Hacker News Reader

Comment by adverbly | Hacker News Reader

Spoiler alert: most things people buy they don't actually need.

Depends on how you define need. If you define it as "they will die without it", then sure. If you define it as "makes your life better in proportion to the money spent" I don't think your statement is necessarily true.

That's because of advertising. They wouldn't buy things they don't need if they weren't being manipulated to do so.

People are fully capable of making unnecessary purchases off store shelves, even at antique shops where the goods don't have box art. People like buying stuff they don't need. I think our corporate overlords are terrified of what would happen without the mind control, but I think it would just be a more subdued and happier version of what we have now.

I can't imagine what model of the world people have who think that people wouldn't want things they don't need if it weren't for advertising. This is a view I see a lot, and it baffles me how anyone could think this having met any humans or read any history. I'm not endorsing it as salutary, but it's fundamentally human to want things that are unnecessary; that restlessness is what's what's driven our history as a species, for better or for woes.

Maybe the word "need" is bad here. People always buy some things for reasons other than pressing needs. However there's a difference between latent desires and what advertising does to people. There's a reason why my old boss kept saying that the key to marketing is "creating dissatisfaction". Or, in other words, essentially making them miserable so that they seek respite in purchases. This isn't healthy.

No disagreements that advertising manufactures demand to some degree. But the claim in your upthread comment was that people wouldn't buy what they need without advertising; you may have meant it more narrowly, but I've seen the literal sentiment expressed often enough (esp on HN[1]) that I didn't see any reason not to take the statement at face value.

I accept the blame here for sloppy thinking/writing; I should've expressed my initial statement more narrowly, instead of tightening it throughout the discussion.

As you correctly observe, the statement "people wouldn't buy what they need without advertising" is obviously wrong. What I was getting at was manufactured demand, and my belief that it's a significant part of non-immediate-need purchases.

Ah OK. You also had the misfortune of accidentally expressing something I've seen people here express sincerely before, which is why I didn't assume the more charitable, less-consistent with your comment's meaning.

I don't have any disagreement with the claim that some demand is advertising-generated (in fact, it's a non-trivial part of advertising's purpose). Thanks for clarifying!

See conspicuous comsuption by Veblen:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/conspicuous-consumption#ref...

There are other reasons why people may be "using goods of a higher quality or in greater quantity than might be considered necessary in practical terms" than just status - reasons like trust and opportunity costs. I frequently go for "higher quality than necessary" when buying tools or hardware, but I do it because I have a bad experience with products of equal quality to what's necessary, and I don't want the hassle of dealing with fixing, replacing and managing the fallout of a "just right" product breaking quickly or turning out to be garbage. I wonder if Veblen classifies that as "practical terms" too?

I don't actually need this bowl for sugar cubes on my desk, but it makes my life slightly easier. No one has ever advertised a sugar cube bowl to me in my life, unless you count the mere fact of them existing in view of the camera in British sitcoms as "advertising".

How do you know it's for sugar cubes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com