3 ms·

>> Advertising can only burnish your product, not change the story entirely With respect, it is completely the opposite. Advertising IS storytelling and adtech

>> 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.

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.