Researchers find inverse correlation between advertising and life satisfaction

He said: "The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them."

I could put a /s here, but it could well be literally true.

And more critically, even when it is correct, it's not the complete story. I've never seen an ad that admits that their competitor's product is cheaper, or better. In fact, most ads don't even want you to know their competitor exists. So let's not pretend advertising is about "giving knowledge to the poor". That's just an odious lie. If it were about giving knowledge, you'd by trying to tell the whole story.

https://unchainedpodcast.com/yeonmi-park-on-why-doing-busine...

I feel like if Kim Jong Un dies in the next 10 years and he doesn't have a designated successor, it'll turn into a Junta like Thailand or possibly even ones like Argentina or Portugal where they end up reuniting with South Korea.

I wouldn't pretend to answer if it is "right" (what does it even mean), but a lot of people already do live in ignorance. Maybe not in the straight way of ignorance of not being able to recollect some information, but certainly in terms of assigning certain labels and judgements to it. So many people watch a TV with someone having a great time and think/feel to themselves things like "they stole the money somehow to get there", "they had rich parents", "they are not happy anyway", "life is unfair, they got their riches through unfairness", "money is the root of all evil", "money brings unhappiness", "it's not their real life, just some fake instagram story" etc.

Thinking about long term, the life of their children, perhaps their children's children, is likely to be significantly enhanced when things like access to healthcare and education become a possibility.

1) Prime Directive: don't introduce knowledge that will make someone's life harder or more complicated if you don't have to.

2) If they have the means to get that knowledge, you're now obligated to fill in the disparity between your quality of life, such that they can be at least as happy as you are.

It's artificial. If they just had knowledge, like say wikipedia or ad blocked internet. They would be wanting real things like education, health care, self-determination, not Nikes.

I don't think it was the lack of billboards. But if there were billboards, it sure would feel different.

There's a part of me that wonders if a lot of it boils down to education. My brother-in-law is relatively smart and able to learn new stuff fairly quickly, but he doesn't really have any education past high-school. Being better trained at math and compsci would probably help him realize the value for his purchases a bit better.

Like I mend clothes and something I do the visible mending stitch patterns. I'm sure people judge us and think we're poor, but I don't really care because I'm not. Alternatively, doing high effort things like mending clothes can seem kind of cute and novel if you aren't poor.

More or less. Cash, wealth, and access to credit afford you a number of avenues to avoid trouble, or else get out of it when you realize that you're in it. Time infused with money also usually returns more than bare time, as anyone who can hire a personal trainer vs spending hours trying to put together an effective training regimen can attest to.

Advertisment almost never works on me, so it's hard for me to imagine it's so effective on everyone else.

Not sure if I’m filtering out ads more (haven’t had a TV for over a decade), or the tech crowd tend to be more logical. But for me personally I just don’t care about what other people think, I tend to focus on utility. But then again I don’t think twice about spending $200 on a really nice meal, so maybe just difference judgement of value.

It's like doing a scientific study on the common claim of advertisers that "the internet would not exist without advertising".

Hilarious, when advertisements provide so incredibly little information, except how the product looks when held by attractive people, or driven by them along empty roads. And what little information they do provide, comes in tiny font after an asterisk at the bottom of the ad, that they were legally forced to include.

But I am happy I actually DO give information... My job consists of finding what people need (not want, but literally need), and tell them we can provide it.

Usually people that call the company where I work, thank us for having the product and the ads, sometimes they say they searched for days and then found our ads.

That said... we sell industrial parts, mostly for the maintenance of existing machines, so it is easy to not have any ethical trap... But it is not THAT profitable either... (just for comparison: I know a guy that works filming TV ads, and he said politicians pay for 30 second ads to his company, the same income my company has for several months summed...)

But, it really doesn't work on me 99.9% of the time. I know because I review all my spending habits and I can clearly see 1/2 of the products I buy don't even advertise. Ever seen an ad for cucumbers or tomatoes or other real food? or rotten robbies gas station? i have no idea what label is on my clothes. etc.

And even on the rare occasions when it does work, the vast majority of the ads still are completely wasted. How many times have I seen an ad for metromile, when I'm already a happy customer of theirs. their targetting must be awful.

Sometimes I use the product because I'm forced to: like when sharebuilder got bought out by etrade. how many times will I see the completely useless etrade ads over my lifetime? i mean I'm already their customer (by default), so all their ad dollars are completely wasted.

Clothing wise, I only replace my pants when they threadbare at the knees, end up with a plethora of free t shirts, and get the odd sweatshirt at uniqlo every couple of years because it's cheap and decently durable. I bought my formal wear a decade ago and I haven't gotten any fatter, so I'm not hurting for a new suit every couple of years.

Foodwise, I only buy store brand because it's the same stuff but cheaper due to a lack of a marketing budget, and although I do order takeout it's not like I was wooed by the targeted advert for the local indian place—I was wooed by seeing them throwing the naan at the back of the tandoori right in the restaurant. I always opt for pickup instead of app based delivery which can cost more than the entree.

In college, I used my highschool beater to get groceries, these days I use public transport and don't own a car. But if I did have a use for a car, I'd go with another beater over spending multiples more to go between the exact same points A and B in the exact same time using about the same amount of gas. Never wrapped my head around why people even buy new cars, unless handsfree bluetooth audio really is worth dropping another 10 grand or more.

Other than that, I only really spend money on experiences, not material goods. I guess you could say then that I'm not immune to an event ad, like if my favorite musician comes to town, but that's really a notice rather than the modern interpretation of advertisement. I see an ad for some blue tint glasses or a subscription box for hatchets and leather products, I think, 'what the hell is the point?' Based on other comments in this thread, I get the sense that I'm not alone with this mentality.

Now, if they advertised some nice veggies or fresh fruit that could work but how often do you see ads for that? and how much are those veggies going to cost after all that advertisement? will it be cost effective in comparison to the veggies that didn't advertise? (i'm guessing not, otherwise they'd have done it by now, right?)

Ads are targeted at the masses. If most/all your interests deviate from the norm, ads won't be effective.

I'm not sure we disagree, actually. I think you may be misunderstanding my meaning.

When I tell you about a product, a number of things are happening:

1. If I'm successful in getting you to want the product, I've created (or emphasized an existing) dissatisfaction. That's not good. But:

2. I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem. Depending on the problem at hand, the solution might improve your health, extend your life, help you earn more money, be a better parent, donate to a charity, etc.

So I think if you want to stand in judgment of the morality of advertising, it has to be done on a case by case basis, and you have to weigh all the pros and cons.

I'll give you an example of a type of advertising that will clearly decrease your happiness but is still a net positive. (Impossible, right?)

Take a look at any ad for any charity. Those ads make your life worse by telling you how miserable things are for some group of people or animals or some other cause. And even if you "buy" what the ads are selling (i.e. you give them money), you're still going to feel like garbage about their cause. And yet, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't consider those ads to be evil, would you?

It's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point: you have to consider more than just happiness.

Here's a more extreme example: If all I cared about was making people happy, I'd sell heroin. Heroin feels awesome. Heroin makes people happy. It also destroys their lives in the process. Some addicts manage to be happy all the way to their death bed.

So happiness is not the end-all-be-all measurement of what is good and what is bad. It's definitely A measurement. I'm not discounting it. I'm just saying there are other things to consider as well, and I don't personally consider it the #1 most important measurement. (It's probably in my top 5.)

Is sending out status signals to attract a mate or business partners a genuine need?

In case you missed it: I didn't say advertising got people to invent jack shit. I said "aspirations" did. The research paper claimed aspirations are what make people unhappy, and then said advertising increases aspirations, so therefore advertising makes people unhappy.

I'm defending aspirations. The research paper is the one saying advertising leads to aspirations, which I consider a complement, thank you very much.

I wouldn't presume to speak for my industry, but here are my thoughts and I appreciate being asked the question (as opposed to simply being attacked).

1. 5000 ads seems like too much, but I'm really not sure how we could arrive at what would be considered the right amount. 100? 5? 0? And even if we could, how would that get regulated, exactly? If we restricted it, who would decide who gets to advertise and who doesn't? Some may balk at this, but I feel that would lead to a form of censorship that none of us would appreciate. So the right number seems to be either zero or unlimited.

2. That said, some places have put full on bans on certain types of advertising. I'm ok with that. People seem to like it.

3. Most advertising (there are very few exceptions) fund various types of media. With the exception of state-funded media, advertising is the reason we have TV, radio, newspapers, social media, online news, YouTube, etc. Generally speaking, no one is willing to pay the full cost of the media we all consume. It's paid for by advertising. (You're welcome.) (If anyone brings up Netflix, tell me when exactly they intend to turn a profit and become a sustainable business?)

So is it good or bad? I maintain that, like most things in life, this should be judged on a case by case basis. Blanket judgments don't work.

> Human aspiration is built-in, we don't need help via advertising to desire more from life.

Yes and no. I get it if you don't think advertising contributes a net positive to human aspirations. But do you condemn teachers, preachers, and parents for trying to get people to aspire to greater things? Maybe the assumption is that advertising only promotes things that don't need promoting. I disagree, but I won't argue. But I have a hard time believing that your position is that no one should ever try to persuade anyone of anything because we're born with all the motivation we'll ever need. If that were the case, why are we even having this conversation?

Oh right: the tech industry. The one that thinks everything it does is going to change the world for the better.

Goodness me, no that's not what I'm saying and I apologize if that's how it came out.

The research paper said advertising leads to aspirations, and this is inherently bad because aspirations lead to unhappiness.

I'm saying aspirations are a good thing, regardless of their source. I didn't know this was a controversial position.

But I'm also agreeing that when advertising creates or emphasizes a non-existent problem to sell you something that doesn't benefit you in the long run, then that's a shitty thing to do. There are many laws in most countries that curb the worse examples of this, and we could almost certainly benefit from more of them (or stronger enforcement... I dunno, not a lawyer).

As for the quantity of advertising, I said this in another response as well: How do you intend to limit it? While any ban is obviously a negative to my business, on an ethical standpoint I'm fine with such a ban as long as it's complete. What I'm not ok with is saying "there can only be X number of ads" because THAT's when things get unfair. That's when the advertisers with the biggest pockets will get the advantage, because they'll be the only ones who can afford to buy such a limited supply of ads.

- Ads for charities - Political ads (which are only good or bad if you agree or disagree with their positions) - Ads for schools - Movie trailers (a form of entertainment in it of themselves)

Also: I suspect (but don't have the means to prove) a positive correlation between advertising spending and national GDP.

Look, if your point is that capitalism is evil, I'm not gonna argue it. But in a free market, advertising creates jobs. It builds companies. It builds economies.

When that advertising-free socialist utopia shows up that somehow isn't an evil dictatorship, let me know! Sounds awesome.

If only I had pithy quotes that I could paste to make my arguments for me, rather than, I dunno, using original thought.

I maintain that it depends on what is being advertised. It can be used for good, evil, and everything in between. What percentage of advertising falls into which category is largely subjective.

If the product is good for society, then the ads for it are a good for society too.

If the product harms society, the ads for it magnify that harm.

Maybe that's what I should have said right from the start: advertising is a magnifier of whatever is already there. If the product sucks, advertising will help it fail faster. If it helps people, advertising will allow it to help even more people.

Advertising helps businesses. Businesses serve consumers. Businesses wouldn't spend a dime on advertising if it didn't need to in order to stay in business. Ergo, advertising serves consumers, albeit indirectly.

> They aren't honest about it.

Has any advertiser ever claimed to give you the full picture? Both sides of the argument? No, of course not. It's a sales pitch. You know it's a sales pitch. They know you know it's a sales pitch. They know that you know that they're only presenting the positive sales points. You know that they know that you know.

Where's the dishonesty, exactly?

It's like going on a date and saying "You know, sometimes I don't shave. Or brush my teeth. Or wear a nice outfit. I only did those to make a good impression. There's a really good chance there's someone better for you out there."

Of COURSE advertisers are putting their best foot forward.

Does your resume list every time you were ever late for work? When you signed up for a credit card, did you tell the bank that you were late on rent a few months ago? When you applied for post-secondary, did you tell them about that math tutor you needed to get through trig?

How freakishly up-front do you need the world to be to live up to your standards?

As for how much advertising appeals to good aspirations, I have no idea. Probably not a lot of it. I wasn't defending all of advertising; I was saying don't throw the entire industry under the bus. I, for one, try to do only honest work for companies that provide goods and services that I believe in. Not everyone in this industry gets that freedom, but most of us do our best.

I get it, though. It's easy to hate on advertisers, just as it's easy to hate on salespeople and lawyers and politicians and stock brokers. I happen to consider all these professions necessary to our economy, though. I don't think it's a coincidence that the most prosperous societies have the most of these professions, including advertisers.

Ed Bernays != spokesperson for all PR professionals.

There are shady people in every industry.

Another idea I had after reading the article is that advertising is more pervasive in big cities. From what I can recall, big city inhabitants tend to have a lower life satisfaction rating than smaller town dwellers. So countries with more urban dwellers might normally have more advertising and less life satisfaction... because big cities, not necessarily advertising. Also richer nations tend to be less happy, and by being richer have more advertising. There's a lot of ways to interpret the data.

It's funny to see the group-think dynamic on display needed to make non relevant comments go up and comments related to the article be down-voted (which aren't even stating anything specific... you and I never even said 'it's this' just questioning 'maybe not that')

Another super interesting thing that I glean from the down-votes is the bottom down view only when convenient.

If you post on HN that tech companies are evil and conspiring against our privacy, people will say (IMO mostly rightly BTW) that it's mostly bottom up, with consumers CHOOSING bad options. But as soon as advertising comes in the mix, now the world is top down, with evil marketeers manipulating the masses anyway they want.

To all the down-voters: your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer!

Why would Pepsi do want to do it? Solely to prevent coca-cola from doing it?

If it isn't to convince people to drink Pepsi for those who don't drink Pepsi, why would it matter if they did Pepsi instead of Coca-cola?

This isn't an argument for advertising, it's an argument that advertising is an infectious disease: once one company in an industry starts advertising, the others have to advertise to compete. And that hurts consumers because every dollar spent on advertising is a dollar that comes out of the pockets of consumers and is not spent on improving the product.

Until humans know everything about every good or service in every market, there is going to be a demand for advertising.

Nope! We shouldn't. Speculation is precisely what we should do! That's what a critical review of research involves. We should take this as excellent motivation for further research. It could be true, but we haven't done nearly enough work to conclude as much. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's uncertain, and it's strictly unscientific to proceed by assuming something uncertain is the truth just because it's intuitively compelling. Intuitively compelling narratives are very dangerous in science, because they make you believe you have a shortcut to the truth and they're vindicated right up until they aren't. It's not a good habit.

Happiness is incredibly complicated. Contradicting evidence and results abound across studies of life satisfaction. Measuring the impact and success of advertising itself is highly complex; the researchers have shown this correlation under their current methodology. What are we to conclude if someone uses a different methodology to study the same topic, equally as valid, and comes away with a different conclusion? That's very possible, and we can't dismiss it. The researchers themselves hedge their claims and don't come out and say they've found causation.

I don't really have a dog in the race with advertising. But I really despise this kind of reporting by HBR, because the result is threads like this one where people walk away with unproven "truths" that become part of the popular zeitgeist because they just seem to vindicate obvious beliefs. Today it's advertising, tomorrow it'll be something else. Given the replication crisis we're undergoing, we shouldn't take anything away from studies like this except that further research is required.

Buying that product once forever removes my need to crave for an upgrade (unless it breaks, of course).

My 98yr grandma inspired this behavior. She bought her kitchen utensils as a young mother, and used them forever. Her wooden cutting board is now so worn, that its thinned and almost breaks in half. Yet not a hair on her head would want to replace it until that happens.