18 ms·

Disclaimer: I work in advertising. > But what is being passed today as advertising is nothing like that, it is more like high school psychological and emotion

by wdr1 11y ago

Disclaimer: I work in advertising. > But what is being passed today as advertising is nothing like that, it is more like high school psychological and emotional blackmail. "Here is this product. If you don't have it you are not in the ingroup but in the outgroup. You are not beautiful enough without this product. People will look down on you without this product. This product will make you more attractive to the opposite sex and more likely to land a high paying high profile job". I don't understand this. If anything advertising is more transparent today than ever before. Consider in the 1800s it wasn't uncommon for a publisher to be paid for a product & make it seem like they were simply endorsing something they truly liked. With the advent of TV, products would be place throughout the show. Today we have much stricter laws about making it clear a publisher is promoting a product because they are paid. > ... the strict sense of the word. "Here is this product. That's how it works. That's how it's different from its competitors. Here is the price. Here is the total cost of ownership as compared to the competitor. Here is how this product can satisfy your needs in this specific case" Only a very, very small percentage of things are purchased this way. Why does your friend pay extra for those Louis Vuitton sunglasses? Hint: It's not because of quality. All sunglasses are basically made by one company. Why does your friend drink Coke over Pepsi? Hint: It's not because of health reasons & pretty unlikely it's because of taste. Why does your friend buy Frosted Flakes instead of the store brand? And so on... A lot of it boils down to "brand equity" -- what you'll pay for a specific brand over something else. Why do people do that? It's because of the association, image, and feeling a brand generates. You don't sell diapers by saying "We sell good diapers." You sell diapers by showing a cute baby with soft music & get mother's to form an emotional bond with the product.

topoligel 11y ago
> soft music & get mother's to form an emotional bond with the product. What if it turns out that people have a finite amount of 'emotional bond chemicals' available each day, and by isolating that feeling and associating it to a product instead of to the baby, well, let's suggest for some people the newly constructed relationship between people and objects is (mother's emotion -> object, object -> baby's emotions, baby's emotions -> object, object -> mother's emotions) , and it doesn't work as synergistically efficient as you might expect? What if you don't even know how to measure stuff like that? What if there is a measurable loss that isn't obvious? What if it's linked to the most random of things, so it isn't even predictably rational in how it affects the system it operates within? The problem with advertising and emotional manipulation is that the information only flows one way. And a constant stream of increasing revenue doesn't mean people are happy, it just means they are buying stuff.
verbin217 11y ago
Wow. You're basically just describing the mechanism by which you're manipulating people's behavior, very apparently without concern for your redistribution of inherently finite resources. The opposition to modern advertising is in response to exactly this. It's not that much different than cigarettes. You're exploiting subconscious human mechanisms utterly without concern for any effect except number of purchases. People are better off when they can consciously think about what they're doing. There are people who are motivated to promote that in their societies.
- perfTerm 11y ago
  This is totally true, but in a world where there are tens of thousands of products in our supermarkets alone, sometimes I prefer an easy subconcious choice. If Old Spice deodorant works, and I got there because of an advertisement that played on subconcious desires, eh. I don't really have the desire to conciously evaluate my deodorant purchase (even though I avoid anti persperants at all cost cause there are weird metals and it just doesn't seem natural to not perspire). If I choose Pepsi over Coke because of some subconciously altered motive, eh. Whatever. I'm not sure it'll be a popular opinion, but to be honest, I don't particularly mind not having to conciously evaluate my soda choice.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    One could make an easy conscious choice if all products included objective information about their characteristics and performance. Hypothetical examples: - Deodorant X was found to prevent odor for 5 hours and reduce it for 19 in tests with subjects similar to you. - Fragrance A had the highest percentage of positive ratings among your desired gender and demographic.
    - baddox 11y ago
      Even then, is it worth the effort? I suspect that the vast majority of deodorants work well enough that the upside of choosing the best option isn't worth the time spent reading the objective data. Textbook rational ignorance. And for things like Coke vs. Pepsi, where there is (I presume) very little objective differences that consumers care about, how does this idea apply?
CONTRARlAN 11y ago
> Consider in the 1800s it wasn't uncommon for a publisher to be paid for a product & make it seem like they were simply endorsing something they truly liked. Since you work in advertising, you should know that that kind of thing is more pervasive than ever today.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Native marketing combined with retargeting are disturbingly effective. 1800s snake oil peddlers have nothing on modern advertising's insidiousness.
kuschku 11y ago
Why is "brand equity" a thing? It shouldn’t be. "brand equity" is the issue that’s wrong with today’s market. Often I can get the exact same product to a far cheaper price if I’m just willing to accept a cheaper-looking label. And, while that’s very popular in Germany, and led to the rise of Aldi, Lidl, etc, it’s not enough. Brand equity, as you call it, is the effect that we trust companies based on irrational ideas. That’s actually bordering on violating the EU advertising laws (you can only advertise stuff that is directly related to the product, you can only say stuff that is true, etc).
- wdr1 11y ago
  Brand equity isn't my term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_equity
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Yes, I know it is a thing – but it shouldn’t be. That’s the issue. Brand equity is abusing emotions to make people buy worse products for a higher price.
- pawelabrams 11y ago
  Lidl was caught on 'colonisation' practices in Poland, where they used development loans to drive prices lower than local stores could afford to beat. Or it's just someone that wanted me to think so. I really don't know now.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Yeah, they are shitty companies trying to drive prices down. But if you consider how many better known brands do the same, and are still more expensive, it does seem still unfair.

by wdr1 11y ago

topoligel 11y ago

> soft music & get mother's to form an emotional bond with the product. What if it turns out that people have a finite amount of 'emotional bond chemicals' available each day, and by isolating that feeling and associating it to a product instead of to the baby, well, let's suggest for some people the newly constructed relationship between people and objects is (mother's emotion -> object, object -> baby's emotions, baby's emotions -> object, object -> mother's emotions) , and it doesn't work as synergistically efficient as you might expect? What if you don't even know how to measure stuff like that? What if there is a measurable loss that isn't obvious? What if it's linked to the most random of things, so it isn't even predictably rational in how it affects the system it operates within? The problem with advertising and emotional manipulation is that the information only flows one way. And a constant stream of increasing revenue doesn't mean people are happy, it just means they are buying stuff.

verbin217 11y ago

Wow. You're basically just describing the mechanism by which you're manipulating people's behavior, very apparently without concern for your redistribution of inherently finite resources. The opposition to modern advertising is in response to exactly this. It's not that much different than cigarettes. You're exploiting subconscious human mechanisms utterly without concern for any effect except number of purchases. People are better off when they can consciously think about what they're doing. There are people who are motivated to promote that in their societies.

perfTerm 11y ago
This is totally true, but in a world where there are tens of thousands of products in our supermarkets alone, sometimes I prefer an easy subconcious choice. If Old Spice deodorant works, and I got there because of an advertisement that played on subconcious desires, eh. I don't really have the desire to conciously evaluate my deodorant purchase (even though I avoid anti persperants at all cost cause there are weird metals and it just doesn't seem natural to not perspire). If I choose Pepsi over Coke because of some subconciously altered motive, eh. Whatever. I'm not sure it'll be a popular opinion, but to be honest, I don't particularly mind not having to conciously evaluate my soda choice.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  One could make an easy conscious choice if all products included objective information about their characteristics and performance. Hypothetical examples: - Deodorant X was found to prevent odor for 5 hours and reduce it for 19 in tests with subjects similar to you. - Fragrance A had the highest percentage of positive ratings among your desired gender and demographic.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Even then, is it worth the effort? I suspect that the vast majority of deodorants work well enough that the upside of choosing the best option isn't worth the time spent reading the objective data. Textbook rational ignorance. And for things like Coke vs. Pepsi, where there is (I presume) very little objective differences that consumers care about, how does this idea apply?

CONTRARlAN 11y ago

> Consider in the 1800s it wasn't uncommon for a publisher to be paid for a product & make it seem like they were simply endorsing something they truly liked. Since you work in advertising, you should know that that kind of thing is more pervasive than ever today.

nitrogen 11y ago
Native marketing combined with retargeting are disturbingly effective. 1800s snake oil peddlers have nothing on modern advertising's insidiousness.

kuschku 11y ago

Why is "brand equity" a thing? It shouldn’t be. "brand equity" is the issue that’s wrong with today’s market. Often I can get the exact same product to a far cheaper price if I’m just willing to accept a cheaper-looking label. And, while that’s very popular in Germany, and led to the rise of Aldi, Lidl, etc, it’s not enough. Brand equity, as you call it, is the effect that we trust companies based on irrational ideas. That’s actually bordering on violating the EU advertising laws (you can only advertise stuff that is directly related to the product, you can only say stuff that is true, etc).

wdr1 11y ago
Brand equity isn't my term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_equity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand_equity
- kuschku 11y ago
  Yes, I know it is a thing – but it shouldn’t be. That’s the issue. Brand equity is abusing emotions to make people buy worse products for a higher price.
pawelabrams 11y ago
Lidl was caught on 'colonisation' practices in Poland, where they used development loans to drive prices lower than local stores could afford to beat. Or it's just someone that wanted me to think so. I really don't know now.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Yeah, they are shitty companies trying to drive prices down. But if you consider how many better known brands do the same, and are still more expensive, it does seem still unfair.