5 ms·

I honestly think this is a bit of a naive proposition, and an "obsolete" point of view, specially when you factor in the most obvious thing: Advertisement, per

I honestly think this is a bit of a naive proposition, and an "obsolete" point of view, specially when you factor in the most obvious thing: Advertisement, per definition, is self evident. You have way more "less obvious" marketing tools, like product placement, but even those that are subtle, are in set in a context - like a movie or a tv show. I think it's way more troublesome the obscure parts of what the paper claims to be "product information" - that is where true deception and manipulation occurs. This is where your defenses and your guard are down. You don't know you're being manipulated, even if it's a simple paid 5 star review with no review text, it's a deceptive bias. Another example, is undisclosed paid promotions/reviews from influencers. People would be better off acknowledging that advertising works, and that it is present in media, and we should be critical of it, which I believe in 2020, we're aware of it. Else if you're going that path, then you can start make monopolies on media and information distribution that arguably serve any agenda - even if that agenda is to gather more share/views/audiences, and you end up banning media. Because that's the truth - the majority of endeavors that are distributed in media have an agenda, and try to manipulated the audiences in some way. With this said, I'm not saying that all advertising is fine, in fact, this is probably the hardest times for authorities and regulators to control, and fine, abuses. You just need to log on Facebook and see illegal claims being made in advertising, things that would never be allowed on TV/Radio/Outdoors. Yet they generate massive amounts of reach.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The article is written by lawyers. It's 72 pages long. Did you read it, or just assume that they wouldn't cover the subtleties and nuances you describe above?
- libertine 6y ago
  Yes - it's 72 pages long where in most pages half of it are references. I confess I didn't check the references, in part because of laziness, other part because I gave them the benefit of the doubt with regards to the references they used. >or just assume that they wouldn't cover the subtleties and nuances you describe above? You tell me.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I would say that if you read it, you didn't really pay attention to their argument. For a start, the entire premise of the article is that "advertising works".
    - libertine 6y ago
      I definitely paid attention to their argument, and I never said that advertising didn't work, so I'm not following where you're going. I said that advertising is self evident, it's not dissimulated. Ads must be signaled as being ads. On TV, comercial breaks must be voiced out - "we're going into comercial break" - you signal people that they are leaving a news format into advertising. At least in the countries I know, namely my country, where advertising is quite regulated for it's nature. And let's not think we're Pavlov Dogs, exceptionally good advertising needs a lot of money behind it's distribution to generate enough reach and frequency to be effective - that has a tremendous cost. That's why the lion share of marketing budgets is for media buying. Then I said that their proposal is not practical in reality - SEO, market places, reviews, product descriptions, everything is pretty much dissimulated these days, or has a high potential to be dissimulated. Hell, the market reference, a tech firm with access to literally unlimited money, can't handle this problem, I'm talking about Amazon.
jariel 6y ago
The most 'deceptive' aspect of marketing is not even remotely 'product information'. The paper is so out of touch with the reality of marketing to even suppose that. Very little marketing is done on the basis of information, it's emotional, life style aspiration. Does Nike put ads showing the technical aspects of their shoes in Times Square? Or does the 'Big Spend' go on Kapaernick's lofty quasi-political statements? Literally turn on your TV and watch 10 commercials and listen carefully and look at the imagery: "This truck is rugged, tough, reliable, I can haul a bigger load than anyone else on the road, look how impressive I am to the other guys on the site" - this is an example 'utilitarian aspiration' i.e. when they sell utility as an aspiration because said utility is not very necessary.
- libertine 6y ago
  >The most 'deceptive' aspect of marketing is not even remotely 'product information'. Arguably, these days, I think it is. >Very little marketing is done on the basis of information, it's emotional, life style aspiration. >Does Nike put ads showing the technical aspects of their shoes in Times Square? You're missing the point - I said that Nike stance, claims, ads, brand, is self evident. Manipulated reviews, high ranking on Google, and influencers promoting products, it's dissimulated. People are not aware those variables are being manipulated. Even if some people buy Nike for the sake of Nike, if they are presented with a 150$ pair of shoes that has 3,5 reviews on Amazon, or has Kanye West saying "this shoes are shit", makes a huge difference these days.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

The article is written by lawyers. It's 72 pages long. Did you read it, or just assume that they wouldn't cover the subtleties and nuances you describe above?

libertine 6y ago
Yes - it's 72 pages long where in most pages half of it are references. I confess I didn't check the references, in part because of laziness, other part because I gave them the benefit of the doubt with regards to the references they used. >or just assume that they wouldn't cover the subtleties and nuances you describe above? You tell me.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I would say that if you read it, you didn't really pay attention to their argument. For a start, the entire premise of the article is that "advertising works".
  - libertine 6y ago
    I definitely paid attention to their argument, and I never said that advertising didn't work, so I'm not following where you're going. I said that advertising is self evident, it's not dissimulated. Ads must be signaled as being ads. On TV, comercial breaks must be voiced out - "we're going into comercial break" - you signal people that they are leaving a news format into advertising. At least in the countries I know, namely my country, where advertising is quite regulated for it's nature. And let's not think we're Pavlov Dogs, exceptionally good advertising needs a lot of money behind it's distribution to generate enough reach and frequency to be effective - that has a tremendous cost. That's why the lion share of marketing budgets is for media buying. Then I said that their proposal is not practical in reality - SEO, market places, reviews, product descriptions, everything is pretty much dissimulated these days, or has a high potential to be dissimulated. Hell, the market reference, a tech firm with access to literally unlimited money, can't handle this problem, I'm talking about Amazon.

jariel 6y ago

The most 'deceptive' aspect of marketing is not even remotely 'product information'. The paper is so out of touch with the reality of marketing to even suppose that. Very little marketing is done on the basis of information, it's emotional, life style aspiration. Does Nike put ads showing the technical aspects of their shoes in Times Square? Or does the 'Big Spend' go on Kapaernick's lofty quasi-political statements? Literally turn on your TV and watch 10 commercials and listen carefully and look at the imagery: "This truck is rugged, tough, reliable, I can haul a bigger load than anyone else on the road, look how impressive I am to the other guys on the site" - this is an example 'utilitarian aspiration' i.e. when they sell utility as an aspiration because said utility is not very necessary.

libertine 6y ago
>The most 'deceptive' aspect of marketing is not even remotely 'product information'. Arguably, these days, I think it is. >Very little marketing is done on the basis of information, it's emotional, life style aspiration. >Does Nike put ads showing the technical aspects of their shoes in Times Square? You're missing the point - I said that Nike stance, claims, ads, brand, is self evident. Manipulated reviews, high ranking on Google, and influencers promoting products, it's dissimulated. People are not aware those variables are being manipulated. Even if some people buy Nike for the sake of Nike, if they are presented with a 150$ pair of shoes that has 3,5 reviews on Amazon, or has Kanye West saying "this shoes are shit", makes a huge difference these days.