3 ms·

Interesting argument. Worth keeping in mind that Bloomberg spent over half a Billion dollars to win American Samoa. People seem to give advertising undue credit

Interesting argument. Worth keeping in mind that Bloomberg spent over half a Billion dollars to win American Samoa. People seem to give advertising undue credit (like with the Russian election influence idea). Advertising can only burnish your product, not change the story entirely. And perhaps, there's a case to be made that the ad itself is a product designed to make you feel better by being part of tribe of consumers. If the argument is that this is unduly influential, then you'd have to start by banning religious evangelism

jonahbenton 6y ago
>> Advertising can only burnish your product, not change the story entirely With respect, it is completely the opposite. Advertising IS storytelling and adtech has created the opportunity to tell, retell and invent new stories at a rate and with an impact that has no precedent. Any set of facts (or non-facts), and any storyline- especially false ones which "spread" much more quickly- are promulgated by digital ad campaigns of infinite variety and infinite precision, and create the social disintegration the US especially is experiencing. Advertising is asymmetric, and all it takes is one quip, one framing, and the mind of one person is changed. The cost of finding that one effective personalized message has never been so low. Products- physical, digital, and "people"- have their stories- in the minds of specific target individuals- changed (nudged) in a moment. One thinks they are immune to this insidious storytelling, but just observe the nudging over time, and in months see how far the view has shifted. The Russian story is an extremely useful case study of an extremely successful operation, operating at the tectonic plate level. Similarly, Bloomberg's spend should not be evaluated on what it failed to do, but on what it succeeded at. And I agree (implied) that banning advertising is implausible. Best wishes.
- ChaitanyaSai 6y ago
  Absolutely agree; advertising is storytelling. And storytelling is what makes the object of storytelling memorable. >> One thinks they are immune to this insidious storytelling, but just observe the nudging over time, and in months see how far the view has shifted. I am skeptical. The only cases I can think of where it has worked (religions and cults) are ones where resonant storytelling is all there is. The power of collective belief and shared meaning outweighs any contradictory facts. In extreme cases, the facts themselves are denied (the fossil evidence is a lie). In most cases, memorable storytelling nudges you to pick one of out essentially similar choices (from coffees to smartphones). >>The Russian story is an extremely useful case study of an extremely successful operation, operating at the tectonic plate level. This is an interesting point. I'd love to see some objective study looking at who actually changed their beliefs after coming across these hyper-personalized political ads. Getting the already disaffected to reinforce their beliefs is one thing, and getting people to actually shift their beliefs to the other camp is another.
  - jonahbenton 6y ago
    Appreciate engagement, much more complicated story than can be told here, but short version for both (IMO, of course) is: 1. Decision making is much more of a "Thinking Fast And Slow" behavioral model than a monolithic intellectual logical process (the Slow part of Thinking Fast and Slow). 2. The small messaging nudges have a huge and impossible-to-prevent impact on the Fast part, which drives the majority of micro decision making. 3. Rationalization (how the Slow part retroactively justifies Fast micro decision making) plus authority dynamics (Trump enshrining bullying behavior at the leadership level) mean: Beliefs may not have changed but behavior contradicts beliefs. This is especially critical- and tragic- when that behavior is self-destructive, and beliefs/denial are an obstacle to using communication for harm reduction. Hope that makes sense. Best wishes.
whoopdedo 6y ago
Advertising is a type of hypnotism. I'm sure you've heard that you can't hypnotize someone into doing something against their will. The trick is, most people are unaware of what their wills actually are. We make choices quickly and unconsciously then retrace the decision making process after the fact. A suggestion that contradicts your natural tendencies isn't likely to affect your behavior. But there's a range of ways that hypnosis and advertising can nudge your brain into thinking a particular way and you'll come up with a justification for it that doesn't acknowledge the outside influence.
- potta_coffee 6y ago
  This is why I don't like advertising at all. I can't watch television anymore. Once you have a break, you can gain some sensitivity to how media is trying to manipulate you, and it becomes more distasteful.

jonahbenton 6y ago

>> Advertising can only burnish your product, not change the story entirely With respect, it is completely the opposite. Advertising IS storytelling and adtech has created the opportunity to tell, retell and invent new stories at a rate and with an impact that has no precedent. Any set of facts (or non-facts), and any storyline- especially false ones which "spread" much more quickly- are promulgated by digital ad campaigns of infinite variety and infinite precision, and create the social disintegration the US especially is experiencing. Advertising is asymmetric, and all it takes is one quip, one framing, and the mind of one person is changed. The cost of finding that one effective personalized message has never been so low. Products- physical, digital, and "people"- have their stories- in the minds of specific target individuals- changed (nudged) in a moment. One thinks they are immune to this insidious storytelling, but just observe the nudging over time, and in months see how far the view has shifted. The Russian story is an extremely useful case study of an extremely successful operation, operating at the tectonic plate level. Similarly, Bloomberg's spend should not be evaluated on what it failed to do, but on what it succeeded at. And I agree (implied) that banning advertising is implausible. Best wishes.

ChaitanyaSai 6y ago
Absolutely agree; advertising is storytelling. And storytelling is what makes the object of storytelling memorable. >> One thinks they are immune to this insidious storytelling, but just observe the nudging over time, and in months see how far the view has shifted. I am skeptical. The only cases I can think of where it has worked (religions and cults) are ones where resonant storytelling is all there is. The power of collective belief and shared meaning outweighs any contradictory facts. In extreme cases, the facts themselves are denied (the fossil evidence is a lie). In most cases, memorable storytelling nudges you to pick one of out essentially similar choices (from coffees to smartphones). >>The Russian story is an extremely useful case study of an extremely successful operation, operating at the tectonic plate level. This is an interesting point. I'd love to see some objective study looking at who actually changed their beliefs after coming across these hyper-personalized political ads. Getting the already disaffected to reinforce their beliefs is one thing, and getting people to actually shift their beliefs to the other camp is another.
- jonahbenton 6y ago
  Appreciate engagement, much more complicated story than can be told here, but short version for both (IMO, of course) is: 1. Decision making is much more of a "Thinking Fast And Slow" behavioral model than a monolithic intellectual logical process (the Slow part of Thinking Fast and Slow). 2. The small messaging nudges have a huge and impossible-to-prevent impact on the Fast part, which drives the majority of micro decision making. 3. Rationalization (how the Slow part retroactively justifies Fast micro decision making) plus authority dynamics (Trump enshrining bullying behavior at the leadership level) mean: Beliefs may not have changed but behavior contradicts beliefs. This is especially critical- and tragic- when that behavior is self-destructive, and beliefs/denial are an obstacle to using communication for harm reduction. Hope that makes sense. Best wishes.

whoopdedo 6y ago

Advertising is a type of hypnotism. I'm sure you've heard that you can't hypnotize someone into doing something against their will. The trick is, most people are unaware of what their wills actually are. We make choices quickly and unconsciously then retrace the decision making process after the fact. A suggestion that contradicts your natural tendencies isn't likely to affect your behavior. But there's a range of ways that hypnosis and advertising can nudge your brain into thinking a particular way and you'll come up with a justification for it that doesn't acknowledge the outside influence.

potta_coffee 6y ago
This is why I don't like advertising at all. I can't watch television anymore. Once you have a break, you can gain some sensitivity to how media is trying to manipulate you, and it becomes more distasteful.