5 ms·

Let's just make it the end of advertising altogether, finally. Advertising's goal is to influence your behaviour in a way that benefits somebody else, not neces

Let's just make it the end of advertising altogether, finally. Advertising's goal is to influence your behaviour in a way that benefits somebody else, not necessarily yourself. Of course we can easily imagine why having such a system in place is also beneficial for governments. That is IMHO all the more reason why it should be a basic human right to be free from advertising in all aspects of your life, if you want.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
I agree that even untargeted advertising can be manipulative. However, to end advertising completely would require the presence of established Consumer Reports-type media that are widely known in society, so that consumers are aware of what products are out there for their needs. Since most countries lack such prominent independent sources of product news, consumers have few other sources of information on what options they have than media that, in some way or another, is linked with advertising.
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  If advertisers want to inform people, and people actually want to be informed, I'm sure together they will find a way to communicate, even if it does not include shoving stuff into other people's faces. Of course well-researched, unbiased consumer-oriented media are very nice but the bar for replacing advertising as it currently is is much lower. You just need a place to put stuff, maybe sort it into categories, and give more room to advertisers who pay more. The only difference is that people will engage with it voluntarily.
  - account42 6y ago
    > If advertisers want to inform people, and people actually want to be informed I think that's exactly it - advertisement are unsolicited communication - aka spam. Outlawing spam does not mean that you cannot communicate with people that choose to listen.
jraby3 6y ago
Wouldn’t that mean an end to a lot of free services? If I want to pay for email there are plenty of services. If I want to trade viewing some ads for free email service shouldn’t that choice be up to me?
- danbruc 6y ago
  Wouldn’t that mean an end to a lot of free services? They are not free, you pay for them with everything you buy, with the ad budget share of the price. And you are not only paying for the service you want, you are also paying for the entire ad industry on top of that.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Whatever the cost, it will increase significantly without advertising. Advertising pushes product into more hands which makes unit costs lower. Targeted advertising reduces ad costs because they are more effective. Free services have no reason to exist without advertising.
    - danbruc 6y ago
      Advertising pushes product into more hands which makes unit costs lower. This is at the very least not obvious. Advertising does, again at least not obviously, increase the amount of money consumers [can] spend. If they shift money to one product, another one will see reduced consumption and get more expensive to manufacture. Also what prevents one or a few companies from being very successful with their advertisement, becoming a oligopoly or even a monopoly and then inflating the price for more profit and to the disadvantage of the consumers?
      - pb7 6y ago
        >Also what prevents one or a few companies from being very successful with their advertisement, becoming a oligopoly or even a monopoly and then inflating the price for more profit and to the disadvantage of the consumers? I think this is just as muddy as the bits you pointed out. Incumbents don't need to advertise but new players do and they have a better chance to gain market share with targeted advertising due to more effective use of their often limited budgets.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Even before influencing behaviour (which is not inherently wrong, by the way. Everyone tries to influence others all the time) the aim of advertising is to make your product or service known, it's to make potential customers know that you exist so that if they need what you sell you at least have a chance that they'll buy it from you. Advertising is an essential part of a market economy. It's always useful to go back to basics: Let's say I'm a teenager and I want to make some money to buy a new bike by mowing lawns. Will I just sit on my front porch and hope that my neighbours will read my mind? Of course not, I'll advertise by knocking on doors or distributing flyers. Then, targeted advertising is putting flyers only in the mailboxes of houses that have a lawn instead of distributing at random. Banning advertising altogether is at best an ill-thought-out position, at worst a call to enforce a planned soviet-style economy. Banning targeted advertising does not seem much better (of course the article qualifies this proposed ban as only being "on the basis of pervasive tracking", not general).
- codecutter 6y ago
  The problem starts when your "targeted" advertising will send flyers to only those homes where both husband/wife work and have little free time; or households that have very young children or household with single parent or the household that owns very old lawnmower that was repaired recently etc. Then your "targeted advertising" starts charging more from households that have only senior citizens etc.etc.
wsgeorge 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "advertising" here, but the way you state the goal of advertising is too close to the general goal of communication to make a blanket ban on advertising quite totalitarian. And I say this as someone with an instinctual dislike for advertising and practically any sort of opportunistic promotion/marketing.
Animats 6y ago
Sao Paulo, Brazil banned outdoor advertising signs in 2007.[1] Big win. It can be done. I'd argue that advertising should not be a tax-deductible business expense. That would discourage overdoing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  That's so awesome. Wish every other brazilian city did the same.
smartties 6y ago
> Let's just make it the end of advertising altogether, finally. Are you ready to pay 5$/month to have access to google search, then 2$/month for hackernews, another 5$ for youtube, and then 3$ for your mail address... ? The web runs on ads
- bondarchuk 6y ago
  Yeah definitely. If we assume that advertising works, then it follows that the total sum that all advertisers pay is extracted from all users in aggregate, only in a roundabout way. If we outlawed advertising totally (which is more severe than what I proposed in my first post) then it would just mean the hidden cost (or damage, in some cases) incurred by users due to advertising is made explicit. If that means some people won't use some services, I would say it's only fair, it's better than tricking people into paying for stuff indirectly.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

I agree that even untargeted advertising can be manipulative. However, to end advertising completely would require the presence of established Consumer Reports-type media that are widely known in society, so that consumers are aware of what products are out there for their needs. Since most countries lack such prominent independent sources of product news, consumers have few other sources of information on what options they have than media that, in some way or another, is linked with advertising.

bondarchuk 6y ago
If advertisers want to inform people, and people actually want to be informed, I'm sure together they will find a way to communicate, even if it does not include shoving stuff into other people's faces. Of course well-researched, unbiased consumer-oriented media are very nice but the bar for replacing advertising as it currently is is much lower. You just need a place to put stuff, maybe sort it into categories, and give more room to advertisers who pay more. The only difference is that people will engage with it voluntarily.
- account42 6y ago
  > If advertisers want to inform people, and people actually want to be informed I think that's exactly it - advertisement are unsolicited communication - aka spam. Outlawing spam does not mean that you cannot communicate with people that choose to listen.

jraby3 6y ago

Wouldn’t that mean an end to a lot of free services? If I want to pay for email there are plenty of services. If I want to trade viewing some ads for free email service shouldn’t that choice be up to me?

danbruc 6y ago
Wouldn’t that mean an end to a lot of free services? They are not free, you pay for them with everything you buy, with the ad budget share of the price. And you are not only paying for the service you want, you are also paying for the entire ad industry on top of that.
- pb7 6y ago
  Whatever the cost, it will increase significantly without advertising. Advertising pushes product into more hands which makes unit costs lower. Targeted advertising reduces ad costs because they are more effective. Free services have no reason to exist without advertising.
  - danbruc 6y ago
    Advertising pushes product into more hands which makes unit costs lower. This is at the very least not obvious. Advertising does, again at least not obviously, increase the amount of money consumers [can] spend. If they shift money to one product, another one will see reduced consumption and get more expensive to manufacture. Also what prevents one or a few companies from being very successful with their advertisement, becoming a oligopoly or even a monopoly and then inflating the price for more profit and to the disadvantage of the consumers?
    - pb7 6y ago
      >Also what prevents one or a few companies from being very successful with their advertisement, becoming a oligopoly or even a monopoly and then inflating the price for more profit and to the disadvantage of the consumers? I think this is just as muddy as the bits you pointed out. Incumbents don't need to advertise but new players do and they have a better chance to gain market share with targeted advertising due to more effective use of their often limited budgets.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Even before influencing behaviour (which is not inherently wrong, by the way. Everyone tries to influence others all the time) the aim of advertising is to make your product or service known, it's to make potential customers know that you exist so that if they need what you sell you at least have a chance that they'll buy it from you. Advertising is an essential part of a market economy. It's always useful to go back to basics: Let's say I'm a teenager and I want to make some money to buy a new bike by mowing lawns. Will I just sit on my front porch and hope that my neighbours will read my mind? Of course not, I'll advertise by knocking on doors or distributing flyers. Then, targeted advertising is putting flyers only in the mailboxes of houses that have a lawn instead of distributing at random. Banning advertising altogether is at best an ill-thought-out position, at worst a call to enforce a planned soviet-style economy. Banning targeted advertising does not seem much better (of course the article qualifies this proposed ban as only being "on the basis of pervasive tracking", not general).

codecutter 6y ago
The problem starts when your "targeted" advertising will send flyers to only those homes where both husband/wife work and have little free time; or households that have very young children or household with single parent or the household that owns very old lawnmower that was repaired recently etc. Then your "targeted advertising" starts charging more from households that have only senior citizens etc.etc.

wsgeorge 6y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by "advertising" here, but the way you state the goal of advertising is too close to the general goal of communication to make a blanket ban on advertising quite totalitarian. And I say this as someone with an instinctual dislike for advertising and practically any sort of opportunistic promotion/marketing.

Animats 6y ago

Sao Paulo, Brazil banned outdoor advertising signs in 2007.[1] Big win. It can be done. I'd argue that advertising should not be a tax-deductible business expense. That would discourage overdoing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa

matheusmoreira 6y ago
That's so awesome. Wish every other brazilian city did the same.

smartties 6y ago

> Let's just make it the end of advertising altogether, finally. Are you ready to pay 5$/month to have access to google search, then 2$/month for hackernews, another 5$ for youtube, and then 3$ for your mail address... ? The web runs on ads

bondarchuk 6y ago
Yeah definitely. If we assume that advertising works, then it follows that the total sum that all advertisers pay is extracted from all users in aggregate, only in a roundabout way. If we outlawed advertising totally (which is more severe than what I proposed in my first post) then it would just mean the hidden cost (or damage, in some cases) incurred by users due to advertising is made explicit. If that means some people won't use some services, I would say it's only fair, it's better than tricking people into paying for stuff indirectly.