4 ms·

What makes you say advertising is zero-sum? This doesn't seem to be the case at all to me. Take diamonds for example. Prior to the mid 1900s, diamonds weren't

What makes you say advertising is zero-sum? This doesn't seem to be the case at all to me. Take diamonds for example. Prior to the mid 1900s, diamonds weren't nearly as sought after as they are currently. It took the marketing and advertising efforts (among other efforts, like monopolizing the mining process) of De Beers to convince the public that diamonds should be highly coveted. It was advertising that pushed the public to think spending X months' salary on a diamond ring should be normal. De Beers is obviously highly derided, but this a pretty clear cut case that advertising is NOT zero sum. The value of diamonds went up because of advertising, and nothing else depreciated in value as a result. I won't even touch on your other points about unbranded goods, except to say that consumers definitely show preference for branded items, and I don't really see why that is a problem.

visarga 6y ago
> De Beers is obviously highly derided, but this a pretty clear cut case that advertising is NOT zero sum If you take into consideration the money wasted on overpriced stones, it's zero sum. How did people ever get engaged before De Beers?
- Anon1096 6y ago
  That is not at all what zero sum means. If you're going to use a widely-used term at the core of an argument, you should be sure you're doing so correctly.
  - visarga 6y ago
    So, advertising created value here by convincing people to give their money for shiny stones? Instead of, you know, investing in health, education or a vacation? Overall, was it a net win? On the one hand, one company makes money, on the other hand, many people waste significant resources for a symbolic gesture.
Ericson2314 6y ago
> diamonds I mean zero-sum in that advertising shifts spending from one area to another. Perhaps all the diamond ring money would have gone into other things. It's a hard point to prove or disprove, but even if advertising overall deceases the consumer saving rate, sure the vast majority of advertising cancels out. (I'm going to buy tide or downy, but not both.) > except to say that consumers definitely show preference for branded items Well these meaningless competing brands convey no information and waste tons of resources. And it's rather an embarrassment to Capitalism for the primary non-price information exchanged by market actors to be bullshit noise, even if it isn't a "real problem" compared to global warming or something.

visarga 6y ago

> De Beers is obviously highly derided, but this a pretty clear cut case that advertising is NOT zero sum If you take into consideration the money wasted on overpriced stones, it's zero sum. How did people ever get engaged before De Beers?

Anon1096 6y ago
That is not at all what zero sum means. If you're going to use a widely-used term at the core of an argument, you should be sure you're doing so correctly.
- visarga 6y ago
  So, advertising created value here by convincing people to give their money for shiny stones? Instead of, you know, investing in health, education or a vacation? Overall, was it a net win? On the one hand, one company makes money, on the other hand, many people waste significant resources for a symbolic gesture.

Ericson2314 6y ago

> diamonds I mean zero-sum in that advertising shifts spending from one area to another. Perhaps all the diamond ring money would have gone into other things. It's a hard point to prove or disprove, but even if advertising overall deceases the consumer saving rate, sure the vast majority of advertising cancels out. (I'm going to buy tide or downy, but not both.) > except to say that consumers definitely show preference for branded items Well these meaningless competing brands convey no information and waste tons of resources. And it's rather an embarrassment to Capitalism for the primary non-price information exchanged by market actors to be bullshit noise, even if it isn't a "real problem" compared to global warming or something.