I have many issues with this. First: > Think of the classic campaigns from Apple, Volkswagen, Absolut, and Nike. Is this not the definition of selection bias?

I have many issues with this. First: > Think of the classic campaigns from Apple, Volkswagen, Absolut, and Nike. Is this not the definition of selection bias? If you only think about the classics, everything seems better than it was. It also rests on the point that those classic ads were 'good', and that's something I disagree with - I don't think there's any moral form of advertising, which is my second problem with this article. > Ads aimed to be compelling. Ads aimed to redirect your attention without your knowledge and artificially create an urge to consume. I interpret the author's use of the word "compelling" as an admission that ads are story-telling, and give a narrative that does not need to be beneficial. The classics of Absolut apparently (I don't know for sure - I'm just looking at the images on the website) are about Vodka, and encourage consumption of alcohol unilaterally, despite and because that's not a choice consumers would make unguided and without external influence. Alcohol kills people, and that's not something ads are going to mention. Apple is of course into their slave labor and suicide net model of production, and VW lied about their car's energy efficiency. It's a cliche to say this, but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Please, for the love of all that is good, let's stop acting like there is. > It wanted people to feel something. Yes, that's called emotional manipulation, and it's both bad and not gone. > Sadly, we’ve lost those great, Ogilvy-esque, creative campaigns and replaced them with the digital equivalents of windshield flyers, direct mail campaigns, and door tags. What a snooze. Why exactly do we want the fine-wine equivalent of emotional manipulation? This does not feel like an art form, much less an ethical art form. > 96% of consumers don’t trust ads. (source) Thank fuck? Why on earth do you want people to trust ads? What good to society does that do? > I’m a creator and I need an image so I can make something I care about. If this is what was encouraged by economic dynamics, I'd be all for it. But no matter who runs the ad, individual or multi-million dollar corporation, it'll still be pushed towards an image encouraging consumption to an excess. *That is how capitalism works*. This article is the advertisement equivalent of addressing climate change by consuming more products. It completely fails to address the root problems and favors a near straw-man argument to substantial change and effect. Honestly, this feels like a parody of neoliberal ideology meant to poke fun. I really hope I'm not missing a joke.