5 ms·

As an individual, I'd welcome no advertisements everywhere. I think ads were abused long enough. It's just a leech on the human life.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
That's considered a radical stance, but I +1. Ads should just be banned anywhere in general. They concentrate power to those who already have it, because you can make more ads if you have more money. The local burger joint cannot compete against macdonals on advertising, the local soda against coca cola. It's ugly, eat attention, and interrupt. It creates business models with terrible incentives, which leads to censorship in medias, quantity over quality, attention driven content, etc. It encourages mass surveillance, and is used to influence society in the worse ways, making it dangerous to democracy. Finally, if you remove ads, suddenly you get a much better filter for things: if people don't think it's worth even a little bit of money, let it die. It was not worth it. Besides, even if you pay, you still see ads. You see submarine articles in paid newspaper, ads before your movies in the theater, ads in your bus ride... Can you imagine, all this ads money, now free to be invested in something else?
- dahart 3y ago
  > That’s considered a radical stance I don’t think so. I think business wants us to feel that way, while the average person would choose to not hear/watch/see ads given the choice. I’m not necessarily against advertising, and regardless it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy and as a whole we generally don’t know how to create and conduct business without advertising. But I am against the notion that not wanting ads is a radical stance. I think we do need to prevent that notion from being normalized. Business doesn’t get to expect me to watch ads or make me feel guilty or like a freak for not wanting them. They have to work for it. I say this as someone who has run a business and had to do advertising, and as someone who has never worked for a company or organization that doesn’t advertise.
  - usefulcat 3y ago
    > it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy Is it really though? I could believe that advertising does incentivize people to buy things that they otherwise might not. But OTOH, if there were no advertising, people would still spend money, just differently. It's not as though people are going to start lighting money on fire in the absence of advertising.
    - dahart 3y ago
      I think so, in part. To be clear I’m not claiming it’s the only driver, nor the largest, but it’s undeniably large nonetheless. Consider that Google’s entire search existence is funded by ads, and there’s loads of competition. Basically all of TV and a lot of online streaming is ad funded. Magazines and radio and print media all get large portions of revenue via ads. I agree people would still spend money in a world without ads, but we don’t currently have that world, right?
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        The things you mention are media, and that world is heavily loaded with advertising. Other industries have it but it isn’t attention whoring trash, it’s more subtle. The free coffee at a conference, the rep dropping by to say hello. The brand name on the pens. The strong views against advertising are a very logical reaction to the obnoxious methods used.
        dahart 3y ago
        Yep totally agree. This is part of why I’m not against all advertising, and you’re also highlighting reasons why we shouldn’t allow being against the invasive media ads to be framed as or considered to be a radical stance.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  > They concentrate power to those who already have it Isn't ads exactly the opposite. A big company could preserve its brand even without ads, while a small company can't build a brand without ads. But I completely agree on removing wall ads. Its ugly.
  - enlyth 3y ago
    I think big companies do constantly need to remind people of their brand with ads to preserve it. That's why you see Coca-Cola ads everywhere, despite everyone already knowing who they are and what they sell.
    - NovaDudely 3y ago
      Absolutely, it is all about maintaining mind share rather than letting the product speak for itself.
    - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
      If you remove the ads, suddenly, it evens the playing field. They have to compete with the product, not the brand. With what they bring to people, not the image they can create with money. With producing for society, not rent seeking. Plenty of businesses would die without ads, they would be naturally selected out of people lives because without the brain washing, they are just not that important enough.
      - npteljes 3y ago
        >If you remove the ads, suddenly, it evens the playing field. They have to compete with the product, not the brand. Well, you at least levelled one of the playing fields (while also removing a huge eyesore, which I really like!). I think the business deals in the background play a very large role too, if not bigger than the advertisements themselves. By business deals I mean that many restaurants exclusively serve the coke or pepsi family of drinks. This won't change if we remove the ads, only strengthen, and the larger players have a bigger weight, so the field is still very tilted. That plenty of businesses would die without ads, I completely agree. There's an entire business model of running a bunch of ads, selling a bunch of crap, then disappearing. I would say good riddance to these.
404mm 3y ago
I am very much against advertisements in media. If a service doesn’t come with an ad-free option then I don’t subscribe at all. I am not as radical when it comes to advertisements in the cities. 100% no to billboards. But if a local restaurant wants to advertise pictures of their dishes at their location (not across the town), that’s fine with me. As long as ads are local to the business, tasteful and in limited size/quantity I’d be ok with that.
- npteljes 3y ago
  I think I'd be happy with innocent things like your example as well. One could even argue that ads are useful even, in the right context. But I have no idea how to go about regulating that.
  - 404mm 3y ago
    Exactly. Any any kind of written rules (or laws) will just immediately become a subject to interpretation, pushing the limits and exploiting loopholes. As usual, a few ruin it for everyone.
- binthere 3y ago
  Not everyone has $$$ to spend on a subscription service and they would locked out of content. Ads are necessary to promote accessibility of content in my opinion.
  - 404mm 3y ago
    I agree with ad-sponsored or subsidized content, I just want there to be an ad-free option for those who put value in not having to see them.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    They could just pirate content, as many have always done. But I see your point, ads can be an acceptable form of payment. I have seen this in a mobile game for example, where you can buy the in-game currency with real money, and you can also get some if you watch ads, fill surveys etc. I'm sure it's abused to hell and back, with telemetry and so on, but I could get on top that right after I ban all other ads.
russdill 3y ago
I don't see how money spent on advertising billboards improves anyone's lives. The money is just going to leave owners. At least with media the advertising dollars are funding media creators.
- npteljes 3y ago
  I think it's good to learn about marketing in general. I initially thought that it has one purpose: they put up an ad for X, to make people buy more of X. But that's not it at all. Advertisements can be used to shape public opinion of a thing, for example. To make the public associate a set of feelings, attitudes, values with the product, brand, or person. I'm sure I also leave a lot out of this simple explanation and example. So, at the end of the day, this all strengthens the entity that advertises. That's the goal of the advertising billboards.
goodpoint 3y ago
Never forget that the whole ad industry is ultimately paid with your money, as a consumer.
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
I don't think 0 advertisements is feasible - some level of advertising is necessary for businesses to communicate. Shops ought to be able to have signs. I think banning outdoor advertisements is a great idea, though, because people don't opt in to seeing billboards.
- npteljes 3y ago
  Sure it's feasible. For one, if I were to ban everything, I'm sure people with come up with something, it would be a never-ending cat and mouse game. And one of the somethings could be that there could be catalogs, or assistants, who you can turn to for "help" to get something.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
Most public advertisement is for consumption goods - food, clothes, tech gadgets etc. 1. People have mostly fixed amounts of money for these products. So the role of ads is to influence which brands/products people spend their money on. 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads that are used to influence you buy one of two almost identical products. 2. Ads total waste of society's productive power as ad spend has little correlation with the actual quality of the product. It is not helping you find the "best" product, only make products attractive to you.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  > 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads I think this is an important point. If coke and pepsi were not allowed to advertise, they could only compete on price and quality. This is clearly a win for consumers. For coke and pepsi, maybe a small to moderate loss of revenue? But then their costs would definitely go down (no advertising spend), so it wouldn't necessarily be a net loss even for them.
  - landgenoot 3y ago
    And you have 20% spare budget to pay digital services, which are now full of ads.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    >they could only compete on price and quality They can (and do) also compete on exclusive deals with places who sell soda. I'd wager it's more important than competing on ads, because what are people gonna do at a pepsi or coke exclusive place, not drink soda? I'm sorry but the free market idea that's lurking in the argument is naive, when contrasted to our current (and past, and projected future) reality.
olalonde 3y ago
I am almost the opposite. The busy signage is one of my favorite things about Hong Kong. I wish more cities were like that.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  It's certainly something that made Tokyo stand out among other cities even 20 years ago, before huge digital billboards ads became commonplace everywhere. I'm not super bothered by most advertising, it's only shouty/ cringeworthy TV ads and online ads that block content and are for products I have no interest in (often products that I've just bought, but logically aren't going to need again for a long while) that I'd love to see banished.
medellin 3y ago
I can live with ads but living in the city the billboards with leds or spotlights on them are hell. Who doesn’t love being forced to buy blackout curtains so you can sleep. City life has undoubtedly taken a tole on my mental and physical health in the form of noise and light pollution combined with having zero control over it.
willio58 3y ago
I agree to some degree. A local business that says “bakery” is fine in my eyes. It’s the crazy billboard and flashy signs that should go away.
ajmurmann 3y ago
Funny enough, I agree with you in every context but this one. I don't want ads on tv or the internet, but I love Asian mega cities and think they'd look likely worse without the huge ads, especially the animated ones. Cyberpunk needs ads and I want cyberpunk dialed up to 11.
- npteljes 3y ago
  >they'd look likely worse without the huge ads I agree with this one. Those flashy things really do cover up the ugly reality, in more ways than one, but they literally do too. But people need incentive to get things done. Broken that are covered up are not gonna get fixed, but if they are one the surface, they might. Cyberpunk, as much as I love it, I'd treat it like other horror stories. Leave it in the fantasy world.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

That's considered a radical stance, but I +1. Ads should just be banned anywhere in general. They concentrate power to those who already have it, because you can make more ads if you have more money. The local burger joint cannot compete against macdonals on advertising, the local soda against coca cola. It's ugly, eat attention, and interrupt. It creates business models with terrible incentives, which leads to censorship in medias, quantity over quality, attention driven content, etc. It encourages mass surveillance, and is used to influence society in the worse ways, making it dangerous to democracy. Finally, if you remove ads, suddenly you get a much better filter for things: if people don't think it's worth even a little bit of money, let it die. It was not worth it. Besides, even if you pay, you still see ads. You see submarine articles in paid newspaper, ads before your movies in the theater, ads in your bus ride... Can you imagine, all this ads money, now free to be invested in something else?

dahart 3y ago
> That’s considered a radical stance I don’t think so. I think business wants us to feel that way, while the average person would choose to not hear/watch/see ads given the choice. I’m not necessarily against advertising, and regardless it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy and as a whole we generally don’t know how to create and conduct business without advertising. But I am against the notion that not wanting ads is a radical stance. I think we do need to prevent that notion from being normalized. Business doesn’t get to expect me to watch ads or make me feel guilty or like a freak for not wanting them. They have to work for it. I say this as someone who has run a business and had to do advertising, and as someone who has never worked for a company or organization that doesn’t advertise.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  > it’s a fact that advertising drives our economy Is it really though? I could believe that advertising does incentivize people to buy things that they otherwise might not. But OTOH, if there were no advertising, people would still spend money, just differently. It's not as though people are going to start lighting money on fire in the absence of advertising.
  - dahart 3y ago
    I think so, in part. To be clear I’m not claiming it’s the only driver, nor the largest, but it’s undeniably large nonetheless. Consider that Google’s entire search existence is funded by ads, and there’s loads of competition. Basically all of TV and a lot of online streaming is ad funded. Magazines and radio and print media all get large portions of revenue via ads. I agree people would still spend money in a world without ads, but we don’t currently have that world, right?
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      The things you mention are media, and that world is heavily loaded with advertising. Other industries have it but it isn’t attention whoring trash, it’s more subtle. The free coffee at a conference, the rep dropping by to say hello. The brand name on the pens. The strong views against advertising are a very logical reaction to the obnoxious methods used.
      - dahart 3y ago
        Yep totally agree. This is part of why I’m not against all advertising, and you’re also highlighting reasons why we shouldn’t allow being against the invasive media ads to be framed as or considered to be a radical stance.
YetAnotherNick 3y ago
> They concentrate power to those who already have it Isn't ads exactly the opposite. A big company could preserve its brand even without ads, while a small company can't build a brand without ads. But I completely agree on removing wall ads. Its ugly.
- enlyth 3y ago
  I think big companies do constantly need to remind people of their brand with ads to preserve it. That's why you see Coca-Cola ads everywhere, despite everyone already knowing who they are and what they sell.
  - NovaDudely 3y ago
    Absolutely, it is all about maintaining mind share rather than letting the product speak for itself.
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    If you remove the ads, suddenly, it evens the playing field. They have to compete with the product, not the brand. With what they bring to people, not the image they can create with money. With producing for society, not rent seeking. Plenty of businesses would die without ads, they would be naturally selected out of people lives because without the brain washing, they are just not that important enough.
    - npteljes 3y ago
      >If you remove the ads, suddenly, it evens the playing field. They have to compete with the product, not the brand. Well, you at least levelled one of the playing fields (while also removing a huge eyesore, which I really like!). I think the business deals in the background play a very large role too, if not bigger than the advertisements themselves. By business deals I mean that many restaurants exclusively serve the coke or pepsi family of drinks. This won't change if we remove the ads, only strengthen, and the larger players have a bigger weight, so the field is still very tilted. That plenty of businesses would die without ads, I completely agree. There's an entire business model of running a bunch of ads, selling a bunch of crap, then disappearing. I would say good riddance to these.

404mm 3y ago

I am very much against advertisements in media. If a service doesn’t come with an ad-free option then I don’t subscribe at all. I am not as radical when it comes to advertisements in the cities. 100% no to billboards. But if a local restaurant wants to advertise pictures of their dishes at their location (not across the town), that’s fine with me. As long as ads are local to the business, tasteful and in limited size/quantity I’d be ok with that.

npteljes 3y ago
I think I'd be happy with innocent things like your example as well. One could even argue that ads are useful even, in the right context. But I have no idea how to go about regulating that.
- 404mm 3y ago
  Exactly. Any any kind of written rules (or laws) will just immediately become a subject to interpretation, pushing the limits and exploiting loopholes. As usual, a few ruin it for everyone.
binthere 3y ago
Not everyone has $$$ to spend on a subscription service and they would locked out of content. Ads are necessary to promote accessibility of content in my opinion.
- 404mm 3y ago
  I agree with ad-sponsored or subsidized content, I just want there to be an ad-free option for those who put value in not having to see them.
- npteljes 3y ago
  They could just pirate content, as many have always done. But I see your point, ads can be an acceptable form of payment. I have seen this in a mobile game for example, where you can buy the in-game currency with real money, and you can also get some if you watch ads, fill surveys etc. I'm sure it's abused to hell and back, with telemetry and so on, but I could get on top that right after I ban all other ads.

russdill 3y ago

I don't see how money spent on advertising billboards improves anyone's lives. The money is just going to leave owners. At least with media the advertising dollars are funding media creators.

npteljes 3y ago
I think it's good to learn about marketing in general. I initially thought that it has one purpose: they put up an ad for X, to make people buy more of X. But that's not it at all. Advertisements can be used to shape public opinion of a thing, for example. To make the public associate a set of feelings, attitudes, values with the product, brand, or person. I'm sure I also leave a lot out of this simple explanation and example. So, at the end of the day, this all strengthens the entity that advertises. That's the goal of the advertising billboards.

goodpoint 3y ago

Never forget that the whole ad industry is ultimately paid with your money, as a consumer.

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

I don't think 0 advertisements is feasible - some level of advertising is necessary for businesses to communicate. Shops ought to be able to have signs. I think banning outdoor advertisements is a great idea, though, because people don't opt in to seeing billboards.

npteljes 3y ago
Sure it's feasible. For one, if I were to ban everything, I'm sure people with come up with something, it would be a never-ending cat and mouse game. And one of the somethings could be that there could be catalogs, or assistants, who you can turn to for "help" to get something.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

Most public advertisement is for consumption goods - food, clothes, tech gadgets etc. 1. People have mostly fixed amounts of money for these products. So the role of ads is to influence which brands/products people spend their money on. 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads that are used to influence you buy one of two almost identical products. 2. Ads total waste of society's productive power as ad spend has little correlation with the actual quality of the product. It is not helping you find the "best" product, only make products attractive to you.

usefulcat 3y ago
> 10-20% of the cost of coke/pepsi cans is just the cost of ads I think this is an important point. If coke and pepsi were not allowed to advertise, they could only compete on price and quality. This is clearly a win for consumers. For coke and pepsi, maybe a small to moderate loss of revenue? But then their costs would definitely go down (no advertising spend), so it wouldn't necessarily be a net loss even for them.
- landgenoot 3y ago
  And you have 20% spare budget to pay digital services, which are now full of ads.
- npteljes 3y ago
  >they could only compete on price and quality They can (and do) also compete on exclusive deals with places who sell soda. I'd wager it's more important than competing on ads, because what are people gonna do at a pepsi or coke exclusive place, not drink soda? I'm sorry but the free market idea that's lurking in the argument is naive, when contrasted to our current (and past, and projected future) reality.

olalonde 3y ago

I am almost the opposite. The busy signage is one of my favorite things about Hong Kong. I wish more cities were like that.

wizofaus 3y ago
It's certainly something that made Tokyo stand out among other cities even 20 years ago, before huge digital billboards ads became commonplace everywhere. I'm not super bothered by most advertising, it's only shouty/ cringeworthy TV ads and online ads that block content and are for products I have no interest in (often products that I've just bought, but logically aren't going to need again for a long while) that I'd love to see banished.

medellin 3y ago

I can live with ads but living in the city the billboards with leds or spotlights on them are hell. Who doesn’t love being forced to buy blackout curtains so you can sleep. City life has undoubtedly taken a tole on my mental and physical health in the form of noise and light pollution combined with having zero control over it.

willio58 3y ago

I agree to some degree. A local business that says “bakery” is fine in my eyes. It’s the crazy billboard and flashy signs that should go away.

ajmurmann 3y ago

Funny enough, I agree with you in every context but this one. I don't want ads on tv or the internet, but I love Asian mega cities and think they'd look likely worse without the huge ads, especially the animated ones. Cyberpunk needs ads and I want cyberpunk dialed up to 11.

npteljes 3y ago
>they'd look likely worse without the huge ads I agree with this one. Those flashy things really do cover up the ugly reality, in more ways than one, but they literally do too. But people need incentive to get things done. Broken that are covered up are not gonna get fixed, but if they are one the surface, they might. Cyberpunk, as much as I love it, I'd treat it like other horror stories. Leave it in the fantasy world.