6 ms·

Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for adverti

Ads can be likeable under the right conditions. Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? Which is also ideal for advertisers. Who wants to pay to advertise to an audience that doesn't want their product? Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are likeable, but then the audience got skittish about having that much information collected on them. And so we now just get whatever random ad happens to be in the queue – which, indeed, is statistically unlikely to be in line with what you actually need, and therefore unlikable.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
There’s a subtle error in your beliefs about the motivations of FB and Google. They are incentivized not to give users useful ads, but effective ones. The goal isn’t to improve your life. For example, something you buy because its marketed very well, but then never use, is a success for FB or Google and a loss for you. You should frame them less positively as a consequence. I also want to point out that it’s not skittishness; skittishness implies animalistic irrationality. People are right to be afraid of the control that a powerful actor can exert over them if it knows everything they do.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Nobody would buy something without an understanding of it being beneficial. I'll grant you that understandings can be faulty. One may learn that there was no benefit. But that's outside of the ad itself. Invalidating your hypotheseses is an important part of the scientific method.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Explain sugar cereals, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. The advertisements create the misunderstanding. "Lucky Charms are part of a complete breakfast" etc. No normal person under normal circumstances would think that marshmallows or cookies are part of a healthy meal if you asked them directly to think about it.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      What's to explain? They feel good when consumed, and thus improve one's life, even if only for a fleeting moment. Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Let's be real: People only (continue to, at least – they may buy once just to try) buy Lucky Charms if they like consuming them.
      - sebastiennight 2y ago
        > Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Have... you met a teenager? I'm failing to see the point of this example, as I don't think I've never met a single person who found their first cigarette enjoyable. Is your experience that people buy their first and second pack out of enjoyment of the taste?
        randomdata 2y ago
        I have never met a teenager who is concerned about eating a "whole" breakfast, no, especially if that "whole" breakfast requires eating something that is otherwise unpleasant. Even if this so-called whole breakfast was some scientific truth, proven to improve health outcomes, what teenager would care? Have... you met a teenager? I don't really see the point of the example either, frankly, but it is what we were given. I expect the contextual parent was just desperately trying to come up with something in the absence of having something meaningful to say.
        ndriscoll 2y ago
        The point of the example is that there are plenty of things that have no benefit at all, and in fact have obvious downsides that everyone knows about. However, there is an immense amount of marketing around those things to try to make them seem "cool" and minimize their perceived harm. People get addicted to these things, and struggle to stop consuming them even when they know they're literally dying from it. No one in their right mind would ever give their kids Oreos for breakfast, but somehow advertisements make people feel comfortable giving them Oero O's. Any person of sound mind would say that giving that to your kids as a meal is neglect, but people do it, and it's "normal". This is the harm that marketing is capable of. Cookies are, in fact, not a part of a complete breakfast. Evidently, you can convince people that they are by just repeating the message thousands of times to them. I don't see how the people who are involved in making those ads (or the products) can live with themselves. Convincing people to e.g. set their kids up for a life of obesity and early T2 diabetes from poor dietary habits is pure evil, and that's just one example of horrible (yet completely mundane for them) things marketers do. Just imagine being a person who wakes up in the morning and thinks about how to best convince children to try ingesting poison[0]: > Juul Labs, the vaping company that has long insisted it never marketed its products to teenagers, purchased ad space in its early days on numerous youth-focused websites, including those of Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, Seventeen magazine and educational sites for middle school and high school students, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Massachusetts attorney general. Everyone involved in something like that should be put in prison. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsui...
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Even if it's something you want, if there is competition in the space, then since Internet ads work on a real-time auction system, you can expect that the winning bidder is the entity that has the most available margin to make. i.e. it is the worst possible deal for you the customer. So e.g. when you search for something on Amazon and see sponsored results, you can expect that those are the worst possible deal.
bitbuilder 2y ago
I don't think it's the random ads that bother me and others so much, those are easy to tune out. Nobody cares about billboards. Random junk ads on websites are annoying, but I don't think they're doing much societal harm. On the contrary, it's the hyper targetting of ads, nested in content algorithmically maximixed for engagement, that I object to. I've worked in the ad industry, so I've certainly heard and appreciate the whole "we're just educating consumers about products they might be interested in" angle. That's fine, academically speaking, if that's all advertising was. However, advertising more often than not attempts to pray on people's emotions to generate demand for a product. And when we know exactly who someone is, it's SO much easier to do that. As a perfect example, I woke up last Saturday, started scrolling IG, and saw an ad with a photo of a miserable looking middle aged man lying in bed, asking "Are you tired of feeling like a horrible father because of your drinking problems? Try Reframe!" (No idea what the exact phrasing was, but close enough to that.) Yes, I'd in fact had drinks with friends the night before. And yes, I'm a middle aged dad. I thought the targetting was pretty hilarious, so I laughed and shared it with my wife and friends. But also, Reframe is praying on my feelings of guilt and shame in an attempt to sell me their shitty app. I can laugh it off, but I'm not so sure your typical teenager could.
- randomdata 2y ago
  Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this Reframe is some miracle app that will truly do what you think it claims to. Would that not be an ideal way to get the solution into your hands if you have that problem? You're not going to feel guilt or shame unless you already are under the understanding that you're not, in this case, being then parent you wish to become. Anyone who takes an interest in this ad will do so only because they actually want to make their life better by becoming a better parent and drinking less, and are seeking solutions to see that through. It seems the only problem here is that the app is shitty.
  - bitbuilder 2y ago
    That's a valid way to look at this, and I appreciate that perspective. However, I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. Maybe I feel just fine about the amount I drink, but the wording of the ads subtely implied I should feel guilty about my drinking. If the question was "Do you feel like you could use help with your drinking? Then try Reframe.", then I'd agree with your point more. But maybe a bad example, because in that case perhaps the end result of the targetted ad could in fact be a better outcome for everyone, as you point out. To pick a bit of a hyperbolic example, what if instead the ad had instead said "Tired of being the the ugliest girl in your class? Try BetterMakeup!" (with all the appropriate imagery the targetting provides). Is advertisement like that truly good for anyone but the seller? As a bit of a side note, everyone knows ads are targetted now, so there's an implicit assumption on the viewers part that the seller must know something about them. And now advertisers are using that to their advantage. I think the larger point though is that many of us simply do not think its ethical or healthy to give companies the tools to manipulate our emotions and tap into our insecurities in the pursuit of profit. The seller doesn't care about the buyer, they only care about convincing the buyer to buy their product, even if that means making them feel shitty about themselves.
kelnos 2y ago
> Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? I don't, honestly. If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out. If I've identified an area where I feel like my life is lacking, I might look for a product to help fix that. If I don't even know about something that I might want, I'm fine not having it. The problem is that I don't really trust anyone else to determine what kind of ad passes the test of "will improve people's lives". There's really no objective way to approve or reject an ad based on this kind of criterion. I'd rather we just ban all forms of advertising. > Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are likeable No, they wanted to give people ads they thought would be effective. Google's plan was to make ads unobtrusive, mostly text-only, and thought that they would be likeable enough to be effective. But that's the key: they didn't do this because they were being nice and wanted to make the web a better place. They did it because they thought the ads would actually work better.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out. you dont know what you don't know. I wouldn't have even been aware of tech if I didn't randomly bumble into a robotics club in high school. Would I have been fine likely making much less in a field I'm less paasoinate about? Maybe, but that seems to be a big sacrifice just so your life is "ad-free" (an odd ideal, if possible at all).
  - tekknik 2y ago
    the advertiser also doesn’t know what they don’t know. if you hadn’t joined the robotics club, chances are very high you would tripped over robotics on your way off of the stage when graduating. it’s that prevalent these days. if not then you would’ve seen one of the many youtube videos convincing you to join some company. had you seen an ad for robot building school, most would consider it a scam and move on.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

There’s a subtle error in your beliefs about the motivations of FB and Google. They are incentivized not to give users useful ads, but effective ones. The goal isn’t to improve your life. For example, something you buy because its marketed very well, but then never use, is a success for FB or Google and a loss for you. You should frame them less positively as a consequence. I also want to point out that it’s not skittishness; skittishness implies animalistic irrationality. People are right to be afraid of the control that a powerful actor can exert over them if it knows everything they do.

randomdata 2y ago
Nobody would buy something without an understanding of it being beneficial. I'll grant you that understandings can be faulty. One may learn that there was no benefit. But that's outside of the ad itself. Invalidating your hypotheseses is an important part of the scientific method.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  Explain sugar cereals, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. The advertisements create the misunderstanding. "Lucky Charms are part of a complete breakfast" etc. No normal person under normal circumstances would think that marshmallows or cookies are part of a healthy meal if you asked them directly to think about it.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    What's to explain? They feel good when consumed, and thus improve one's life, even if only for a fleeting moment. Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Let's be real: People only (continue to, at least – they may buy once just to try) buy Lucky Charms if they like consuming them.
    - sebastiennight 2y ago
      > Who is buying Lucky Charms because they find them disgusting, but somehow see them as being important? Have... you met a teenager? I'm failing to see the point of this example, as I don't think I've never met a single person who found their first cigarette enjoyable. Is your experience that people buy their first and second pack out of enjoyment of the taste?
      - randomdata 2y ago
        I have never met a teenager who is concerned about eating a "whole" breakfast, no, especially if that "whole" breakfast requires eating something that is otherwise unpleasant. Even if this so-called whole breakfast was some scientific truth, proven to improve health outcomes, what teenager would care? Have... you met a teenager? I don't really see the point of the example either, frankly, but it is what we were given. I expect the contextual parent was just desperately trying to come up with something in the absence of having something meaningful to say.
        ndriscoll 2y ago
        The point of the example is that there are plenty of things that have no benefit at all, and in fact have obvious downsides that everyone knows about. However, there is an immense amount of marketing around those things to try to make them seem "cool" and minimize their perceived harm. People get addicted to these things, and struggle to stop consuming them even when they know they're literally dying from it. No one in their right mind would ever give their kids Oreos for breakfast, but somehow advertisements make people feel comfortable giving them Oero O's. Any person of sound mind would say that giving that to your kids as a meal is neglect, but people do it, and it's "normal". This is the harm that marketing is capable of. Cookies are, in fact, not a part of a complete breakfast. Evidently, you can convince people that they are by just repeating the message thousands of times to them. I don't see how the people who are involved in making those ads (or the products) can live with themselves. Convincing people to e.g. set their kids up for a life of obesity and early T2 diabetes from poor dietary habits is pure evil, and that's just one example of horrible (yet completely mundane for them) things marketers do. Just imagine being a person who wakes up in the morning and thinks about how to best convince children to try ingesting poison[0]: > Juul Labs, the vaping company that has long insisted it never marketed its products to teenagers, purchased ad space in its early days on numerous youth-focused websites, including those of Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, Seventeen magazine and educational sites for middle school and high school students, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Massachusetts attorney general. Everyone involved in something like that should be put in prison. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsui...
ndriscoll 2y ago
Even if it's something you want, if there is competition in the space, then since Internet ads work on a real-time auction system, you can expect that the winning bidder is the entity that has the most available margin to make. i.e. it is the worst possible deal for you the customer. So e.g. when you search for something on Amazon and see sponsored results, you can expect that those are the worst possible deal.

bitbuilder 2y ago

I don't think it's the random ads that bother me and others so much, those are easy to tune out. Nobody cares about billboards. Random junk ads on websites are annoying, but I don't think they're doing much societal harm. On the contrary, it's the hyper targetting of ads, nested in content algorithmically maximixed for engagement, that I object to. I've worked in the ad industry, so I've certainly heard and appreciate the whole "we're just educating consumers about products they might be interested in" angle. That's fine, academically speaking, if that's all advertising was. However, advertising more often than not attempts to pray on people's emotions to generate demand for a product. And when we know exactly who someone is, it's SO much easier to do that. As a perfect example, I woke up last Saturday, started scrolling IG, and saw an ad with a photo of a miserable looking middle aged man lying in bed, asking "Are you tired of feeling like a horrible father because of your drinking problems? Try Reframe!" (No idea what the exact phrasing was, but close enough to that.) Yes, I'd in fact had drinks with friends the night before. And yes, I'm a middle aged dad. I thought the targetting was pretty hilarious, so I laughed and shared it with my wife and friends. But also, Reframe is praying on my feelings of guilt and shame in an attempt to sell me their shitty app. I can laugh it off, but I'm not so sure your typical teenager could.

randomdata 2y ago
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this Reframe is some miracle app that will truly do what you think it claims to. Would that not be an ideal way to get the solution into your hands if you have that problem? You're not going to feel guilt or shame unless you already are under the understanding that you're not, in this case, being then parent you wish to become. Anyone who takes an interest in this ad will do so only because they actually want to make their life better by becoming a better parent and drinking less, and are seeking solutions to see that through. It seems the only problem here is that the app is shitty.
- bitbuilder 2y ago
  That's a valid way to look at this, and I appreciate that perspective. However, I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. Maybe I feel just fine about the amount I drink, but the wording of the ads subtely implied I should feel guilty about my drinking. If the question was "Do you feel like you could use help with your drinking? Then try Reframe.", then I'd agree with your point more. But maybe a bad example, because in that case perhaps the end result of the targetted ad could in fact be a better outcome for everyone, as you point out. To pick a bit of a hyperbolic example, what if instead the ad had instead said "Tired of being the the ugliest girl in your class? Try BetterMakeup!" (with all the appropriate imagery the targetting provides). Is advertisement like that truly good for anyone but the seller? As a bit of a side note, everyone knows ads are targetted now, so there's an implicit assumption on the viewers part that the seller must know something about them. And now advertisers are using that to their advantage. I think the larger point though is that many of us simply do not think its ethical or healthy to give companies the tools to manipulate our emotions and tap into our insecurities in the pursuit of profit. The seller doesn't care about the buyer, they only care about convincing the buyer to buy their product, even if that means making them feel shitty about themselves.

kelnos 2y ago

> Who doesn't want to learn about something that will actually improve their life? I don't, honestly. If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out. If I've identified an area where I feel like my life is lacking, I might look for a product to help fix that. If I don't even know about something that I might want, I'm fine not having it. The problem is that I don't really trust anyone else to determine what kind of ad passes the test of "will improve people's lives". There's really no objective way to approve or reject an ad based on this kind of criterion. I'd rather we just ban all forms of advertising. > Google and Facebook, in the early days, thought they could use copious amounts of data to tailor the ads to the user such that they would only be subjected to those which are likeable No, they wanted to give people ads they thought would be effective. Google's plan was to make ads unobtrusive, mostly text-only, and thought that they would be likeable enough to be effective. But that's the key: they didn't do this because they were being nice and wanted to make the web a better place. They did it because they thought the ads would actually work better.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
>If I've decided I want something, I'll seek it out. you dont know what you don't know. I wouldn't have even been aware of tech if I didn't randomly bumble into a robotics club in high school. Would I have been fine likely making much less in a field I'm less paasoinate about? Maybe, but that seems to be a big sacrifice just so your life is "ad-free" (an odd ideal, if possible at all).
- tekknik 2y ago
  the advertiser also doesn’t know what they don’t know. if you hadn’t joined the robotics club, chances are very high you would tripped over robotics on your way off of the stage when graduating. it’s that prevalent these days. if not then you would’ve seen one of the many youtube videos convincing you to join some company. had you seen an ad for robot building school, most would consider it a scam and move on.