3 ms·

> 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

by 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
      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 10mo ago
        > 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. You could buy a classified with the same or better reach and same price in 1980. > Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising. You've claimed that internet cause ad spending to grow. Ad spending only grew because the GDP grew so you can't blame the internet for it. > Yes it is increasing exponentially Again, because GDP is increasing exponentially. Also your graph doesn't show total spend, only the breakdown by sector.
        somenameforme 10mo ago
        Obviously GDP growth does not magically make spending on something increase. And similarly obviously classifieds didn't have even remotely near the same reach. Classifieds were an opt-in categorized system that was delivered to a small subset of classified viewers that was, itself, a small subset of all newspaper subscribers in society. And you're paying for small lines of text delivered to this opt-in audience as opposed to as opposed to graphical images, or even videos, imposed on people against their will.
- shkkmo 10mo ago
  [flagged]

by shkkmo 10mo ago

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
    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 10mo ago
      > 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. You could buy a classified with the same or better reach and same price in 1980. > Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising. You've claimed that internet cause ad spending to grow. Ad spending only grew because the GDP grew so you can't blame the internet for it. > Yes it is increasing exponentially Again, because GDP is increasing exponentially. Also your graph doesn't show total spend, only the breakdown by sector.
      - somenameforme 10mo ago
        Obviously GDP growth does not magically make spending on something increase. And similarly obviously classifieds didn't have even remotely near the same reach. Classifieds were an opt-in categorized system that was delivered to a small subset of classified viewers that was, itself, a small subset of all newspaper subscribers in society. And you're paying for small lines of text delivered to this opt-in audience as opposed to as opposed to graphical images, or even videos, imposed on people against their will.
shkkmo 10mo ago
[flagged]