3 ms·

> And advertising spending is increasingly exponentially. Good numbers on ad spend are available here [1] I don't see a single place in that PDF that lists his

by shkkmo 10mo ago

> And advertising spending is increasingly exponentially. Good numbers on ad spend are available here [1] I don't see a single place in that PDF that lists historical ad spend data. You do realize that is a "forecast" not a mearement? And even that forecast contradicts the point you are trying to argue. It projects that ad spend will grow exponentially...at a rate lower than GDP. So again, the only evidence here that the Internet increased advertising spending is by arguing that the Internet increased GDP. > Ad spending was estimated at growing around 14% per year This is false. The only place that numer was used in your cited text was here: >> We forecast paid search to grow at an average rate of 14% a year to 2016 So that isn't a measurement, it is a forecast. It is also not for all ad spending growth, but for "paid search". I too dislike mass advertising, but if you wanna argue against it you need to do MUCH better.

somenameforme 10mo ago
You have yet to offer a single coherent counter-argument or explanation. Rather you are wildly flailing with seemingly endless weak claims that mean nothing. Like here if I look it up and the ad spend was indeed growing at somewhere in the ballpark of their numbers (since their predictions are obviously going to align with trends), are you going to change your opinion? Obviously not, no more than you're going to change your opinion after realizing that a 3% decline in satisfaction was indeed a lot, or that the study did indeed make some significant effort to demonstrate causality. Or now if you learn that economies, especially European, grow dramatically slower [1] than you seem to think, are you going to change your opinion? No, because once again you're not making a logical or rationale argument whatsoever, but behaving like somebody on the defensive desperately trying to argue against something but having no foundation beyond the dislike of a seemingly inescapable conclusion. [1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/european-union/gdp-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/eur...
- shkkmo 10mo ago
  > 3% decline in satisfaction was indeed a lot That is 3% if you double ad spend. You've failed to demonstrate that the internet increased ad spend at all, let alone came anywhere near doubling it. > Or now if you learn that economies, especially European, grow dramatically slower I just was telling you what your own source claimed, not endorsing those claims... > behaving like somebody on the defensive desperately trying to argue against something but having no foundation beyond the dislike of a seemingly inescapable conclusion. Perhaps you should re-read the comment you just left...
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    So what is your argument supposed to be? That people don't see anymore ads than they used to, or that the internet is having no impact on the number of ads people are seeing? See the problem with how you're arguing? Obviously you don't believe these things, but it seems that's what you've apparently found yourself trying to argue.
    - somenameforme 10mo ago
      It also just occurred to me in our discussion that you may have missed the fundamental point. The study used ad spend as a proxy for ads viewed. This is because measuring exactly how many ads people see, let alone over time, is impossible to measure, but it's undoubtedly increasing with a sharp exponential, largely thanks to the internet. Ad spend works as a passable proxy for it, and is likely understating the impact in modern times since advertising has become cheaper than ever, again thanks to the internet. So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period.
      - shkkmo 10mo ago
        > The study used ad spend as a proxy for ads viewed Yes, clearly that was the intent. That doesn't mean you can generalize from your proxy to the thing you have a hard time measuring. > So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period. It seems like you are just making up facts. The fact is that global spending on advertising is a fairly steady percentage of the GPD. It does occilate a little up and down, but the "exponential" growth you are talking about is merely the exponential growth of GDP. Thus your argument that internet has increased ad spend and thus decreased happiness is false. Addionaly, while this is also hard to quantify, the trends for cost per ad view does seem to be moving in the opposite direction. The cost of an impression seems to be moving upwards, not downwards.
        somenameforme 10mo ago

by shkkmo 10mo ago

somenameforme 10mo ago

You have yet to offer a single coherent counter-argument or explanation. Rather you are wildly flailing with seemingly endless weak claims that mean nothing. Like here if I look it up and the ad spend was indeed growing at somewhere in the ballpark of their numbers (since their predictions are obviously going to align with trends), are you going to change your opinion? Obviously not, no more than you're going to change your opinion after realizing that a 3% decline in satisfaction was indeed a lot, or that the study did indeed make some significant effort to demonstrate causality. Or now if you learn that economies, especially European, grow dramatically slower [1] than you seem to think, are you going to change your opinion? No, because once again you're not making a logical or rationale argument whatsoever, but behaving like somebody on the defensive desperately trying to argue against something but having no foundation beyond the dislike of a seemingly inescapable conclusion. [1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/european-union/gdp-growth-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/eur...

shkkmo 10mo ago
> 3% decline in satisfaction was indeed a lot That is 3% if you double ad spend. You've failed to demonstrate that the internet increased ad spend at all, let alone came anywhere near doubling it. > Or now if you learn that economies, especially European, grow dramatically slower I just was telling you what your own source claimed, not endorsing those claims... > behaving like somebody on the defensive desperately trying to argue against something but having no foundation beyond the dislike of a seemingly inescapable conclusion. Perhaps you should re-read the comment you just left...
- somenameforme 10mo ago
  So what is your argument supposed to be? That people don't see anymore ads than they used to, or that the internet is having no impact on the number of ads people are seeing? See the problem with how you're arguing? Obviously you don't believe these things, but it seems that's what you've apparently found yourself trying to argue.
  - somenameforme 10mo ago
    It also just occurred to me in our discussion that you may have missed the fundamental point. The study used ad spend as a proxy for ads viewed. This is because measuring exactly how many ads people see, let alone over time, is impossible to measure, but it's undoubtedly increasing with a sharp exponential, largely thanks to the internet. Ad spend works as a passable proxy for it, and is likely understating the impact in modern times since advertising has become cheaper than ever, again thanks to the internet. So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period.
    - shkkmo 10mo ago
      > The study used ad spend as a proxy for ads viewed Yes, clearly that was the intent. That doesn't mean you can generalize from your proxy to the thing you have a hard time measuring. > So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period. It seems like you are just making up facts. The fact is that global spending on advertising is a fairly steady percentage of the GPD. It does occilate a little up and down, but the "exponential" growth you are talking about is merely the exponential growth of GDP. Thus your argument that internet has increased ad spend and thus decreased happiness is false. Addionaly, while this is also hard to quantify, the trends for cost per ad view does seem to be moving in the opposite direction. The cost of an impression seems to be moving upwards, not downwards.
      - somenameforme 10mo ago