3 ms·

This is the lie advertisers tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Ads are cancer on content. No one wants them. They only serve to make the presentatio

This is the lie advertisers tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Ads are cancer on content. No one wants them. They only serve to make the presentation of useful content worse.

subarctic 10d ago
Ads are useful, they help you reach customers
- probably_wrong 10d ago
  The fact that ads are one of two types of content for which people regularly install blockers (with porn coming second) speaks volumes about how useful they really are.
  - tene80i 10d ago
    You're both right. Some people hate ads. Some people find ads (usually well-targeted ads) helpful for discovering new things that could help them. Different people find different things helpful / intolerable.
    - preg_match 10d ago
      Ads are universally bad, even for the people who like them. They don’t actually like ads, they like consumerism and the act of spending money when they don’t need to. Which isn’t surprising, it feels good. So, why isn’t “discovering new things” a real defense? Because ads are not ranked by quality or usefulness. The “new thing” you see has no bearing on how good it actually is. If you wanted to discover a new thing you need for a purpose, you’d look up products around that purpose. Then, you’d choose based off of quality, price, and typical consumer decision making. Seeing an ad destroys that decision making. It’s just served to you. So, you typically buy worse products, at a worse price, that serve you less. So, even if you wanted to find new things, ads are the worst way to do that. That’s because the key purpose of ads is to manipulate people to spend money they wouldn’t otherwise spend. That’s their singular purpose. Well, if the product was good and useful, then you would’ve spent the money anyway. What does that leave? Only products you don’t want very much, but can be manipulated into buying anyway. That serves no consumers.
      - tene80i 9d ago
        This is, with respect, a naive and ideological take. Imagine you create a highly niche board game. Or a new kind of fabric scissor. Or you are a new bike shop, just opened up on the edge of town. Let’s assume what you’re providing is great. It’s not enough. You need to find customers. You can’t just rely on everyone doing methodical research. People are busy and you’re not well known yet anyway, so how are they supposed to find out about you? Ads can obviously be deceptive and a vehicle for getting junk goods to market. But it’s silly to just insist that’s all they are. Sometimes they connect customers and companies in mutually beneficial ways. If you don’t like them, fine! But don’t insist nobody benefits at all.
        preg_match 9d ago
        You’re writing this from a business perspective, I’m going from a consumer perspective. If I’m a consumer and I want to find a niche/quality/cheaper or whatever product, then I should research. And ad IS NOT going to optimize for those, ever, because that’s just not its purpose. So sure, I might get an ad. But is it the highest quality product, or the cheapest, or the most niche? No, not generally, and if it is that’s pure coincidence. So as a consumer, the ad DID NOT fulfill my needs. Had I down research, I wouldn’t have bought that product, right? So therefore I must have spent money I wouldn’t otherwise have spent, right? Which makes sense, as that is the singular purpose of advertising. If I would have spent the money anyway, then the ad is useless. Okay, that’s established. So what that means is that the ad is designed to grab money consumers wouldn’t otherwise give you. That’s why they exist, that’s their sole purpose. And you’re correct: it is unreasonable for consumers to research all products they buy. But even a big wheel you spin is better than an ad, because at least that’s uniformly distributed. Ads are completely orthogonal to quality or whatever metric you’re measuring, so they’re not useful at all to consumers. They serve literally no purpose. And yes, there are situations where consumers see an ad, buy it, and then both parties are happy. But that has nothing to do with the ad: it’s just random chance and coincidence. The consumer, again, could’ve just as easily spun a big wheel and ended up very happy. And for targeted ads: these also don’t serve consumers better. Because the ads are not targeted based on which product would best fit the consumer’s needs, but rather which businesses are paying for targeted advertising and what THEY believe the consumers needs are, and how THEY believe their product will fit that. Naturally all businesses believe their product is highest quality, or the most niche, or the coolest, or the most hip, or whatever. Targets ads optimize for that, NOT what consumers think is the most hip. Because they can’t: the products are advertised based off of what the business says their market is, not what their theoretical pure market is. How can we tell? Because if a product really did fit the theoretical pure market exactly, then ads would have no purpose! Think about it this way. Suppose you walk down a street and see an ad for coca-cola, and you buy one and it’s delicious. Now suppose an alternative, where you walk down a different street and see an ad for Dr. Pepper. You buy it, and you find out you hate Dr Pepper. What is the value of ads in the long term? Nothing. The value of a product has nothing to do with its advertising, and good luck is just good luck. But amortized over enough time, you end up in the negative, just due to the distribution of quality in products.
    - subarctic 8d ago
      I wasn't saying people who receive ads find them useful, although that can sometimes be true. I was saying they are useful for the people that are paying to run them
- herbst 10d ago
  Even that only makes sense if endless consumption is a given good thing. If I need something I usually have a need first, then I research then I buy. It's never the thing in the ads in between that turns out to be best.
- autoexec 10d ago
  "Ads are useful, they help you lie to and manipulate customers" Information is useful, but that's not what ads are for. No one is interested in giving consumers honest and accurate information about their products without lies and attempts at manipulation. Forcing an unsolicited ad on someone is itself an act of manipulation.
- jawilson2 10d ago
  Fuck that, if I need something I'll go research it. I don't need some asshole company lying to me to coerce me into giving them my money.
- hightrix 10d ago
  Door to door sales men are also "useful", they also help you reach customers. Everyone hates them. Just like ads. Additionally, there is no content that is made better by introducing ads. Ads do not improve any experience.
  - subarctic 8d ago
    Not everyone hates them. A lot of people do, it can be a tough job because of that but it's just a form of marketing/sales. So is cold emailing. You can get customers that love your work or your product that way, some people will be annoyed along the way but if you're providing real value to the people who become your customers I think it's usually reasonable to be using those channels. Anyway I was being facetious i hate ads as much as the next guy when I'm using a service like YouTube where they force ads on you and fight against my ad blocker. But having run ads myself i have some sympathy for the advertisers now.

This is the lie advertisers tell themselves to be able to sleep at night. Ads are cancer on content. No one wants them. They only serve to make the presentation of useful content worse.

subarctic 10d ago

Ads are useful, they help you reach customers

probably_wrong 10d ago
The fact that ads are one of two types of content for which people regularly install blockers (with porn coming second) speaks volumes about how useful they really are.
- tene80i 10d ago
  You're both right. Some people hate ads. Some people find ads (usually well-targeted ads) helpful for discovering new things that could help them. Different people find different things helpful / intolerable.
  - preg_match 10d ago
    Ads are universally bad, even for the people who like them. They don’t actually like ads, they like consumerism and the act of spending money when they don’t need to. Which isn’t surprising, it feels good. So, why isn’t “discovering new things” a real defense? Because ads are not ranked by quality or usefulness. The “new thing” you see has no bearing on how good it actually is. If you wanted to discover a new thing you need for a purpose, you’d look up products around that purpose. Then, you’d choose based off of quality, price, and typical consumer decision making. Seeing an ad destroys that decision making. It’s just served to you. So, you typically buy worse products, at a worse price, that serve you less. So, even if you wanted to find new things, ads are the worst way to do that. That’s because the key purpose of ads is to manipulate people to spend money they wouldn’t otherwise spend. That’s their singular purpose. Well, if the product was good and useful, then you would’ve spent the money anyway. What does that leave? Only products you don’t want very much, but can be manipulated into buying anyway. That serves no consumers.
    - tene80i 9d ago
      This is, with respect, a naive and ideological take. Imagine you create a highly niche board game. Or a new kind of fabric scissor. Or you are a new bike shop, just opened up on the edge of town. Let’s assume what you’re providing is great. It’s not enough. You need to find customers. You can’t just rely on everyone doing methodical research. People are busy and you’re not well known yet anyway, so how are they supposed to find out about you? Ads can obviously be deceptive and a vehicle for getting junk goods to market. But it’s silly to just insist that’s all they are. Sometimes they connect customers and companies in mutually beneficial ways. If you don’t like them, fine! But don’t insist nobody benefits at all.
      - preg_match 9d ago
        You’re writing this from a business perspective, I’m going from a consumer perspective. If I’m a consumer and I want to find a niche/quality/cheaper or whatever product, then I should research. And ad IS NOT going to optimize for those, ever, because that’s just not its purpose. So sure, I might get an ad. But is it the highest quality product, or the cheapest, or the most niche? No, not generally, and if it is that’s pure coincidence. So as a consumer, the ad DID NOT fulfill my needs. Had I down research, I wouldn’t have bought that product, right? So therefore I must have spent money I wouldn’t otherwise have spent, right? Which makes sense, as that is the singular purpose of advertising. If I would have spent the money anyway, then the ad is useless. Okay, that’s established. So what that means is that the ad is designed to grab money consumers wouldn’t otherwise give you. That’s why they exist, that’s their sole purpose. And you’re correct: it is unreasonable for consumers to research all products they buy. But even a big wheel you spin is better than an ad, because at least that’s uniformly distributed. Ads are completely orthogonal to quality or whatever metric you’re measuring, so they’re not useful at all to consumers. They serve literally no purpose. And yes, there are situations where consumers see an ad, buy it, and then both parties are happy. But that has nothing to do with the ad: it’s just random chance and coincidence. The consumer, again, could’ve just as easily spun a big wheel and ended up very happy. And for targeted ads: these also don’t serve consumers better. Because the ads are not targeted based on which product would best fit the consumer’s needs, but rather which businesses are paying for targeted advertising and what THEY believe the consumers needs are, and how THEY believe their product will fit that. Naturally all businesses believe their product is highest quality, or the most niche, or the coolest, or the most hip, or whatever. Targets ads optimize for that, NOT what consumers think is the most hip. Because they can’t: the products are advertised based off of what the business says their market is, not what their theoretical pure market is. How can we tell? Because if a product really did fit the theoretical pure market exactly, then ads would have no purpose! Think about it this way. Suppose you walk down a street and see an ad for coca-cola, and you buy one and it’s delicious. Now suppose an alternative, where you walk down a different street and see an ad for Dr. Pepper. You buy it, and you find out you hate Dr Pepper. What is the value of ads in the long term? Nothing. The value of a product has nothing to do with its advertising, and good luck is just good luck. But amortized over enough time, you end up in the negative, just due to the distribution of quality in products.
  - subarctic 8d ago
    I wasn't saying people who receive ads find them useful, although that can sometimes be true. I was saying they are useful for the people that are paying to run them
herbst 10d ago
Even that only makes sense if endless consumption is a given good thing. If I need something I usually have a need first, then I research then I buy. It's never the thing in the ads in between that turns out to be best.
autoexec 10d ago
"Ads are useful, they help you lie to and manipulate customers" Information is useful, but that's not what ads are for. No one is interested in giving consumers honest and accurate information about their products without lies and attempts at manipulation. Forcing an unsolicited ad on someone is itself an act of manipulation.
jawilson2 10d ago
Fuck that, if I need something I'll go research it. I don't need some asshole company lying to me to coerce me into giving them my money.
hightrix 10d ago
Door to door sales men are also "useful", they also help you reach customers. Everyone hates them. Just like ads. Additionally, there is no content that is made better by introducing ads. Ads do not improve any experience.
- subarctic 8d ago
  Not everyone hates them. A lot of people do, it can be a tough job because of that but it's just a form of marketing/sales. So is cold emailing. You can get customers that love your work or your product that way, some people will be annoyed along the way but if you're providing real value to the people who become your customers I think it's usually reasonable to be using those channels. Anyway I was being facetious i hate ads as much as the next guy when I'm using a service like YouTube where they force ads on you and fight against my ad blocker. But having run ads myself i have some sympathy for the advertisers now.