8 ms·

Babies and bathwater, here. Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists, and may even not realize the possibility of othe

Babies and bathwater, here. Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists, and may even not realize the possibility of other options exists.

b112 5y ago
I think, logically, if they wanted thing or service, they'd know they want it, yes? What you mean is, they want it after being told how this and that it is, how utterly special, how pathetic they are for not having it, how bad they look without it, and a spell of desire and want are cast over them, to covet thing $x. So many things, are only a thing because someone else has it.
- theamk 5y ago
  "Covet"? "pathetic"? "someone else has it"? You are taking this too close to heart and/or paying too much attention to the ads. For example, I just went to wired.com and saw: - Many ads for some sort of business-related website, looks like an mix of Slack and Google Calendar with some extra bells + whistles. - A Outbrain block with junk like "Top 25 photos of..." and "You would be surprised about ..." While none of those was interesting to me, none of them made me feel "pathetic" either.
- sanedigital 5y ago
  Most successful startups provide products or services that address problems that lack solutions, where the solutions aren't sufficient, or where they cause additional problems. When these new, "disruptive" products emerge, the marketplace needs to be educated about them. This is what the term "Marketing" means: it's about creating a market by injecting demand into the marketplace. If people aren't aware that a product exists, they can't demand it. It's easy to focus on Budweiser ads, because those are the memorable ones. But only ~50% of advertising spend is brand advertising [1]. Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem. [1: I'd love better evidence for this but this was all I could find: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108407/share-of-brand-vs-performance-mobile-marketing-budgets/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108407/share-of-brand-v...]
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem. This is quite a bad faith description of "performance advertising".
Rygian 5y ago
That does not justify advertisement. The problem you describe could as well be solved by a neutral third party actor (could even be a public service) providing impartial news about the kinds of products that exist in the market.
- toshk 5y ago
  So then what, you get curators like Google who become super powerful? Let governments manage it?
  - Rygian 5y ago
    Google (an ad agency) is the exact opposite of a curator, so obviously no. It needs to be regulated, and probably run in a not-for-profit structure with fully transparent accounting and methodology.
    - toshk 5y ago
      Organic search is exactly that, a curator
  - tremon 5y ago
    No, you get things like Consumer Reports and numerous other domain-specific review sites like Anandtech, Phoronix, Silent PC Review or Hacker News.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > So then what, you get curators like Google who become super powerful? Doesn't Google currently own one of the biggest advertising platforms on the entire planet, and don't they curate what categories of products are allowed to appear on it? There are lots of problems with curation, but I am not convinced centralization is one of them. At least, I'm not convinced that centralization is any more of an issue with curation than it currently is with advertising. There's no reason to centralize curation and give control to one company/government any more than there is reason to centralize Internet ads with one company/government.
stickfigure 5y ago
A world without advertising is - by and large - a world of entrenched megacompanies that dominate their space without fear of usurp. It's a world where the only viable politicians are popular actors. Like it or not, advertising is an important way of spreading new memes in a liberal society based on voluntary exchange. Banning advertising is a recipe for stagnation.
- pksebben 5y ago
  that's nonsense. memes do not rely on advertising to exist, and as advertising is a service (that costs money) it's the biggest wallets that benefit the most from it. hell, look at Facebook and Google, both advertising companies and I'd argue two of the biggest and most entrenched.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Organic meme spread is extremely random and unpredictable. Yes, rich people (and conglomerations of not-so-rich people) have better access to advertising. So what? Facebook and Google are just mediums, like "television" in the abstract. The social value of advertising comes from the people doing the advertising. Like everything, some of it's crap and some of it's great.
- brimble 5y ago
  OK, but how's it different from the current world?
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    It would be strictly worse. Advertising is at worst an annoyance. On the other hand, a legally-enforced gatekeeping bureaucracy that decides whose speech is allowed to reach other people is an Orwellean nightmare. Do you trust <insert your opposing political tribe here> to decide which political ads are acceptable? Despite HN's fixation on G and F, there are multitudes of advertising channels both online and offline.
    - 5y ago
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's *the proof that adv is manufactured demand*! People interested in having something will find a way to know about them. I think people are confusing the idea of advertising (AKA publicizing) their products or skills, with the advertising market we have today. They are not the same thing, they only share the same name, for historical reasons. It's like comparing Risk with WW2. 21st century advertising is nothing but bad news. If I want a pair of shoes I like, I go to the shop that sells them. If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them)
- sanedigital 5y ago
  > People interested in having something will find a way to know about them. [Citation needed] This is might be true with commodity products, but with disruptive products—the kind most people here are producing or selling—that's absolutely not the case. > If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them). Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling. Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of. Some of them are caused by problems the individual is aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions. Marketing that seeks to educate the individual about the solutions available to them is a net-positive, both for the consumer and the producer.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > [Citation needed] You are the one who needs to prove that without ads people won't get what they want. > but with disruptive products Disruptive is a synonym for "unethical" > Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling. [Citation needed] > Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions and the solution is advertising? you're kidding, right? T: Hi J, I have a problem X, can you help me? J: Hi T, I don't know much about X, but M does. Ask him. 2 hours later T: Thanks J, M was of great help. Now I've solved my problem, I am happy, and my trust in you just got bigger. advertising is *lies* so people not only will try to fulfill a fabricated need, they will also be frustrated by the fact that advertisers *lied* to them. No, Nikes won't help you to "just do it" Running won't be easier, if you never did before, because you buy a pair of shoes that sells you the idea that everyone who's wearing them is an athlete, and that athlete could be you, just buy the shoes. How can you not see the fraud is beyond me. > Marketing that seeks to educate the individual wow. that's grotesque.
danenania 5y ago
Yeah. Along the same lines, anyone who has ever attempted to start a business knows that advertising in various ways is essential. If you banned all advertising, you'd be doing a huge favor to the largest, most established companies--the ones that already have high brand awareness. As much as ads suck, they also provide a relatively democratic form of access to markets for new entrants. Without them, the only hope is going viral organically, which is more or less equivalent to winning the lottery.
- SixDouble5321 5y ago
  I feel like it's only democratic in so far as dollars get a vote.
  - danenania 5y ago
    That’s true, but the alternative is no vote at all.
WheatM 5y ago

Babies and bathwater, here. Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists, and may even not realize the possibility of other options exists.

b112 5y ago

I think, logically, if they wanted thing or service, they'd know they want it, yes? What you mean is, they want it after being told how this and that it is, how utterly special, how pathetic they are for not having it, how bad they look without it, and a spell of desire and want are cast over them, to covet thing $x. So many things, are only a thing because someone else has it.

theamk 5y ago
"Covet"? "pathetic"? "someone else has it"? You are taking this too close to heart and/or paying too much attention to the ads. For example, I just went to wired.com and saw: - Many ads for some sort of business-related website, looks like an mix of Slack and Google Calendar with some extra bells + whistles. - A Outbrain block with junk like "Top 25 photos of..." and "You would be surprised about ..." While none of those was interesting to me, none of them made me feel "pathetic" either.
sanedigital 5y ago
Most successful startups provide products or services that address problems that lack solutions, where the solutions aren't sufficient, or where they cause additional problems. When these new, "disruptive" products emerge, the marketplace needs to be educated about them. This is what the term "Marketing" means: it's about creating a market by injecting demand into the marketplace. If people aren't aware that a product exists, they can't demand it. It's easy to focus on Budweiser ads, because those are the memorable ones. But only ~50% of advertising spend is brand advertising [1]. Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem. [1: I'd love better evidence for this but this was all I could find: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108407/share-of-brand-vs-performance-mobile-marketing-budgets/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1108407/share-of-brand-v...]
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem. This is quite a bad faith description of "performance advertising".

Rygian 5y ago

That does not justify advertisement. The problem you describe could as well be solved by a neutral third party actor (could even be a public service) providing impartial news about the kinds of products that exist in the market.

toshk 5y ago
So then what, you get curators like Google who become super powerful? Let governments manage it?
- Rygian 5y ago
  Google (an ad agency) is the exact opposite of a curator, so obviously no. It needs to be regulated, and probably run in a not-for-profit structure with fully transparent accounting and methodology.
  - toshk 5y ago
    Organic search is exactly that, a curator
- tremon 5y ago
  No, you get things like Consumer Reports and numerous other domain-specific review sites like Anandtech, Phoronix, Silent PC Review or Hacker News.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > So then what, you get curators like Google who become super powerful? Doesn't Google currently own one of the biggest advertising platforms on the entire planet, and don't they curate what categories of products are allowed to appear on it? There are lots of problems with curation, but I am not convinced centralization is one of them. At least, I'm not convinced that centralization is any more of an issue with curation than it currently is with advertising. There's no reason to centralize curation and give control to one company/government any more than there is reason to centralize Internet ads with one company/government.

stickfigure 5y ago

A world without advertising is - by and large - a world of entrenched megacompanies that dominate their space without fear of usurp. It's a world where the only viable politicians are popular actors. Like it or not, advertising is an important way of spreading new memes in a liberal society based on voluntary exchange. Banning advertising is a recipe for stagnation.

pksebben 5y ago
that's nonsense. memes do not rely on advertising to exist, and as advertising is a service (that costs money) it's the biggest wallets that benefit the most from it. hell, look at Facebook and Google, both advertising companies and I'd argue two of the biggest and most entrenched.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Organic meme spread is extremely random and unpredictable. Yes, rich people (and conglomerations of not-so-rich people) have better access to advertising. So what? Facebook and Google are just mediums, like "television" in the abstract. The social value of advertising comes from the people doing the advertising. Like everything, some of it's crap and some of it's great.
brimble 5y ago
OK, but how's it different from the current world?
- stickfigure 5y ago
  It would be strictly worse. Advertising is at worst an annoyance. On the other hand, a legally-enforced gatekeeping bureaucracy that decides whose speech is allowed to reach other people is an Orwellean nightmare. Do you trust <insert your opposing political tribe here> to decide which political ads are acceptable? Despite HN's fixation on G and F, there are multitudes of advertising channels both online and offline.
  - 5y ago

peoplefromibiza 5y ago

> Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's *the proof that adv is manufactured demand*! People interested in having something will find a way to know about them. I think people are confusing the idea of advertising (AKA publicizing) their products or skills, with the advertising market we have today. They are not the same thing, they only share the same name, for historical reasons. It's like comparing Risk with WW2. 21st century advertising is nothing but bad news. If I want a pair of shoes I like, I go to the shop that sells them. If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them)

sanedigital 5y ago
> People interested in having something will find a way to know about them. [Citation needed] This is might be true with commodity products, but with disruptive products—the kind most people here are producing or selling—that's absolutely not the case. > If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them). Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling. Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of. Some of them are caused by problems the individual is aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions. Marketing that seeks to educate the individual about the solutions available to them is a net-positive, both for the consumer and the producer.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > [Citation needed] You are the one who needs to prove that without ads people won't get what they want. > but with disruptive products Disruptive is a synonym for "unethical" > Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling. [Citation needed] > Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions and the solution is advertising? you're kidding, right? T: Hi J, I have a problem X, can you help me? J: Hi T, I don't know much about X, but M does. Ask him. 2 hours later T: Thanks J, M was of great help. Now I've solved my problem, I am happy, and my trust in you just got bigger. advertising is *lies* so people not only will try to fulfill a fabricated need, they will also be frustrated by the fact that advertisers *lied* to them. No, Nikes won't help you to "just do it" Running won't be easier, if you never did before, because you buy a pair of shoes that sells you the idea that everyone who's wearing them is an athlete, and that athlete could be you, just buy the shoes. How can you not see the fraud is beyond me. > Marketing that seeks to educate the individual wow. that's grotesque.

danenania 5y ago

Yeah. Along the same lines, anyone who has ever attempted to start a business knows that advertising in various ways is essential. If you banned all advertising, you'd be doing a huge favor to the largest, most established companies--the ones that already have high brand awareness. As much as ads suck, they also provide a relatively democratic form of access to markets for new entrants. Without them, the only hope is going viral organically, which is more or less equivalent to winning the lottery.

SixDouble5321 5y ago
I feel like it's only democratic in so far as dollars get a vote.
- danenania 5y ago
  That’s true, but the alternative is no vote at all.

WheatM 5y ago