25 ms·

> I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. I'm not sure that w

> I think you may be missing the point that the advertisement is specifically meant to elicit, or create, those feelings of guilt or shame. I'm not sure that was missed, but, as before, you cannot elicit or create feelings where there isn't already an understanding of what the feelings reflect. The particular ad no doubt does elicit feelings in those who already see themselves as not being the parent they want to be. It's not going to elicit any particular feelings in someone who is childless, though. They lack the necessary understanding. And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that? > 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? Sure, it is also good for the person who has an understanding that they are ugly and no longer want to be, again, assuming the product works. We do again have the potential problem of where the product might not work as expected. Indeed, that can be a problem, but I'm not sure that's a problem with advertising in and of itself. We should be careful to not conflate different ideas. On the assumption that "BetterMakeup" actually makes a person more beautiful, someone wants to become more beautiful, and the ad gave awareness to the person that there is a solution to their apparent problem, is that not a win for the consumer? > 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. If all products magically solved the problems they purport to solve, would you still have the same concern? As before, trying to convince a childless person that they are a bad parent isn't going to work. This only works when you are presenting a solution to someone who already understands that they have a problem. If the product is shitty, thereby not solving the problem, then I can definitely understand your overall concern. Although I am not sure you have made clear why advertising is to blame for shitty products. If we are imagining ways to change the world, why place product evaluation in the advertising band at all? Perhaps these shitty products don't need to be allowed on the market in the first place?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that? > 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. Reading this discussion, I remain unconvinced. Unless I lost the plot somewhere along the way (admittedly, that's a possibility), it sounds like the context is that of someone advertising a product in a probably dishonest way and it's justified because people want the thing that's being advertised, even though it's not necessarily the thing that's being sold. > Although I am not sure you have made clear why advertising is to blame for shitty products. Put another way: what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? Maybe it's more than just a shitty product.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > I remain unconvinced. Was there something we were supposed to convince you of? > what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? The discussion is about advertising preying on insecurities, not marketing in general. If we assume snake oil were to be advertised, is there some reason to prefer: "Snake Oil: The miracle cure-all!" over "Your bad breath is scaring off the girl of your dreams. Cure it with Snake Oil!"? If yes, why is the latter less preferable? Is it because it calls attention to a real problem someone might want to solve? Does that continue to hold if we assume snake oil truly is a miracle cure-all that eliminates bad breath?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. The manufacturer can demonstrate that it will eliminate my halitosis but not that it will get me laid. Using the initial example, I might be less addicted to alcohol but that doesn't necessarily make me a better parent; the advertisement sold me on being a better parent. (I appreciate your questions. I had to think about that one.)
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. Yes, but that is true in both cases. A miracle cure-all, if there were such a thing, would, indeed, solve your halitosis and girl troubles. If I am to infer something here, it is that you didn't realize what a "cure-all" can do. It took more precise language to get you thinking about specific problems and how to solve them. So, let's assume for a minute that snake oil is well and truly a magical cure-all. It seems that by the first ad you wouldn't recognize that fact and would end up not being able to benefit from is miracle properties. Perhaps the second ad would actually be preferable?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

> And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that? > 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. Reading this discussion, I remain unconvinced. Unless I lost the plot somewhere along the way (admittedly, that's a possibility), it sounds like the context is that of someone advertising a product in a probably dishonest way and it's justified because people want the thing that's being advertised, even though it's not necessarily the thing that's being sold. > Although I am not sure you have made clear why advertising is to blame for shitty products. Put another way: what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? Maybe it's more than just a shitty product.

randomdata 2y ago
> I remain unconvinced. Was there something we were supposed to convince you of? > what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? The discussion is about advertising preying on insecurities, not marketing in general. If we assume snake oil were to be advertised, is there some reason to prefer: "Snake Oil: The miracle cure-all!" over "Your bad breath is scaring off the girl of your dreams. Cure it with Snake Oil!"? If yes, why is the latter less preferable? Is it because it calls attention to a real problem someone might want to solve? Does that continue to hold if we assume snake oil truly is a miracle cure-all that eliminates bad breath?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. The manufacturer can demonstrate that it will eliminate my halitosis but not that it will get me laid. Using the initial example, I might be less addicted to alcohol but that doesn't necessarily make me a better parent; the advertisement sold me on being a better parent. (I appreciate your questions. I had to think about that one.)
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. Yes, but that is true in both cases. A miracle cure-all, if there were such a thing, would, indeed, solve your halitosis and girl troubles. If I am to infer something here, it is that you didn't realize what a "cure-all" can do. It took more precise language to get you thinking about specific problems and how to solve them. So, let's assume for a minute that snake oil is well and truly a magical cure-all. It seems that by the first ad you wouldn't recognize that fact and would end up not being able to benefit from is miracle properties. Perhaps the second ad would actually be preferable?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago