Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickelcitymario | Hacker News Reader

I'm gonna take the contrarian viewpoint here. Full disclosure: I'm in advertising.

The researcher states that increasing "aspiration" (their term) leads to dissatisfaction and more unhappiness. Sure! But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc. I don't disagree that ambition and aspiration can make a person unhappy. But it's also what drives literally all human progress.

So unless you believe primitive man was living their best life and that everything that has happened since then is a regression (and certainly some people hold that view), I find it hard to swallow that aspirations are a bad thing.

Yes, there's a negative to them. But virtually every good thing people have ever done was because of their aspirations.

Therefore I don't agree with the notion that advertising is inherently bad because it raises people's expectations for themselves. I consider that a good thing even if it comes at the cost of a decrease in personal happiness.

HOWEVER (I can feel your hatred), there's a difference between motivating people to aspire to better things vs simply making them feel shitty about themselves so they'll buy your crap.

ex: When a fashion brand shows impossibly attractive people wearing their clothes, they're not showing us how to live better lives. They're simply making us feel shitty for not being models, and then hoping we'll make the conclusion that we'd look better if we bought those clothes. That doesn't make anyone's life better. That's just a shit sandwich all around.

ex: When a tech company shows us a bunch of people being really productive using their products, it can inspire us to want to be more productive. If their product truly can make us more productive (like the invention of the PC... no reasonable person would argue that PCs didn't make us more productive, right?), then that's great.

ex: Pharmaceutical drugs have been a fantastic boon for humanity. We rely on them constantly to extend our lives and improve our quality of life. Yet some (many?) drugs are nowhere near as beneficial as they are advertised (I'm looking at you, Fentanyl).

So I think the question is simply: does the product actually improve our lives in the way the advertising suggests? Or is it just a bait-and-switch?

Advertising isn't inherently bad, any more than aspirations are inherently bad. It boils down to what's being advertised and how honest the ads are about it.

View on HN

> But aspiration is also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard, try to be good parents, etc.

Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need.

> I consider that a good thing even if it comes at the cost of a decrease in personal happiness.

We could not possibly disagree more. I think it is straight-up immoral for anyone to intentionally make another's life worse in order to sell them stuff.

> Advertising isn't inherently bad, any more than aspirations are inherently bad. It boils down to what's being advertised and how honest the ads are about it.

We agree here. Advertising, in the form that advertisers tend cite to people who are critical of advertising (informing people about products) is not inherently bad.

However, the vast majority of advertising isn't of that form at all. It's of the form of manipulating people instead. That's the sort of advertising that is terrible.

>Excluding fancy schools (which I believe aren't exactly a good thing), none of those things were inspired by "aspiration" in the sense being used here. They were inspired by genuine need.

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

That depends on what mean by "status signals". If you mean attending a fancy school or owning trendy stuff, then no. Most people manage to attract mates and get business partners without doing that.

I was trying to point out the nebulousness of the term "genuine need". The fact that fancy schools and trendy stuff exist must be providing some utility. Of course, some more than others.

For example, "fancy" (I assume you are referring to selective schools) provide the utility of providing an easy way to discriminate between those who have the traits to get into those schools vs those who don't. Seeing as how they have vastly higher levels of economic success, I can only conclude it's definitely providing utility that someone wants (or "needs").

Similarly with fancy cars or whatnot, it can serve as a proxy to quickly ascertain someone's socioeconomic status. Obviously, a copy of one's credit report and statement of accounts serves a better purpose, but it's not the recommended method for various reasons.

Let's not equate a fancy degree with a fancy car. A college education is only partially about the line you append to your resume. Working with people at the front of an intellectual field is a life changing experience that you can leverage to open far more doors than a degree ever could.

> We could not possible disagree more. I think it is straight-up immoral for anyone to intentionally make another's life worse in order to sell them stuff.

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.)

> I've given you the knowledge of a solution to your problem.

But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place. I don't see how that's a good thing.

> And yet, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't consider those ads to be evil, would you?

"Evil" isn't the word I'd use. "Immoral" is. If a charitable organization is using ads that are intentionally trying to make me feel bad (as opposed to merely informing me), then those ads don't suddenly become acceptable just because it's a charitable organization. The ends don't justify the means. Interestingly enough, although I donate to charitable organization reasonably heavily, I long ago decided not to donate to ones that engage in such advertising, for precisely this reason.

> If all I cared about was making people happy, I'd sell heroin.

No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy. "Feeling good" is a very different thing than happiness, particularly if you're only looking at the near term.

> But you've given a "solution" (that involves separating me from my money) to a problem that you created in the first place.

When did I create a problem? Yes, some advertising invents nonexistent problems and I thought I was clear that this shit is evil. That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol"

> No, you wouldn't, because doing so will make people unhappy, not happy.

Way to miss the point, dude.

Imagine being overweight and being told by an absolute stranger, "gee, you look bad. come join my gym, you'd look like this ripped guy." Prick, right?

People have dissatisfactions, but only advertisements have the audacity to point them out as a complete stranger. Even if a loved one did that, you might recoil. when people are unhappy about something, they will share it with someone they trust if they want to talk about it. Advertisements get a free pass to nose into your life and be your mother? Please.

I actually agree. Which is why my first comment on this thread said this:

> HOWEVER (I can feel your hatred), there's a difference between motivating people to aspire to better things vs simply making them feel shitty about themselves so they'll buy your crap.

There are lots of different ways to motivate people. Lying is one of them. Making them feel bad about themselves works too. I don't support either of those approaches.

So to use your example about the gym, I strongly dislike most fitness/health advertising for the very reasons you state. If I were to run ads for that industry, I'd focus on the effort of regular everyday people. I wouldn't show impossibly perfect (and mostly photoshopped) people. I'd show people from across the whole spectrum pushing themselves, waking up early to hit the gym. I'd focus on health, not "beauty". On working out so you can have more energy, fewer health complications, greater strength, etc. I wouldn't run ads that tell you "you should work out because it's the only way you could ever look like this model over here".

But that's just me. I don't know if my approach would work, because I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet. (Not a lot of fitness brands looking for an ad agency in Northern Ontario.)

> That's a different thing from saying "that headache you have sucks, doesn't it? here's some tylenol"

It is indeed different. I was responding to this:

> 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.

Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here.

> Way to miss the point, dude.

I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive.

> Where you appeared to be justifying creating dissatisfaction on the basis that you are providing a solution to that dissatisfaction. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point here.

Touché. I did say that. Balderdash.

My point (poorly stated) was that while I think it's cruel to create a problem where it doesn't exist, it's not cruel to promote the solution to a real problem that already exists. However, promoting the solution involves reminding you of the problem, which creates or emphasizes a dissatisfaction you may have been ignoring.

> I suppose that I did -- and I still do, because I don't see how my reply was unresponsive.

My point in using heroin as an example was to say there are plenty of ways to create happiness that aren't necessarily beneficial in the long run.

Perhaps some better examples would be:

- Sitting on the beach all day

- Not exercising

- Spending every dollar I have today and ignoring my future needs

All of these would lead to me being happy for a while. But eventually they're detrimental. Yes?

Woah now, I would completely disagree, heroin does not make you happy, short term pleasure is not the same thing. New information which helps people is inherently a good thing, but can be obtained through other means than ads, i.e. word of mouth. The fact is that most ads are targeted badly and thus useless for most people, and the targeted ads that do help some are breaches of privacy, the better the ad the more information you must know about the person, which leads to all types of misuse of information.

Ads also give large companies leverage to destroy small companies. Basically if two entities are trying to compete, if one has more money, and a worse product, then they have the ability to out compete the smaller company specifically by spending more on advertisements.

The incentive model for advertisments is to take away as much privacy as possible from you (which we have seen in practice) and removes the effectiveness of the free market to function properly. Case in point, we should completely remove ads and only have new information from word of mouth or people who are willing to be paid for their time.

So your position is that without advertising, large companies would have no means to crush their competition?

1. They'd simply undercut their prices, as they do now.

2. Advertising can level the playing field when the smaller competitor understands the game they're playing. There are countless examples of now-major brands that started out as the underdog but put out really creative work. Truly creative work can radically outperform your average ad campaign, but they're risky. Which is why the major brands play it safe and can't produce the outstanding work.

As for the whole privacy/targeting thing, I'm not defending that one. I 100% agree that it's gone way too bloody far. I was perfectly happy with ads that were targeted based purely on the content being presented rather than the creepy profiles that a lot of media companies keep on all of us.

I think that the aspirations that almost all advertisements give to people are actively harmful in every possible way.

- It is the main revenue source of most mentally harmful products like social media. A replacement created for the good of the world paid for by taxes with open data would be much preferred.

- Has masked how the world really functions via out-right lies and deception. Coke makes you happy, Happy Cows come from California, Diamonds must be given to show love

- Allows people with the most money to have the most likely chance of getting elected.

- Uses your personal information so that they are more likely to sell you things.

- Drug should not be advertised. Why the would a doctor want their patient to ask them for a specific drug???

- Convinced people that single use garbage should have a place in our society.

I am sure there are many more negatives, but for now I think this will suffice.

Perhaps with enough regulation many of these things could be changed, but I don't see it happening. Advertising can be used for good, see anti-smoking ads, but in its current state it is all bad. I can't think of an aspiration an ad has given me which gave me a problem to fix instead of a reason to consume.

Since you cherry picked the worst examples, let me cherry pick some of the best:

- 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.

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

Is the implication that you believe that's causal? That you think reducing advertising spending would be economically detrimental?

I suspect that isn't true, since it's basically just an arms race. Companies are forced into competing along the axis of marketing (they also choose to since it's more effective than competing on quality), which is a huge money sink.

Also being anti-advertising isn't anti-capitalist. Simply believing that a market should have rules doesn't mean you are anti-market. Personally, I really doubt that advertising is an effective means of job and growth creation. It might even be negative. I suspect capitalism would be healthier without it.

I highly doubt it increases overall consumption, it rather just orients buyers in particular directions, often directions that are detrimental to themselves and to society as a whole.

> Is the implication that you believe that's causal?

Less implication and more exactly what I was trying to say.

> I suspect that isn't true, since it's basically just an arms race.

You may be right, you may be wrong. But I don't understand how anyone can say advertising causes people to spend money on things they don't need and also that advertising does not positively impact the economy. Those seem contradictory, and yet that appears to be the argument being made.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did not cherry pick the worst examples, just the most common. Only one of your examples could possibly lead to a good aspiration in people, charities. Even that seems like a stretch though as many advertisements for charities are scams or to charities that only use a low percentage of the donation for the charities cause. It could push people to look up a list charities and donate, which is why it could be positive.

We don't need ads for schools or politicians a person should make their own choice based on impartial data and public debates. Movie trailers in and of themselves are not bad, but as advertisements they only drive people to consume. I can't say that they give positive aspirations.

Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?

Alright, clearly we don't have a shared understanding of what is good or bad. That's cool. I understand your position, even if I don't agree with it.

> Why do we need to be socialist or a utopia to ban most advertising?

You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

> You don't, as long as you don't mind a sudden drop in national GDP.

GDP is a terrible measure of how economy feels for the median person. A sudden drop in the GDP due to the lower classes saving money as a result of not being constantly bombarded with ads for net-negative goods seems like a win to me. Banning tobacco ads also caused the GDP to drop.

Ok, so how about "as long as you don't mind another recession"?

There's two things about recessions. First, they end. Second, it does not follow that banning/severely regulating advertising to consumers would trigger another recession.

Well, it seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

If it doesn't, then what's all the fuss about?

Recessions in North America (can't speak for any other context unfortunately) have ended due to concerted efforts to get people to spend more: lowering interest rates mostly, forgiving debts, and political leaders outright telling people that their patriotic duty was to go out there and shop.

Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

That's not a risk I'm interested in taking, personally. But you do, you rebel you.

> Does advertising cause people to spend more than they would otherwise, or not?

Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend. Hence the unhappiness. However, it also distorts the allocation of that spending.

> If it does, then eliminating advertising would reduce spending which is what causes a recession.

People would not stop buying stuff without advertising. They would be more likely to spend the money more on vacations/experiences. Trusted reviews would become a much larger industry. This is different from ads however, as it would be paid for by the consumer. I suppose companies could also pay the reviewer to include their product when doing a round-up of the various options, assuming that all of the competitors paid the same amount, there's no reason for the reviewer to be biased.

> Looking around the world, it seems to me that many recessions didn't, in fact, end. Instead, their economies imploded entirely.

How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

> Yes, it does, though not as much as they wish they could spend.

...is that not the cause of recessions?

> People would not stop buying stuff without advertising.

Outright "stop", no. Reduce, yes. How much of a reduction is anyone's guess, but I suspect it'd be by a whole lot more than anyone is comfortable with.

> How many of them were caused by banning/regulating direct-to-consumer advertising?

DTC is regulated, as all advertising is. Also I thought we were discussing all advertising, not DTC specifically, and I'm not sure what that specific category of marketing would bother you more than any other. Unless of course you're talking about all the online tracking, which I'm fully onboard with banning.

I feel slightly insulted by your point of view. You seem to be saying that advertising is like medicine, it might taste bad but it will end up being good for me in the end. Short of moving to a cabin in the woods, there is no way to actually escape advertising if I choose. And even limiting advertising takes a lot of effort.

I'm not just talking about ads on web pages - it's in movies, TV, on the sides of buildings, on the back of every car on the road, on every radio station, in every store, at every gas station, every few hundred yards on every interstate, every bus stop, every telephone pole, in every magazine and news paper.

I don't want to take this medicine, please stop shoving it down my throat. I'm perfectly happy without all of these healthy "aspirations" to guide me in my life.

> You seem to be saying that advertising is like medicine, it might taste bad but it will end up being good for me in the end.

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.

> 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.

Just because it's a hard problem to solve doesn't mean it's not a problem worth solving or that there is no solution. That said, I don't think just lowering the number of ads is really getting at what I'm saying.

Lowering the number of advertisements doesn't provide me with any more choice, it just makes the current situation less annoying (to whatever degree). If I want a particular thing, I can go out and search for it. I don't need to be told about that thing constantly when I have no initial desire for it.

Here is a concrete example. I enjoy films, but I don't watch network or cable television at home, so I generally don't have any idea what new movies are out there. However, when I decide that I feel like watching a movie, I go online and seek out the advertisements (trailers) for those movies. I do this by my own choice.

Another example is that I will sometimes check out the recommended videos on YouTube if I'm bored, and these are essentially advertisements for various content creators. Again, I make the specific choice to do this.

When I'm driving down the highway, my goal is to get somewhere, not find a local personal injury attorney, and yet I am forced to see sign after sign for these with absolutely no choice in the matter.

> Just because it's a hard problem to solve doesn't mean it's not a problem worth solving or that there is no solution.

Agreed.

> Lowering the number of advertisements doesn't provide me with any more choice, it just makes the current situation less annoying (to whatever degree). If I want a particular thing, I can go out and search for it. I don't need to be told about that thing constantly when I have no initial desire for it.

But in order for those products to be available when you go looking for them, those businesses have to actually exist. And for them to exist, they need a lot more customers than just you. And the #1 way businesses get more customers is... checks notes... advertising.

> Another example is that I will sometimes check out the recommended videos on YouTube if I'm bored, and these are essentially advertisements for various content creators. Again, I make the specific choice to do this.

How do those creators make their money?

Ad revenue.

Human aspiration is built-in, we don't need help via advertising to desire more from life. Everyone seems to have adopted fire and the wheel without a marketing campaign, after all.

Advertising may not be inherently bad, but given the scope and scale of modern advertising, one has to admit that we've gone too far. Google tells me we see about 5,000 ads per day, do you consider this a good or a bad thing? As a representative of your industry I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

> do you consider this a good or a bad thing? As a representative of your industry I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

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?

> 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?)

I would greatly appreciate if advertising stopped funding "news" networks like CNN and Fox News. I think I could live happily in a world where Anderson Cooper isn't making 12 million dollars a year for being a news caster in-between ads for various prescription drugs.

How should they be funded instead?

I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.

> How should they be funded instead?

> I assure you their editorial departments would be overjoyed if you've discovered a new business model that works without advertising.

A radical take: not all businesses currently funded by advertisement should exist.

A less radical take: if the audience feels that CNN/Fox/MSNBC provide a valuable service to them, they will be willing to pay for it directly. If "the people" feel that a news service benefits society as a whole, it can be funded through taxes, like the BBC.

So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.

(I'm from Canada so our equivalent would be CBC and TVO.)

My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.

> So in an American context... NPR and PBS exclusively then? Because people have proven for quite a long time that they are not willing to foot the bill.

New York Times, The Young Turks, etc. If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.

> My guess is that if advertising was banned, the news media would become even more reliant on billionaires to keep them going, and I can't imagine that's healthy for a democracy. I know advertisers have impacted editorial decisions as well (especially really big advertisers who threaten to pull their ads), but I think that would be many times worse if a paper or TV station was entirely dependant on one or two people to stay afloat.

Billionaires are not healthy for a democracy. The fact that the news media has to exploit their credibility with the audience to compete with a few wealthy individuals is a testament to that.

> If people aren't willing to foot the bill, then that's fine. The market-niche will be freed up for another business to take a better and more sustainable approach.

There's nothing stopping other business models to take hold, unless of course those business models are insufficient to support the operation.

Also, NYT is supported by a $250 million loan from billionaire Carlos Slim.

So you are replacing state benevolence with the advertising industry's benevolence :).

If the news/media organizations cannot survive and profit without either help, then shouldn't they be allowed to wither ? Instead of imposing this garbage on everyone, young ones included. Or do we consider them an essential industry now ?

BTW, that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can show more ads :).

> that news is important is also a "need" created by advertising, so that, .... they can show more ads :).

You don't consider the news to be an essential part of a democracy?

I've said enough about why I believe advertising is a net positive, so I'm not gonna retread that part.

But question the value of "the 5th estate" to society? That's a whole other level.

> Advertising isn't inherently bad, any more than aspirations are inherently bad. It boils down to what's being advertised and how honest the ads are about it.

They aren't honest about it.

An honest appraisal of a product would include all relevant information, including if a competitor's product is better or cheaper, or if the product has problems that might be worse than the solution. That's what Consumer Reports-type sites do, what friends/family do, what doctors/mechanics do, what minimalists do. It's not what advertisers do. The very most honest advertising is lying by omission, and most advertising is much worse than that.

If you were trying to help consumers find the best products, you'd work for an independent review site that accepts money from consumers rather than producers so that you're actually accountable to the people you help. Advertising isn't there to help consumers--it fundamentally is the wrong way to help consumers.

> Advertising isn't there to help consumers--it fundamentally is the wrong way to help consumers.

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?

> Advertising helps businesses. Businesses serve consumers.

No, businesses serve themselves. Corporations are not your friends. Sometimes their interests align with consumers' but not always.

> 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?

Your claim is basically that if they don't claim to tell the truth, and everybody knows they're lying, it's no longer lying.

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

How about we start with something simple like not pretending that advertisers jamming their ads down my throat is an altruistic act?

Never claimed it was altruistic. Is altruism the only acceptable way to make a living?

And my claim, to be specific, is that I disagree with your definition of lying. So does the dictionary.

Look man, you responded within a context. Maybe you didn't claim they were being altruistic, but in context, you're posting in defense of statements made by people who are claiming altruism, or at least helpfulness, by advertisers.

If you want to argue that presenting partial information with the intent to deceive isn't within the strict lying, fine, I'll concede that pedantic point. That's a rather silly hill to die on, though: do we really care about the difference between two different ways advertisers might attempt to deceive us? I think it's pretty reasonable for me to say that I don't like people who try to deceive me, regardless of whether they do it by lying, or by presenting an unbalanced, partial section of the facts.

I honestly have no idea who claims advertising is altruistic. I don't know too many businesses or industries that could make such a claim about themselves. Yeah, I'm here to make money. Do you go to work out of an altruistic desire to help your employer? Or is that incidental to your goal of earning a living?

As for deception, I don't think we're going to agree, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. But for the sake of clarity:

- If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal.

- If I say something is technically true but implies something that is untrue, I still consider that a deception. (For example, I recently saw an episode of Patriot Act that said clothing from H&M had labels that something about being made from recycled material, but in truth the only recycled item was the label itself. Technically, not a lie. But obviously deceptive, because they relied on our assumption that they were referring to the clothing item and not the tag that the claim was printed on.)

- If I say something that is true but is used to cover up other things I don't want you to know, that's deception. So if I promote that my product uses recycled materials, and it really does, but it also pollutes the environment in other ways, that's deceptive too because I was trying to imply that my product was good for the environment when it really wasn't.

- HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.

> If I say something that is untrue, I consider that a lie and a deception. It's also illegal.

It's not illegal in any meaningful way. Whatever law you think makes it illegal, is not being effectively enforced. Companies lie in advertising constantly. Subway "footlongs" are less than a foot long, "Bifidus Regularus" in Activia yogurt is literally two made up words, Dr. Oz can make all sorts of claims about new medical products because it's "not a medical show", Vitamin Water supposedly "boosts your immune system" and "helps fight free radicals", many herbal supplements are literally grass clippings. Even in cases where companies have been successfully sued (which is different from it being illegal) settlements have been meaningless compared to the profits: the possibility of being sued is a line item in the expenses of a lying advertising campaign.

I think we're on agreement in your middle points, but I'm a bit confused about how you think this applies to advertising. The vast majority of advertising is dishonest under these points.

> - HOWEVER, if I say something that is true, don't try to get you to believe anything that isn't true by any means, but also don't tell you that my competitor has other strengths that you might want to consider, I don't consider that deceptive. I don't agree that this is "lying by omission" if the omission has nothing to do with anything else I've said in my ad. I think you're saying that you do, and we may simply be an impasse on that.

I think it depends on context. You have people on this thread claiming that their job as advertisers is to help consumers find products that fit their needs. The implication here is that they're providing a valuable service to consumers. If that's the case, then you're absolutely misleading people by only providing information that's favorable to your product.

But if we're honest that the job of advertisers is to sell people products, regardless of whether those products fit consumers' needs, then sure, they're giving all the information they're obligated to give. But let's not pretend that that's altruistic, or good for consumers and society. It's not--it's actively harmful.

You can't have it both ways. Either:

1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job...

2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers.

Either way, advertisers are a blight on society.

There are still loopholes. The examples you give are things I agree are wrong. But yea, agreed, that shit is unethical to varying degrees. The practice of slightly changing the spelling of words to no longer have legal definitions is one of those loopholes that I abhor. Chocolatey Chips vs Chocolate Chips? Footlong vs foot long? Cheese-based product vs cheese? I don't know how they ethically defend what they do.

(Side note: Some of the most effective ad campaigns of all time, and some of the most revered in the industry, came out of DDB in the 60s. Their trick: in a sea of blatant lies and deceptions, they told the truth. Instead of saying "this is an amazing car", they'd say "this is a small car for people who don't want large ones". It worked, and they proved that respecting the consumer was not only moral but good for business, too. If you don't think today's regulations have had any meaningful impact, I recommend taking a look at the ads that came out before regulation.)

The distinction about lawsuits vs criminal prosecution is something you'll have to take up with the legal system. I don't know why it is that if a corporation does something illegal, the only recourse is usually financial, where as when a person does the same thing, jail time is on the table.

To your comments on context, I genuinely apologize, I wasn't reading other comments in the greater thread, only the ones in response to what I initially posted (because if you took the time to read what I wrote and replied, I feel I owe you a response in return). I didn't realize that's what you were referring to.

I 100% agree my job is to sell products. Others in the greater thread and in my industry may believe their jobs are more altruistic than that. I can't speak for them. I'm certainly not a saint, and simply aim to avoid doing work that I'd consider harmful to anyone.

I disagree that selling products is inherently bad. I maintain that if the product is good, then promoting it is good or at least neutral -- with the previously noted exceptions for deceptive advertising.

I don't agree with your contention about the vast majority of advertising being dishonest, but I'm not sure either of us is prepared to conduct a proper and objective study on the matter. We probably both have confirmation bias on this issue.

> You can't have it both ways. Either:

> 1. The job of advertisers is helping consumers by giving them information to choose products that fit their needs, and they're not doing that job...

> 2. ...or the job of advertisers is to sell products without caring about whether those are the best products for consumers, or whether consumers need/want the product, or if the product is actively harmful to consumers.

I would propose a third option, spinning off of option 2 that you presented: Advertisers sell products. Some of them care about whether the products are good for people, some don't. Some of them care about whether their advertising is honest, some don't.

I think the idea that the act of promotion (advertising) is what's wrong with the world is putting the cart before the horse. Fix the product. Fix the business. The advertising will follow suit. If you think that's naive, you may be right. But it's how I think about the matter. Honest businesses produce honest advertising. Dishonest businesses don't.

Name one advertising agency which has honesty as one of its core precepts.

Petryna Advertising, my agency. Thanks for coming out.

How many corporate Centers of Excellence produce excellent work?

Pardon? I don't know what that means.

Prove it.

Interesting challenge. What would constitute proof?

I'm not being facetious and I honestly don't know if I could prove it. It's simply a value we hold dear and we're up front about it with our clients and our team. We refuse to be dishonest, because it's bad for business.

For context: we're a small agency in a small city. If we either lied to our clients or produced dishonest advertising, we believe we'd be out of business in short order.

I'll give you an example. Many businesses suspect their agencies pad the hours on their billings. So instead we mostly do project-based quotes: as long as the scope of the project doesn't change, we don't change our quote, even when we lose money on it (and it happens). I can't prove that, though, so you'll just have to decide if I'm being honest about it I guess.

I believe you believe what you wrote.

I will say the same for the same people chastising you.

It all comes down to a difference in perspective, values, and outlook. I don't believe the hate you're getting is justified, but for someone that works in marketing: your copy is unconvincing ;)

Perhaps you didn't frame properly for your audience? You seem more on the defensive instead of the offensive, morphing your position so your detractors can see it from a different angle.

Just some thoughts. It must be draining replying to all of that hate.

Nods

> Therefore I don't agree with the notion that advertising is inherently bad because it raises people's expectations for themselves.

It's more nuanced than that. They are using advertising as shorthand for commercial advertising. The aspirations they are encouraging are for products. This want is what is causing the unhappiness. They could increase aspiration for positive things, but that is not what advertisers are doing.

> They could increase aspiration for positive things, but that is not what advertisers are doing.

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.

A lot of surreal coping and rationalization going on here. Comparing aspiration in "advertising" to inventing the wheel and harnessing fire??? Jesus Christ, man. What bizzaro world do you have to be in this say something like this? Oh, right: the advertising industry.

What bizarro world do you have to live in to think advertising is what's wrong with the world?

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

I apologize fo the comment about the tech industry. I was going to edit it to simply take it out, but that wouldn't be terribly honest of me. So it stays. But I can't in good conscious say "hey, please don't be a jerk to me for being in advertising" and then turn around and mock the entire tech industry. That's BS on my part.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown. I understand it's frustrating dealing with these types of people. Just know that HN is a bubble and doesn't usually represent the majority of people, just a ... vocal subset of people

Hahaha, thanks :-)

"...[I]s also why we invented the wheel, harnessed fire, founded fancy schools like Harvard" there's a huge false equivalency here; I'll let you figure out which one it is.

How much consumer advertising appeals to "good" aspiration and fills a need which is fairly priced (ie doesn't have brand/marketing/silly subliminal cultural messaging priced in).

When I talked about inventions, I was talking about aspirations. I.e. whenever we do anything it's because we aspire to something better. Someone was cold, stumbled upon fire and saw that it kept them warm, and aspired to harness that so they could be warm all the time. I don't see how that's controversial.

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.

> But virtually every good thing people have ever done was because of their aspirations.

I'll think of this comment every time I see an ad that makes me "aspire" to better myself and others by giving my money to someone else.

I suppose you work for free?

Necessity, not aspiration, is the mother of invention.

Please change careers.

I would, but the position of "snarky internet commentator" has been filled.

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

Sophistry's worse than snark.

Are you saying I must be a liar because I’m in advertising? Or that the arguments I’m making here today are meant to deceive?

Or just a random opinion about sophistry?

Thank God for the advertisements that motivated Jonas Salk to invent the polio vaccine, huh?

Ah yes, snark. This is helpful.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com