5 ms·

It may be true that advertisers believe that, but that statement (advertising to smart people is a waste of time) is not. Buying based on brand recognition is

It may be true that advertisers believe that, but that statement (advertising to smart people is a waste of time) is not. Buying based on brand recognition is just one facet of a multitude of ways advertising affects buying habits. There are a lot of advertisers that already have a great product, but just need to get the word out (i.e. many YC startups). From the article, "Laporte said he charges $70 CPMs for ads." Clearly advertising to smart people is in demand.

Flankk 17y ago
"Clearly advertising to smart people is in demand." I think the point is that advertising to smart people is not effective; they will research and find the best product regardless of advertising.
- replicatorblog 17y ago
  I think that point is highly focused on the decisions people would self report. I've seen studies where perception of a fictional brand is significantly increased through repeated banner advertising. I'm sure some high IQ participants in the study would report no impact, but have been influenced at a pre-verbal level. The psychology of repeated exposure is well documented.
- 8plot 17y ago
  If you view advertising as subversive and dishonest, then yes, advertising to smart people is less effective. Not all advertising is dishonest, and instead informative. Hopefully the new media technologies will let this type of advertising thrive.
  - danielzarick 17y ago
    The main reason I perceive advertising as 'dishonest' is that most of it is talking at the consumer, rather than communicating with. Once more companies figure out how to do this, then smart people will evaluate that advertisement with as much value as a fellow community member's dis/approval. Plus the trust factor comes into play heavily. Leo Laporte has a huge level of trust in the tech community, and we all know he is here because he truly loves what he does and would never compromise his community. (And I specifically chose 'community', not 'audience'.)
- rosser 17y ago
  Whether your notional smart person ultimately chooses a given product or not, based on the results of their research, advertising may still be the thing that makes them aware of the product in the first place.

Flankk 17y ago

"Clearly advertising to smart people is in demand." I think the point is that advertising to smart people is not effective; they will research and find the best product regardless of advertising.

replicatorblog 17y ago
I think that point is highly focused on the decisions people would self report. I've seen studies where perception of a fictional brand is significantly increased through repeated banner advertising. I'm sure some high IQ participants in the study would report no impact, but have been influenced at a pre-verbal level. The psychology of repeated exposure is well documented.
8plot 17y ago
If you view advertising as subversive and dishonest, then yes, advertising to smart people is less effective. Not all advertising is dishonest, and instead informative. Hopefully the new media technologies will let this type of advertising thrive.
- danielzarick 17y ago
  The main reason I perceive advertising as 'dishonest' is that most of it is talking at the consumer, rather than communicating with. Once more companies figure out how to do this, then smart people will evaluate that advertisement with as much value as a fellow community member's dis/approval. Plus the trust factor comes into play heavily. Leo Laporte has a huge level of trust in the tech community, and we all know he is here because he truly loves what he does and would never compromise his community. (And I specifically chose 'community', not 'audience'.)
rosser 17y ago
Whether your notional smart person ultimately chooses a given product or not, based on the results of their research, advertising may still be the thing that makes them aware of the product in the first place.