5 ms·
See also the BBC documentary series, "Century of the Self". The article starts out by basically admitting that there is some informational role that is needed:
by iisan7 4y ago
See also the BBC documentary series, "Century of the Self".
The article starts out by basically admitting that there is some informational role that is needed: "In the early 20th century, advertisements served a clear purpose: they informed customers about the useful qualities of a product and how that product solved a specific problem or need."
And then came Freud and Bernays. The article doesn't get into it but I thought it interesting that Freud's theories found more fertile ground in the USA than Europe, in retrospect easy to see because the theory of the subconscious was so marketable.
I agree that some sort of advertising ban would be nice, but unlike the article, I don't think it will be an argument that advertising is necessary, but rather a free speech argument that advertising can't be distinguished from opinionated speech. And: "A quick and easy internet search can provide us with all the information we might require about a particular product." Really now?
We're already entering a third phase, where advertising is moving beyond explicitly labeled published ads, into infiltration of social networks and 'hidden advertising' in the form of faked product reviews, fake word of mouth, etc. It's easy to look back on what went wrong with advertising in the 20th c., but I'd rather figure out what to do about what seems to be coming in the 21st.
- Retric 4y agoIt wouldn’t take much to completely change advertising without limiting free speech. I can only assume puffery for example isn’t a free speech issue and can be dumped.
- iisan7 4y agoI'm not so sure about that. I don't think it will be practical and easy to regulate. How to distinguish commercial speech from other opinionated free speech? Advertising from informing? I can't think of an easy legal fix here. Are you saying that we can/should ban a concept like 'puffery'? And all of this is trying to hit a target that is falling away in the rear view mirror. We can ban billboards and TV ads, but it's going to be harder to ban internet bribes and lies.
- Retric 4y agoI am not saying we need to ban all puffery, but rather the term has stopped meaning things that are so ridiculous people don’t believe it. There’s a difference between saying you can trade Pepsi points for a military jet vs a saying like “all natural” where most consumers don’t realize it’s considered meaningless by regulators. “Made 100% from orange juice” for example is intended to deceive people where what’s actually going on is they’re using the orange peels to make new flavor compounds which are then added back in. It doesn’t matter what the actual words mean if the goal is deceive then clearly it’s a deceive statement.
- coffeebeqn 4y ago> they informed customers about the useful qualities of a product and how that product solved a specific problem or need Yeah it’s not too hard to see how this could be abused in hindsight. What if I just make it all up?
- iisan7 4y agoright? And some ads did just that... case in point... all kinds of snake oil medical cures. I think the US FDA did a good job of this for food and medicine, where false claims can have really serious consequences... but I for one am not sure what more can be done about cars, clothes, and electronics. We've got safety standards for those already. Beyond that we can try to create educated consumers; maybe make psychology and behavioral economics part of high school curriculum.