2 ms·
I take an "ad-optimistic" stance. For the most part, the economy doesn't need a lot of ads in crowded markets: the brand of soft drink or toothpaste you buy is
by syntheweave 4y ago
I take an "ad-optimistic" stance.
For the most part, the economy doesn't need a lot of ads in crowded markets: the brand of soft drink or toothpaste you buy isn't going to vary substantially, and any deal-breaker in a certain brand is one you'll pick up on without an ad.
But the stuff you didn't even know existed is where ads can add something. Word of mouth doesn't always give the answers you need, especially as the subject matter becomes more private, sensitive, or trade-secretive. Some of the answers can be found by asking directly, but in many other cases, you need an introduction. Opting to keep some degree of advertisement in your life - in spaces where you want to "keep some feelers out" - could actually be a benefit because it means you will learn just that new things exist.
The downside is that you may think the new thing is what you need, and it isn't. But that's probably most of consumerism. So your read on it will come down to whether you are "ad-optimistic" as I stated up front. An ad-pessimist will assume that nothing sold could be useful enough to bother listening to the pitch.
- dcow 4y agoI too find value in ads when I'm in a position to want to be exposed to advertisements. I don't understand why that should or need be the default experience. I pay for Kagi, it's quite nice. If I am feeling like I can't find a product I'm looking for and word of mouth isn't cutting it, then I may elect to expose myself to ads. I'd argue it's almost unethical to expose people to the manipulation that is consumer advertising without their consent.