Advertising is mind pollution
johnleach.co.uk
johnleach.co.uk
Funding your content through advertising is hugely inefficient. Of the people who visit your site, usually only a tiny proportion click on (or notice) an advert, and only a tiny proportion of those then spends any money.
This assumes that just viewing an advertisement doesn't create value for an advertiser. It does. Look at the average TV channel or print magazine for evidence.
I’ve heard Google pass as little as one twelfth onto the publisher in some cases
While I'm not sure about Google, I do know that most display advertising networks pay their publishers around 30% - 50% of the gross income.
But seriously, advertising is a broken method of paying for stuff. If we could unobtrusively pay for content on the Internet, I’m sure enough people would do so to more than cover costs of production.
While I agree that there is probably a decent community of people that would probably pay for content online, I'm not convinced that this would be true for most people. Sites that offer a subscription to get rid of the ads, usually have very few subscribers. People simply like free stuff, and don't like to pay for content. Now this could indeed be due to the payment model, I'm not sure; maybe something facebook-connect-like for paid content would work, but I'm still not convinced that a large enough base of people would actually pay the same money as they're generating in advertising value, to make this work.
Let's take a few very large sites, and imagine what would happen if they went to a payment supported revenue model, instead of advertising supported. Let's say, Google or CNN. What would happen if they started putting up a paywall? Would people really start paying for those services, or would they simply move to a competing site, which is ad-supported and for free? I'm willing to bet most people would go for the last option.
People just don't mind ads as much as they mind paying for stuff.
(Disclaimer: I work in online ads.)
The problem is that advertising is broken. I shouldn't see ads for feminine hygiene products, cars, McDonalds, or Verizon. I'm not the right market for any of these things. It's a waste of my time and the advertiser's money, and I do experience these things as "mind pollution". On the other hand, I'd be happy to watch ads for Google, Apple, books, local restaurants, good movies, and good beer.
Whoever figures out how to apply Permission Marketing to mainstream advertising is going to make a lot of money, and will make the world a better place.
It is bad, unethical, gawdy or inefficient advertising that has huge negative value. And boy do we see a lot - the net result being advertising appears to be pretty shoddy in general.
This post didn't really suggest any effective solution.
What we need is:
- alternative revenue models that work instead of ads
- efforts to prevent annoying or unethical or just plain shoddy adverts
Advertising is an attempt to make us modify our behavior, regardless of whether it's in our best interests to do so. Marketing and truth are orthogonal.
How exactly would you find stuff otherwise :)
I'd look for professional and customer reviews which would likely convey more useful information than ads with bikini girls next to the product.
How would the customers who make those reviews have found the product or business in question?
Say you open a Chinese restaurant or start a local news site. How do you get people in the door (virtual or otherwise) without printing flyers, advertising on the Web, or buying space in the local paper? It has to start somewhere for your reviews to exist.
Absolutely. That doesn't mean it is valueless.
> I'd look for professional and customer reviews which would likely convey more useful information than ads with bikini girls next to the product.
That works if your looking for something. How many useful products would you miss? Quite a lot I bet :)
How many mandatory paid subscription sites have been successful?
I think those questions are important. I don't know the answer, but my guess is "almost none".
It's really a question of the value of your content. If enough people are interested in it that you can make significant money with ads, you probably could also get people to pay for it directly. I think micropayments per individual piece of content would make the most sense here, i.e. I'm a lot more likely to pay $0.10 to read some interesting sounding thing than I am to commit to a much more costly paid subscription to your site.
What about national or international media/news outlets. Paywalls simply drive people away because there are alternatives - which are free (and ad supported).
If enough people are interested in it that you can make significant money with ads, you probably could also get people to pay for it directly
The numbers dont work out though. Look at any big website's stats and they will almost certainly make more out of advertising than subscribers.
I'm a lot more likely to pay $0.10 to read some interesting sounding thing than I am to commit to a much more costly paid subscription to your site.
This gets said a lot.
Firstly I dont believe it is actually true; it's easy enough to say but would you really do it. Often it is just rationalisation of current behaviour.
Think again to all the content you read today on blogs/media outlets that run advertising. How many would you "buy" into at $.10? How much is that adding up to?
Speaking personally I could be paying about $2-5 a day for content.... that's quite a lot.
It's like free food. A lot of people will eat anything when it's free, but that doesn't mean they will actually buy it.
How does one let people know about one's pay-for site if you're starting from new? Don't say advertising.
If someone wanted to start a competing paper in your neighborhood, how would they pick up an audience? Loud-hailers, flyers, and sponsorships would essentially be verboten in an advertising-free world.
Personally, maybe once a year I give at least some thought to an advertisement I've seen, and I remember a couple of occasions where I've actually bought something. But mostly I find advertisements boring and generally just avoid them because usually I already know what I'm looking for, if I'm looking for something.
How? Let's say you want to buy a computer and you go direct to, say, Dell. How would you have heard of Dell if not for advertising? Seen a Dell at someone else's house? How did they hear about Dell? It has to start somewhere.
You wouldn't go to Dell. You'd go to a forum where people discuss the relative qualities of their machines. You'd ask a friend who knows more than you, or you'd find a site that has a reputation for rating computers in a balanced way (e.g. Consumer Reports.)
Dell's advertising conveys no information about Dell, except that it has a high advertising budget, and that it exists. A person who wants to buy a computer would have zero difficulty realizing that Dell exists from any number of sources (for example the top result from the search "buy a computer"), and the advertising budget of a company has no direct relationship with the quality of it's product.
The advertised data filtered through a number of acquaintances and backed up by empiric knowledge slowly evolves into actual information. A new product basically flows through a pipeline where only some people need to buy something "blindfolded" and the rest can then enjoy the product if it turns out to be any good.
Yeah, Dell has to initially tell "we're Dell, we make these computers, please try out a few of them". That's pretty much the only piece of information to which all advertising reduces to.
The rest of the advertising mumbojumbo is only there to cut people off the said word-of-mouth pipeline and encourage them to buy it now, i.e. blindfolded with no prior experiences.
Bringing Facebook-like user promotion to a company selling everyday products would probably require users becoming affiliates and getting kickbacks. That can work (e.g. Avon) but having my friends potentially being shills seems more sinister than regular advertising.
Thinking about this, though, did bring another option to mind that many startups use: press mentions. Branson and his Virgin companies are masters at this. So are Apple, but they're still massive on the advertising.
The economics of the web are different and have lowered the value of advertising compared to the value of word of mouth. But there is still some value left in advertising, especially in markets for more traditional goods that don't spread as easily through viral means.
I have no idea why society puts up with it. (I guess it slowly grew on us and have accepted it in seemingly innocuous steps).
I bet most people (well the non-wingnuts at least) would say they are against government propaganda. And the government is supposedly for the people. But they're OK with corporate propaganda. Corporations by design and law exist to extract as much value in the form of money or labor as is possible from people.
I could say the same of your comment. Maybe you should not have been allowed to post it.
> I have no idea why society puts up with it.
Think harder. The desire to allow owners of corporations some freedom in which to grow them? The desire to avoid unnecessary regulations? The lack of hard evidence that advertising actually causes significant harm? The individual's thought that someday they might benefit from being able to advertise their own goods or services? All of these are possible reasons why society puts up with it. I am truly surprised that you could manage to have "no idea" why. Actually, I suspect that you are lying and you do have an idea, you just claim to have no idea to emphasize your point.
> I bet most people (well the non-wingnuts at least) would say they are against government propaganda. And the government is supposedly for the people.
The point is that the government should not actually need propaganda if it is acting in the peoples' best interests. Through history most cases of government propaganda have been when the government is subverting its people's interests and lying to them about it.
> But they're OK with corporate propaganda.
Corporations typically can't force you to do anything at gunpoint. This is the main reason why they're allowed much more leeway than the government when carrying out their wishes. To be more explicit, it is precisely because the people wish to _keep_ the government on their own side that they try to limit its means to oppose their own best interest.
> Corporations by design and law exist to extract as much value in the form of money or labor as is possible from people.
I see this spouted a lot, but I also see that many, maybe most corporations do not do what you say. Actually, I can think of many laws that in manifold ways restrict corporations from doing what you claim the law and their "design" forces them to do. For example, there are labor laws, trade laws, environmental regulations, and securities laws, many of which prevent corporations from maximizing profit or labor extracted. Actually, with this realization, I think I can safely treat this claim as a bookend without any meaning save its rhetorical, knee-jerk inducing quality.
That's a very modern view. There was absolutely no shortage of propaganda in the US supporting World War II, especially to encourage the myriad things Americans could do to support the war effort (buy war bonds, enlist, pay taxes on time, in the case of women work outside the home so more men could enlist, avoid overconsumption and wasteful behavior). And no one reasonably considered helping America's military effectiveness in WWII to be against the people's interests.
Official Government Propaganda is missing from democratic societies not because democratic societies are that much more respectful of the people's interests, but because democratic societies aren't as often unified behind the same agenda. When there is something all parties substantively agree upon in a democratic society, like winning a war or curbing drug use, the government relentlessly propagandizes it. When it's something that parties disagree on, each party has its own propaganda.
I actually suspect there's more political propaganda in a democracy, just because the propagandists have to argue with each other.
Most importantly, the public is accustomed to paying for apps. Paid content doesn't work on the web because people expect it to be free. Consumers view apps as objects, more like books or magazines, which they expect to pay for.
What I've learned over my years is that our view of the world isn't necessarily most people's -- if it was, then this guy would be totally right.
But he's not.
Online advertising isn't optimal, but given the number of "normal" people who make Google tons of advertising cash every quarter, this "mind pollution" argument doesn't stand up.
usually only a tiny proportion click on (or notice) an advert
That's right. A tiny proportion -- generally something like 1-5%. As a geek you'd think: highly inefficient; find another means. But marketing people think differently. They think, for instance, that if you're cold-calling 100 people and make just one sale then you're doing well. 1 out of 100.
So that's why online ads work -- you go in expecting a 1% click-through rate, and if you do better, cool.
It is undeniable that advertising makes money for everyone involved; the question is whether or not it is damaging to the mental state of the average person. (my two yen based on my experiences says "Yes"; take it for what it is worth).
If it is damaging I don't personally consider it immoral to remove the advertising.
Whether or not it is profitable is meaningless to the question of whether or not it is right.