5 ms·
> Like here in advertising. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no good form of advertising. I don’t know, I don’t think there’s anything inherently bad
by iamacyborg 5y ago
> Like here in advertising. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no good form of advertising.
I don’t know, I don’t think there’s anything inherently bad in a person or business wanting to facilitate the discovery of something they’ve created.
- cyborgx7 5y agoThat is a disingenuous definition of advertising.
- iamacyborg 5y agoHow would you define it?
- cyborgx7 5y agoPurchasing a bit of attention generated by something else to try to manipulate people into purchasing your product.
- iamacyborg 5y agoAnd you think I'm the one being disingenuous?
- cyborgx7 5y agoYes.
- cyborgx7 5y agoYou know what, I'm curious. Name a form of advertising that does not fall under my definition.
- iamacyborg 5y agoWell, last week I discovered an entirely new category of product I didn't know existed (tag management assurance & compliance) via an advertorial piece posted on LinkedIn. Other than the modern RTB ecosystem I don't think any other form of advertising is inherently flawed.
- cyborgx7 5y agoI don't see how this doesn't fit my definition of advertising. Liking the advertisement or finding it interesting is not in contradiction with what I wrote.
- rascul 5y agoJob ad Edit: Also consider that some definitions of advertisement might arguably include exit signs on the highway.
- iamacyborg 5y agoExit signs is an example I'd not thought of before. That's a good one.
- JohnBooty 5y agoExit signs on highways would very much be an example of "purchasing a bit of somebody's attention that was initially directed at something else" IMO.
- rascul 5y agoIt doesn't fit the rest of the definition: > to try to manipulate people into purchasing your product.
- lightbendover 5y agoCompany logos on the company’s own products - I don’t see an opportunity cost here so it’s hard to argue that the real estate was “purchased.” Edit: Also, any advertisement for the advertising platform itself would be self-referential and thus violate your “generated by something else” clause. Edit2: You could also take ads out to convince someone not to take an action even if there is no alternative. Still manipulation, but not to get someone to purchase a particular product.
- tuatoru 5y agoI think the real problem here is the cowardice of commerce regulators. If they did their job properly so that no one organisation had more than (say) 10 percent of any market including social media advertising and search as markets, then we would not have as big a problem. In other words, advertising is tolerable when the whole chain is thoroughly competitive.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bigfudge 5y agoWhat evidence is there for that though? It sounds to me as though it's free market dogma posing as reasonable common sense. In social media, for example, there is currently competition. Yes FB is big, but new players are entering the market and causing them to shrink precisely by making the web even more toxic and unpleasant. Perfecting this process and introducing more competition (read desperation among product managers in the losing firms) isn't something I want to witness.
- saagarjha 5y agoOk, but the problem is that people or businesses inherently only really want to facilitate the discovery of what they've created, regardless of whether it's the best thing for the person. In a perfect world people would have wants and they would be advertised to by the best solution for those wants and everyone would be happy, but what inevitably happens is that people advertise their products to people who don't want them in an attempt to ply them into being interested, or advertise their less suitable product more loudly than their better competitor.
- leobg 5y agoSame thing when you apply for a job or you try to catch the attention of some girl you like. What you’re most concerned with here are your own expectations. And, just like an advertising come up you showcase your best attributes and downplay the worst. (Which isn’t to say that, in a world where everybody does this, actual listening and radical honesty couldn’t be a much more profitable strategy.)
- praptak 5y ago> Same thing when you apply for a job or you try to catch the attention of some girl you like. No, it is not the same thing. The scale matters. Much of what is wrong with the world comes from allowing huge corporations to do stuff because a single person is allowed to do "same" stuff and we see no bad effects.
- iamacyborg 5y agoRight but scale is a technological problem, not an advertising one. Do you think glossy ads in niche magazines are a problem?
- praptak 5y agoScale is a social/political problem. A multibillion corporations can buy infinitely more bandwidth than a common man, regardless of the underlying technology. This isn't a critique of capitalism, or at least not only. I happen to live in a country where the government is abusing its power to spam the public with its propaganda.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoBusinesses are not entitled to discovery. If we want to know about stuff, we'll ask for it. They don't have an inherent right to our attention and forcing the issue is abuse.
- analog31 5y agoI'd say there was nothing inherently bad until it was pushed to a predictable conclusion. There are some folk stories along these lines, such as "the goose that laid the golden egg," or "the golden touch of King Midas." Someone is given a technology that is good for them if they use it with restraint, which of course they can't do, and it ends up destroying them. A modern story is "we can pump this black liquid out of the ground and double the human population."