4 ms·
> Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy. Ah, the grand delusion of advertisers put out again. Sure, people
by sgift 11y ago
> Poor people aren't robots. They can and do see adverts for things that they don't then buy.
Ah, the grand delusion of advertisers put out again. Sure, people aren't robots, but if ads couldn't influence their behaviour no one would pay for them and there wouldn't be any.
- devsquid 11y agoIts definitely true ads are highly effective and one must admit highly effective on oneself as well. Look at Microsofts recent resurgence, their marketing budget has begun to rival that of Samsung and anecdotally I see their ads everywhere. However ads are not the end all. There are many deciding factors why someone buys a product outside of purely ads, but again ads are a very strong driving force. I don't think internet ads are nearly as effective at 'mind-influencing'(not being sarcastic) as the traditional mediums. I actually click on ads frequently on the web, because I see a product that might interest me. For example, I see an ad for Linode and it presents me a compelling price point so I go and investigate it. hmm I am not entirely sure what I set out to say in this response, but I don't think the point that ads are what keeps people poor is very accurate. I believe a lack of access to resources particularly relating to education and opportunity are what keep poor people poor.
- marincounty 11y agoIn my world, Microsoft started to turn hate into, "I will take a second look at what you are offering--maybe--if I'm in a good mood." Their advertising is still just noise, and a huge waste of money in my world. I started to turn when they offerd some products for free.(I still don't use the products they offered, but it was a nice gesture.) The best Ad I heard was on here. A guy commented, 'I like my Surface. I use it to take notes in class.' I started to think about the possibilities this devise could offer over Apple's products. I still have some healing to do though--I was in Costco today and looked at a Surface, but just pushed one key and walked away. Do a few more acts of kindness Microsoft, and get that Surface price as low as possible; I will seriously think about giving you money again or at least push a few more keys. I don't think I will ever pay for your OS though--just on principle. As to ads, I think Microsoft is wasting money. Manufacture good hardware, and keep giving away software--people will notice.
- devsquid 11y agoYou have barely used their hardware, but you believe it to be good hardware. Seems like effective ads to me. Have you actually used the device? Its kb is terrible and its touchpad is a joke. MS natives ads have dominated news feeds for the last few months. A/ws these points are meaningless. Just observing trends.
- sukilot 11y agoMS paid amd gave a ton of Surfaces to the NFL to use on TV... They were used as iPad stands for the first week , until MS clarified the contract requirements.
- throwaway2048 11y agoIt pretty amusing to see pro advertisement people argue that ads aren't predatory because they're not ACTUALLY effective you see..
- devsquid 11y agoThat would truly be a foolish argument to make. However the argument I am making is, is ad supported content is one of the few monetary schemes which allows you to produce a product that allows for poorer people to part of the audience.
- maelito 11y agoYour argument supposes that you know the surplus earned by brands segmented by user wealth group (how much money users give to brands after using the service - how much they would without)
- danbruc 11y agoThey are still paying for it with every product they buy because prices include the ad budgets. At best you could argue that poorer people are subsidized by richer people because they buy more and therefore pay for a larger share of the ad budget but ads certainly don't make stuff free for poorer people. Whether they would be better off with no advertising at all, i.e. if they still pay a larger share of the ad budgets than what the ad supported stuff they consume is worth, I can not tell.
- true_religion 11y agoThat's a strawman. (And wow, am I surprised to be able to say that to anyone on HN). What's actually argued is advertisements aren't 100% effective, in that they can't force you to purchase a product as a mind-controller. Ads let you know a product exists, may convince you that it's worthwhile or better than competitors, and offer reminders to keep the idea of the product on your mind. However, that's all the same things a carefully crafted in person sales-pitch could do, and sales pitches aren't mind-control even though they are far far more effective than any number of internet banner ads can be.
- mike_hearn 11y agoYou're arguing with a straw man. I never said ads don't influence behaviour. Obviously they do. My point is they don't exert the kind of scary mind control power that some people like to pretend they do - adverts increase sales, but so does having a shop window with your goods on display, so does putting your products in specialised parts catalogues, whatever. There are lots of things you can do to increase sales and which can count as marketing of some kind. My point is to claim poor people are exploited by advertising is nuts. It's the other way around. Advertising is why poor people can have exactly the same gmail account with all the same features as a rich guy can. Nuke advertising and you evict poor people into a ghetto web. These people at Mozilla don't seem to be thinking these things through at all and that's a problem ..... there was a time that I had a lot of technical respect for Mozilla and Firefox, but it seems every time I read about the projects these days they're doing something that I find to be kind of dumb.