3 ms·
This is certainly true to some degree, or else all advertising expenditure is wasted.
by rexpop 4y ago
This is certainly true to some degree, or else all advertising expenditure is wasted.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoRight. But curiously enough, advertising, broadly speaking, tries to either 1) make you lust for something the advertised good/service claims to provide, or 2) makes you fear something the advertised good/service claims to mitigate. I'm yet to see any advertisement try to get you to buy something under threat of repercussions, or threat of being dehumanized. This last category is what GP is asking about, so advertising can serve at best as weak evidence that it doesn't work (or else it would be used in ads).
- WalterBright 4y agoI don't know of any advertisement that made me buy something I didn't want. Has any done that to you?
- rexpop 4y agoBut, of course, the purchase comes after the want, which comes after the ad. So I don't see how you've offered a counterpoint at all.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoSee my parallel reply to GGP. It's push vs. pull. Ads pull you by creating a want (either lust-driven or fear-driven) and conveniently pointing to something that can fulfill it. The followers of oppressive and hateful ideologies instead push you to do something or adopt some belief, under threat of being labeled the enemy should you not comply. Put another way, the difference between this threat-based persuasion and fear-based advertising is that the ads are just bullshitting you into believing you're in some danger, so you'll buy the advertiser's "solution", while threat-based approach is that the other party will put you in danger unless you comply with them.