8 ms·

I strongly disagree. Targeted ads are significantly worse than generic ads. The entire point of advertising is manipulating human beings. Targeted advertising

• whimsicalism 4y ago
  > The entire point of advertising is manipulating human beings The entire point of your comment is manipulating human beings. Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product. If that is manipulation, so is pretty much any content that seeks to change what people know.
  • airstrike 4y ago
    > The entire point of your comment is manipulating human beings. The difference is in the intention for said manipulation. His comment isn’t trying to get us to part with our hard-earned income for ultimately frivolous goods.
    • PM_me_your_math 4y ago
      "frivolous goods" Sure, if the good or service is actually frivolous, but what about the case where the human is actively searching for some good or service that offer some actual value?
    • whimsicalism 4y ago
      Is there no such thing as a win-win? If the business makes money off of a sale and the consumer gets a product they actually wanted? Or is the default mode of operation always the consumer losing and the business winning?
      • airstrike 4y ago
        If I actually wanted the product, I probably didn’t need the ad. I just needed to know about it in a very factual manner
        • whimsicalism 4y ago
          Sometimes ads do that. I recently had a purchase that I got a lot of value off of based on an Instagram ad to my partner. I would not have known about the product otherwise.
          • airstrike 4y ago
            The issue is "sometimes" probably amounts to ~1% of the time, based on my made up anecdotal observations.
        • crakhamster01 4y ago
          There's so much noise online now, ads are necessity for me to eventually find something I like. As an example, a couple of months ago I was searching for some new summer outfits. Went through Google, Reddit, various clothing blogs, catalogs, etc. but didn't find a lot that I liked. After a week more of targeted ads on Instagram, I was finally able to discover brands that fit my tastes. Unless I'm buying something well-defined like a TV or Airpods, passive exposure via targeted ads has been one of the best ways for me to find something worth purchasing.
        • buttersbrian 4y ago
          Hard disagree. You may want a THING, but you don't know about a particular brand or style of said THING. Just by making you aware of them can be a win win. Say you've been researching "THINGS" for a couple weeks and narrowed it down to 2 brands. An Ad pops for a brand you'd never heard of. Naturally you check it out, only to find out its better than either of the options you were previously considering.
          • airstrike 4y ago
    • pb7 4y ago
      What's frivolous about a wallet or a sweater? Ultimately, all your hard-earned income is to make your life easier via goods and services, some of which may be frivolous. If you can't trust yourself not to make all frivolous purchases, that's a problem you can try to solve on your own.
      • airstrike 4y ago
        How many wallets or sweaters does one need? That is the reason I included the word "ultimately" in my comment I'm not arguing we don't need to buy anything ever. I'm arguing most ads are either pushing stuff you don't really need 99% of the time or selling outright junk. And let's not get into how close some ads are to plainly false advertising (I'm looking at you, wellness / nutrition)
        • Brusco_RF 4y ago
          Sounds like you are experiencing poorly targeted ads if 99% of yours aren't things you need :) Question. If your ads were perfectly targeted in that 100% of advertised products were something that you're interested in, is that not ideal? Isn't that what companies like Google and Facebook are trying to do? Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't get the Wellness / Nutrition / Viagra ads?
          • cma 4y ago
            Interested isn't a synonym for need. If you are "interested" in junk food, ads for it aren't something to you "need."
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
  • lostlogin 4y ago
    > Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product. It wants to get me to buy. Any stated aim less than this is a waste of their money.
    • whimsicalism 4y ago
      Perhaps a consumer who is aware of a product is more likely to buy it?
    • freedomben 4y ago
      I studied and worked in marketing for a little while before becoming disgusted by it and leaving. The vast, vast majority of ads have a primary goal of raising awareness, not triggering a purchase. It's extremely hard (and often ineffective) to trigger a purchase, unless the ad is seen while literally standing in front of the product at the store. The best marketing technique is to raise awareness of the product, so that when the user thinks about their own need, your brand/product is the one they think of as a solution.
  • tines 4y ago
    I think the difference is in what the two are trying to manipulate you to do. His comment is trying to manipulate the reader into believing something that he believes is better for mankind. He doesn't materially benefit, and the reader doesn't lose anything. Ads and advertisers are not trying to manipulate the viewers into buying a product. They are manipulating viewers into becoming the type of person that buys products impulsively and with little research. The product of the advertiser is not an ad; the product of the advertiser is you. This is not to your benefit. So, trying to reduce gp's comment and ads in general to equivalence is misguided imo.
    • fragmede 4y ago
      What if an advertiser truly believes in their product and thinks it will better mankind? What if they've done a bunch of research into the product and theirs is actually the best on the market? I think the two are closer than you'd like to admit.
      • tines 4y ago
        That's not really how things work in a modern context. Today we have to distinguish between the people making the stuff, who really may "believe" in their product, and the people advertising those same products, who don't care, and who aren't the ones creating anything of value. As a shoemaker, you might think your shoe is the best shoe on the market. Google doesn't care which is the best shoe. Google simply sells a product, namely, a credulous audience, to the shoemakers, who want buyers. And their ecosystem is bent toward improving that product. The shoemakers' noble ends don't justify the evil means of the advertisers. This is kinda what I take the old adage to mean, "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product." You might think that Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc. are free services because they don't cost you money. But that's like saying that a stay at the butcher's is free for the cow. They're not free at all; advertisers have to pay good money for access to their product, which is you. Or so my view goes :) I could be wrong though.
      • cwkoss 4y ago
        Most companies brainwash themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place. Selling snake oil becomes no more socially good when the salesman deludes themself into believing the pitch.
  • GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product. If that is manipulation, so is pretty much any content that seeks to change what people know. That's what advertising used to do before tracking was a thing. When this was introduced the industry realized that targeting and manipulation is far more profitable and this made ad campaigns that don't do this unviable. Because nobody ever wants to go back to a lower profit margin.
    • GekkePrutser 4y ago
      PS Not sure why I get 0 points here :) I have it on good authority from some webmasters that were trying to offer non-tracked ads that advertisers simply don't want them anymore. They're so addicted to tracking, and 'retargeting' (meaning repeat ads) that they're just not paying for untracked anymore. Not nearly enough to make an ad-supported website work anyway. Due to GDPR and the cookie ban, things are turning in Europe though. Because now they no longer have the choice.
  • hutzlibu 4y ago
    "Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product." And this is why shiny new product is often placed along a half naked beatiful women or alike? Sex sells? Some marketing indeed exists, that just tries to make a consumer aware of a product. But most marketing campaigns try to associate a certain product with certain attractive person/livestyle/object. The Malboro Man, the Taste of freedom. Etc. It is highly manipulative to its core. And with targeted ads, you can play with the target persons fears and desires in a automated way. So far this likely not happening (very well), but the potential is very real and dark.
    • whimsicalism 4y ago
      > And this is why shiny new product is often placed along a half naked beatiful women or alike? Sex sells? If anything, this was more common in the pre-internet advertising age. Can't remember the last time I saw an ad like this.
      • hutzlibu 4y ago
        It is still totally a thing, it just takes effort to notice it, since it is so common. Also there is still nondigital advertisement.
• Mikeb85 4y ago
  > The entire point of advertising is manipulating human beings. That's quite cynical. No the point is to connect products to interested consumers. Case in point: we recently had a baby so I've been googling for baby stuff. Now I get some ads for more baby stuff. It's relevant to my life far more than Viagra ads or whatever other generic ads could be shown to me. It's not exactly manipulation because I do need lots of baby stuff.
  • pb7 4y ago
    I've purchased a handful of things that I have scoured the internet for hours and couldn't find because they later came up in an ad randomly. I am extremely satisfied with the products. In fact, the only thing I'm not satisfied about is how much time I've spent fruitlessly which shows search is still an unsolved problem.
    • tomxor 4y ago
      That something has some positive utility does not justify all negative consequences. For instance installing publicly accessible cameras in all rooms in all homes would help reduce domestic abuse, however that obviously does not mean it's a net social good. In the same vein helpful target ads do not make up for all of the other shenanigans in manipulating people politically.
    • amelius 4y ago
      You should opt-in then to the silo where we will put all ads after we ban them from public view.
    • brokenmachine 4y ago
      You sound like a perfect candidate for Facebook's new and revolutionary suppository microphone, which analyzes your outputs to more effectively target your interests. Think of the time you would save!
  • saiya-jin 4y ago
    It is manipulation of you, towards specific product, within domain you look for. So you and your subconsciousness are outright attacked to buy product whose manufacturer paid the most, regardless of actual quality. (ie we also buy baby stuff but sure as hell the best products are not ie 'pampers' which are in every freaking ad block on TV I ever saw, probably... same for thousand other household products, advertised ones are very rarely proper high quality within their category, since so much is spent on pushing them down everybody's throat). I can't comprehend how otherwise smart folks can't grok this basic principle of advertising, its pure logic and simple follow-the-money principle. Its fight for your wallet, and your brain controls the wallet. Maybe it doesn't insult your intelligence to be manipulated like a sheep, but it sure does mine.
• buttersbrian 4y ago
  I disagree. Manipulate is not only loaded, but it is the wrong word. Ads attempt to persuade. They can be implemented in manipulative ways, but ads aren't inherently that IMO.
• adrr 4y ago
  Targeted ads is why we see an explosions in new companies. With traditional marketing, new companies had no way to reach an audience effectively. You could start a company but couldn’t build a customer base. With targeted advertising, it gave us things like free trading with Robinhood that leveraged targeted ads to buy installs. It gave us a bunch of new banking options that offer zero fees. It gave us new clothing brands, razors, workout equipment, cosmetics and washable rugs. Killing targeted ads will just mean the incumbents will dominate and without competition, consumer prices will rise. Gillette did their first price reduction because of dollar shave club is an example.
  • pdntspa 4y ago
    You seem to say that as if it were the only way to build an audience. There have been disruptors and innovators out there long before targeted advertising became a thing. Targeted ads gave us none of the things you mentioned, it merely gave them highly-effective ad targeting. But a company can still buy TV ad spots, they can still spread via word-of-mouth or grassroots campaigns, they can still hire people to canvas and pitch, nowadays they can still go viral. I agree with GP that ads are manipulation, and that we cannot give ad people (or any people, really) tools that are too good in this area. Literally every big company in existence today started small, disrupting or innovating or just effectively competing at something. Yet somehow they managed to become what they are without targeted advertising?
  • amelius 4y ago
    You can have targeted ads without user tracking. E.g. you can show job openings on a website where hackers meet. User tracking is absolutely despicable and must be killed.
  • HWR_14 4y ago
    RobinHood didn't use targeted ads. That should blow a hole in your thesis. Okay, I'm sure they used some of them as well, but that was not their primary advertising mechanic to get the first 1,000,000 signups.
• gerash 4y ago
  By that logic you prefer random recommendations over personalized ones which means listening to the radio and TV over Netflix and Spotify