same. > Ed Bernays != spokesperson for all PR professionals. Okay, but all PR professionals and advertisers are trying to manipulate people. That is literally the job. Everyone else in the industry has the same goals--Bernays may have been willing to do more unscrupulous things to achieve those goals, but the goals are fundamentally unscrupulous. > There are shady people in every industry. But some industries, the purpose of the industry itself is shady. Advertising and PR are such industries.

nickelcitymario 7y ago
Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? If all advertising is manipulation, then so are all conversations. Every debate, every argument, every statement of fact or opinion. I don't consider it manipulation if it's honest. If I run an ad that says "These burgers cost only $1.25" and they really do cost $1.25, that's hardly manipulation. If, on the other hand, I say "This burger cost only $1.25" but I was referring only to the patty, and not the bun and toppings and whatever else you see pictured, then that's manipulation (bordering on out-right lying). Bernays said a lot of things that simply weren't true because he didn't care about the truth. And yeah, a lot of PR and advertising people would share his immoral stance on things. But most of the people I know in the industry aren't like that. We strive to create honest work that is entertaining enough to catch your attention so we can tell you something true about the product. There's an idea out there that advertising is about selling you things regardless of whether you'd benefit from it or not. In my books, this is a stupid way to spend your advertising dollars. Instead, you should do the hard work of figuring out who, if anyone, would benefit from the product, and then create a campaign to reach them. Obviously, some advertisers have no such ethical dilemma. Not to point fingers, but there are plenty of products that only do damage to people's lives. I'd like to think the clients I currently work with do not fall into this category, but that hasn't always been the case and feel free to judge me for that.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? You go on after this question to explain what manipulation is, so it seems like you understand the concept, and can probably figure out how it doesn't apply to this conversation. > There's an idea out there that advertising is about selling you things regardless of whether you'd benefit from it or not. In my books, this is a stupid way to spend your advertising dollars. Instead, you should do the hard work of figuring out who, if anyone, would benefit from the product, and then create a campaign to reach them. If your actual goal is to help people find things they would benefit from, then what's the best way to do that? Some ideas: 1. Review sites that try to be unbiased and share expert opinions on possible solutions to your problem. Obviously there are pitfalls here: the best solutions are ones where the site receives money from consumers, not companies with products to sell. 2. Word of mouth recommendations from friends and family, who intimately know your actual needs and genuinely want you to be successful. 3. People often know their own needs and go out to find solutions to their own needs, soliciting advice from 1 and 2, but also by asking experts (doctors, mechanics, etc.) who they pay to give them good advice. 4. A minimalist movement that views the entire idea of purchasing something with skepticism. I'm not against paying for products, but I do think it's important to see that paying for products is a tradeoff. Paying for a solution isn't always the best way to solve a problem, and in fact isn't always better than the problem itself. Literally no part of a reasonable solution for helping people involves showing them only your product (not your competitors'), and/or only the positive aspects of your product. And that's the absolute best case for advertising. And to be clear, that's not honest, it's lying by omission. If you're any good at your job, you know who your competitors are, and you know their strengths, but you're not sharing that information with your target audience. That's information that's relevant to the wants/needs of your target audience, but you're withholding that information, because it benefits you/your clients. The idea that this is you trying to go out and help people find and choose the best products for their needs is very naive. Contrary to your belief, advertising actively prevents people from finding products that best solve their problems. Worse products beat out better products if they have better advertising, and this is the norm, not the exception, because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar not spent on producing the best product possible. In theory, a company that makes profit from advertising can reinvest that profit into R+D, but in practice the incentives don't lead in that direction. A company that makes a profit by advertising has no reason to take a risk by changing strategy.

nickelcitymario 7y ago

Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? If all advertising is manipulation, then so are all conversations. Every debate, every argument, every statement of fact or opinion. I don't consider it manipulation if it's honest. If I run an ad that says "These burgers cost only $1.25" and they really do cost $1.25, that's hardly manipulation. If, on the other hand, I say "This burger cost only $1.25" but I was referring only to the patty, and not the bun and toppings and whatever else you see pictured, then that's manipulation (bordering on out-right lying). Bernays said a lot of things that simply weren't true because he didn't care about the truth. And yeah, a lot of PR and advertising people would share his immoral stance on things. But most of the people I know in the industry aren't like that. We strive to create honest work that is entertaining enough to catch your attention so we can tell you something true about the product. There's an idea out there that advertising is about selling you things regardless of whether you'd benefit from it or not. In my books, this is a stupid way to spend your advertising dollars. Instead, you should do the hard work of figuring out who, if anyone, would benefit from the product, and then create a campaign to reach them. Obviously, some advertisers have no such ethical dilemma. Not to point fingers, but there are plenty of products that only do damage to people's lives. I'd like to think the clients I currently work with do not fall into this category, but that hasn't always been the case and feel free to judge me for that.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> Question for you then: Are you or are you not trying to manipulate me to share your point of view? You go on after this question to explain what manipulation is, so it seems like you understand the concept, and can probably figure out how it doesn't apply to this conversation. > There's an idea out there that advertising is about selling you things regardless of whether you'd benefit from it or not. In my books, this is a stupid way to spend your advertising dollars. Instead, you should do the hard work of figuring out who, if anyone, would benefit from the product, and then create a campaign to reach them. If your actual goal is to help people find things they would benefit from, then what's the best way to do that? Some ideas: 1. Review sites that try to be unbiased and share expert opinions on possible solutions to your problem. Obviously there are pitfalls here: the best solutions are ones where the site receives money from consumers, not companies with products to sell. 2. Word of mouth recommendations from friends and family, who intimately know your actual needs and genuinely want you to be successful. 3. People often know their own needs and go out to find solutions to their own needs, soliciting advice from 1 and 2, but also by asking experts (doctors, mechanics, etc.) who they pay to give them good advice. 4. A minimalist movement that views the entire idea of purchasing something with skepticism. I'm not against paying for products, but I do think it's important to see that paying for products is a tradeoff. Paying for a solution isn't always the best way to solve a problem, and in fact isn't always better than the problem itself. Literally no part of a reasonable solution for helping people involves showing them only your product (not your competitors'), and/or only the positive aspects of your product. And that's the absolute best case for advertising. And to be clear, that's not honest, it's lying by omission. If you're any good at your job, you know who your competitors are, and you know their strengths, but you're not sharing that information with your target audience. That's information that's relevant to the wants/needs of your target audience, but you're withholding that information, because it benefits you/your clients. The idea that this is you trying to go out and help people find and choose the best products for their needs is very naive. Contrary to your belief, advertising actively prevents people from finding products that best solve their problems. Worse products beat out better products if they have better advertising, and this is the norm, not the exception, because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar not spent on producing the best product possible. In theory, a company that makes profit from advertising can reinvest that profit into R+D, but in practice the incentives don't lead in that direction. A company that makes a profit by advertising has no reason to take a risk by changing strategy.