4 ms·
That is a disingenuous definition of advertising.
by cyborgx7 5y ago
That 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.