4 ms·

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. Li

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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
        The study started in 1980 and carried on to 2013. So they started in an era where you had a mixture of extremely expensive (television) or extremely low reach (local newspaper classifieds) ads. In the internet era you have high reach low cost options such that for less than $100, like $30 adjusted to 1980 dollars, you can hit tens of thousands of people. And there are vastly more people advertising precisely because of that. Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising. Finally here [1] is a graph of global advertising spend over the years. Yes it is increasing exponentially, and obviously so are the number of ads people are seeing. [1] - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-global-advertising-spend-1980-2020/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-global-advertisin...

shkkmo 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
      The study started in 1980 and carried on to 2013. So they started in an era where you had a mixture of extremely expensive (television) or extremely low reach (local newspaper classifieds) ads. In the internet era you have high reach low cost options such that for less than $100, like $30 adjusted to 1980 dollars, you can hit tens of thousands of people. And there are vastly more people advertising precisely because of that. Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising. Finally here [1] is a graph of global advertising spend over the years. Yes it is increasing exponentially, and obviously so are the number of ads people are seeing. [1] - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-global-advertising-spend-1980-2020/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-global-advertisin...