I'm quite sure I've received value from browsing ad-supported news outlets and using other ad-supported online services, so speak for yourself.
Furthermore, even though no one likes to admit they're positively persuaded by ads, it's universally true. How many times have you seen an ad for a movie and then gone to look up its reviews and considered watching it that weekend? Ads are just a way for companies to get the word out about their products / services, and sometimes they're legitimately useful.
They are categorically not just about informing people.
And saying you received value from ad-supported stuff strikes me as very backwards. You still pay, but you pay through being manipulated into buying stuff you don't need.
So 1st order problem: Adverts are harmful in that they distort markets increasing the effort required by consumers to make good decisions & increasing poor decision making.
But they also create a whole bunch of activity that is now not a buyer / seller interaction. Why do you get click bait and fake news? If the viewers had to choose to pay for it then this would never occur but with advertising the viewer is the product. So you get content that is compelling but worthless. Fake news & clickbait. You even get HSBC dictating content to the Telegraph [1].
I honestly think Google originally had good intentions "Don't be evil" but their business model is fundamentally at odds with the wellbeing of their users. If you have a market optimizing for user manipulation you will evolve effective manipulators.
So the 2nd order problems of advertising are that advert supported activity doesn't have it's interests aligned with it's users. Even if the people in these industries want to do good the market will eventually evolve corporations that harm their users since the more efficient the harm the greater the profit.
But the biggest problem in my mind is the 3rd order effect of wasted human capital. Much like the biggest problem with wall street is all our gifted peers who ended up doing zero sum bullshit for banks. Advertising, regulatory capture and other corporate innovation that isn't making a better product signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-t...
You correctly point out that the human waste caused by ads, like our banking industry, is monumental. What fascinates me about your view, though, is that I have always viewed the cause for US banks' human waste factor to be the absurd regulatory environment and the close ties it maintains to the upper echelons of government.
Media/Advertising, on the other hand, feels much more sparsely regulated at the government level, but it does maintain its own absurd regulatory environment in the private sector, and its own ties to the upper echelons of government. I think it's hard to deny that this industry's self-regulatory environment is as ineffective and chaotic as the politically-instituted regulatory environment enjoyed by the banks. But little research has been done into the impact of the media industry's self-regulation. Makes me wonder what exciting secrets may be out there to uncover.
Car manufacturers specifically optimize for this effect, which is why car ads are targeted at people who already own said car, not potential new buyers.
That is what I think was meant by the comment above yours.
When I rip on the agency of consumers please consider that with any small amount of agency they would search for the best product to suit their needs and advertising would be worthless. In fact advertising makes the product more expensive. Entire product lines are sold on advertising alone despite the existence of better cheaper alternatives.
None of these decisions are forced by the advertiser, and "influence" as a concept is pretty plain on the face of it. The psychological hacks that advertisers use are mainly restricted to trying to make you under-price or over-value a product in your head, or in the case of late-night shopping channels, to get you to impulse-buy things (which I would consider to be fairly exploitative but is in the minority in terms of advertisers). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion is a good book on the subject.
> When I rip on the agency of consumers please consider that with any small amount of agency they would search for the best product to suit their needs and advertising would be worthless.
I think you're conflating agency and rationality here. A rational agent would indeed shop around, but any old agent can choose to buy or not buy something based on whether they think it has value to them.
Pavements don't force you to walk on them, but I'd bet you tend not to stray off them. Pathways through the park don't force you to stay on them, but most people tend to stick to them.
By escalating the bar that advertising needs to reach to influence agents to "force", you're proposing a binary relation where there is a continuum. I think it's disingenuous.
> They are categorically not just about informing people.
> And saying you received value from ad-supported stuff strikes me as very backwards. You still pay, but you pay through being manipulated into buying stuff you don't need.
This was the ancestor comment I was responding about. This person is suggesting that an advertiser can make you buy things you wouldn't otherwise want. My point is that it isn't true - you have to want the product at some level to be interested. If you'd read my comment you'd realise that I agree that they can influence your decision, but not if you weren't at least mildly interested in the product in the first place.
They just need to get to your not so gone weaknesses.
It's not force, but almost nobody will ask for the thing behind the counter. It's the effect that matters.
The extent of the grey area differs for each individual.
They use all kinds of sophisticated socio-psychological techniques to do so.
Unfortunately, most people (including yourself) don't even realise this, hence they become more prone to such techniques.
Sadly, when it comes to manipulation, human kind has already lost this battle.
> improve the public impression
Someone trying to influence your impression IS manipulating you.
But to suggest that a wife, husband or parent cannot influence our choices is naive. Even if we were perfectly rational actors these people have far too much insight into our inner mind and too much control over what information we observe.
Surveillance capitalism of the type google and facebook are currently trying to engineer is about putting this level of understanding & control over information sources in the hands of people with a massive incentive for you to make bad economic decisions.
With machine learning & big enough data sets it would be surprising if their ability to manipulate you wasn't eventually orders of magnitude better than the average partner or parent. You think playing Go against a top ranked player is harder than feeding lies to your average rube?
Do you claim that everyone always needed what they are enticed to buy by advertising? Because I'm pretty sure there's a boatload of psychology research that says otherwise.
Put yet another way, if ads weren't effective at making people buy shit, then why would companies make Google and Facebook obscenely rich?
If people would merely be informed by ads about the existence and benefits of products, why would the ads have such strong emotional messaging and be so free from actual solid information?
If you want to get informed you don't read the ads, do you?
Ads have one primary purpose: To make people make more irrational decisions.
Seems like you don't seriously disagree with that either, just over-interpreted my original statement.
I would also argue the idea of "genuine" needs is a fallacy. Unfortunately one that is common in economic thinking. There is not fixed hierarchy of external needs that we want to satisfy one after the other. That's a really bad model for human consumption behaviour.
If all your friends start having something most people will find that they start wanting it, too.
For example, in the old days, most items of clothing would last a lifetime. These days most items of clothing tend to fall apart after a few years. Also, many kinds of food items used to be better quality (I've read many articles about how low the quality of farmed vegetables like Tomatoes have become).
I think that even Mcdonalds' used to be much better quality 20 years ago. At first I thought it was just because my memory was fuzzy but I later found out from someone who worked at McDonalds that one day, they suddenly swapped the buns of the Quarter Pounder burger to smaller buns but no one noticed except the employees.
Also big Pizza chains in some countries have been making the pizzas smaller and smaller over time in order to maintain the low prices. Advertising allows big companies to keep pulling back on real quality whilst replacing it with an illusion of quality.
On the plus side:
+ Inform users about products (which is a small convenience).
On the negative side:
- They provide unsollicited information, which distracts and irritates users.
- Users can also search products by themselves (no hand-holding needed).
- They use screen real estate.
- They use bandwidth.
- They use energy.
- They make websites slower.
- They introduce security problems.
- They track users, collect their data.
- They put users in an information bubble.
- Market failure: not the "best" product wins, but the one with the biggest advertisement budget behind it.
- They make people feel inconfident (see photoshopped fashion ads)
So, any value offered by ads is easily canceled by the negative points listed above.
This is actually a beneficial outcome. Similarly to how genetic algorithms and simulated anealing require and element of randomness to avoid getting stuck in local minima, so I suspect advertising serves the purpose of preventing us getting stuck in local minima.
Equally too much randomness and the algorithms fail to converge on the global minimum and so perhaps, too much advertisement prevents us truly discovering the best products and services.
Either way though, it is in finding the balance that real value is found.
I don't disagree that there are many cons, but it's disingenuous not to include the services they power as one of the pluses.
Full disclosure: My career involves ads.
But I can add another minus: ads as a monetization scheme are unnecessarily restrictive, since the only way for an organization to increase their prices is to jump from an ad-based scheme to a paid scheme, and this jump is too big in many cases. Instead, if we paid for everything with money (not with data), then pricing would be more clear and there would not be any threshold in changing prices.
I'd also mention that many freemium businesses actually introduce paid models to control costs rather than improve profitability - particularly true for streaming media companies.
I think this is the most important point. It changes the competitive landscape from being quality-based to being awareness-based.
By driving attention towards their own products, big companies are shifting attention away from more deserving competing products which have a smaller marketing budget.
I think this explains why big companies are so inefficient and yet still maintain their market share.
Advertising allows companies to substitute real quality with perceived quality in order to increase profit margins.
You think small companies would benefit from an advertising ban?
Remember that products can still be found through search. If there are no ads, there will probably be better "product discovery" websites to fill the gap if necessary. And of course there are the regular channels, i.e., recommendations by friends, forums, review sites, etc.
I haven't had regular TV in over 10 years and I surf with ublock origin yet I can still find the things I need to buy.
The problem is that many consumers might not even be aware that its a decision worth researching. For example, in some areas of the US it is cheaper and quicker to order online through Walmart than it is through Amazon. But most users order through Amazon by reflex, not even considering if there is an alternative.
Advertising helps here. It tells them "look there is an alternative. Consider it!"
People go to Amazon for online shopping because Amazon pays to have a bigger web presence through advertising than WalMart does. Had there been no advertising on either end, you'd have a level playing field where people would have to discover the best / cheapest / most efficient online shopping on their own.
Seems strange that you think advertising helps here when you also claim that people are responding to advertising with negative outcomes.
* My local news paper's webpage (which i pay for).
* HN which does not have ads
* neogaf which do not have ads
* youtube / twitch which I pay for (and block whatever else with ublock)
* Email (through google apps which I pay for).
On the rare occasion I visit something else I make damn sure to to have ublock / noscript active.
When it comes to apps, I pay for them. If there are no pay/ad free version I don't use them, it's that simple.
But can users please be given the choice if they want this information, especially if their privacy is being infringed upon?
There are two types of eyeballs:
1. Those who don't end up buying cranberry juice: In this case, you've wasted their time showing them the ad - especially if they never talk about the ad to anyone else. Companies have a very direct incentive to avoid false positives, so you don't need to do anything there.
2. Those who end up buying cranberry juice: Unless you have a problem with the cranberry juice itself, the only problem here is that the cost went up slightly to pay for the advertising. If I'm willing to pay 10 cents more for cranberry juice than an alternative like tomato juice and 10% of the total cost is advertising(on average), then the benefit of advertising is:
dValue = dBenefit - dCost = 0.10 - 0.1 * cost
which is negative if the juice costs more than $1. (This assumes that without advertising, I would've picked the alternative)
In order for dValue to always be negative(your claim), either nobody anywhere is innovating(dBenefit is never very large) or advertising companies are charging too much(dCost is very often large).
How cheap would advertising have to be for you to consider it a net positive? Give me a number as percentage of total cost for a few example items. Unless dBenefit is always 0, such a number must exist when you subset to the case #2 group. This number seems like it would be related to your proposed tax, too.
BTW, ads are taxed, I believe the OP's point was that ads should be taxed in the locale in which they're shown, to give back locally rather than concentrating the tax revenue wherever adCorp is incorporated.
I used to be as against ads as you are, and then I tried to start a business. In today's landscape, it is impossible to get people to try your product. There is so much noise and clamor for consumer attention, and there are so many amazing choices for free content, that if companies aren't sending out reminders that they exist, most people will forget.
Overall, I'm in mild agreement that society would be better if it weren't ad-driven, but that's a utopian ideal we can't change with taxation, that's a brand new society and a brand new government. Taxing ads more won't make them go away, at all, it will just raise a few tax dollars. I'm in favor of using taxes on ads to pay for psychology and statistics education for all.
yeah screw moderation... let's be extreme all the way
Advertising is not "responsible" of urbanisation.. urbanisation is a fact of life.