3 ms·

> assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion Is there any case where this is remotely even true?! The way advertising budget is spent always has an enormous

by nickpp 10mo ago

> assuming equivalent efficiency of conversion Is there any case where this is remotely even true?! The way advertising budget is spent always has an enormous impact on the outcome. One competitor spends in print, another on TV. One competitor targets young professionals, another families with kids. One competitor goes to best and most famous agency but buys the cheapest package and fights any decision, another gets a genius kid at the beginning of his career to create a most brilliant TikTok ad. Etc... > I suggest you look at how advertising works A valuable advice, try following it sometimes.

vlovich123 10mo ago
For the purposes of a simplified discussion it’s true enough. It’s also true enough in the commercial context for the biggest players. For example, Coke and Pepsi spend similar amounts of advertising and the market share isn’t really changing. But that’s also because the products are very mature and in repeated games the players are likely to reach a stale mate (and the talent pool for the advertising teams is largely the same). Political contexts are obviously different because it’s constantly one off contests and the teams behind it constantly change. So yes, obviously efficacy of advertising matters. But I don’t see how my simplification meaningfully changes the point that money significantly impacts voting at scale in our society. This wasn’t the gotcha I think you thought it was.
WalterBright 10mo ago
True, but advertising does not buy an election. Have you or anyone you know been paid for your vote? If the answer is no, then your vote was not bought. Saying that election advertising "buys" an election is a misuse of the word.
- eesmith 10mo ago
  It's in pretty wide use, like at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 "Harris outspent Trump 3:1. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. It's not that easy to buy an election."

by nickpp 10mo ago

vlovich123 10mo ago

For the purposes of a simplified discussion it’s true enough. It’s also true enough in the commercial context for the biggest players. For example, Coke and Pepsi spend similar amounts of advertising and the market share isn’t really changing. But that’s also because the products are very mature and in repeated games the players are likely to reach a stale mate (and the talent pool for the advertising teams is largely the same). Political contexts are obviously different because it’s constantly one off contests and the teams behind it constantly change. So yes, obviously efficacy of advertising matters. But I don’t see how my simplification meaningfully changes the point that money significantly impacts voting at scale in our society. This wasn’t the gotcha I think you thought it was.

WalterBright 10mo ago

True, but advertising does not buy an election. Have you or anyone you know been paid for your vote? If the answer is no, then your vote was not bought. Saying that election advertising "buys" an election is a misuse of the word.

eesmith 10mo ago
It's in pretty wide use, like at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44209515 "Harris outspent Trump 3:1. Hillary outspent Trump 2:1. It's not that easy to buy an election."