The Obsolescence of Advertising in the Information Age (2018)
yalelawjournal.org
yalelawjournal.org
(One could write an article about the Web titled "The obsolescence of information in the advertising age." Cover the decline of actual info provided on web sites, vs. the giant sucking sound of the onboarding funnel. You know, the sites which have nothing but stock photos and a form for entering in your email address.)
I’ve seen ads for products I would have never bought, because I never knew they existed, and wound up better for it.
What makes this situation hard is that there are two problems:
1) Even if you make a good product, it is not reasonable to demand the world to just inform everyone about it on your behalf. Getting the word out takes effort. Money is the potential energy of human effort.
2) There is so much money to be made from various products that trillions of dollars are being spent getting the word out about various products. That makes it hard to rise above the baseline noise if you don't happen to start with large amounts of money.
As a result, I've seen many investment deals based entirely around "You have a good product. We have money. We'll put money into advertising your product in return for owning part of it."
Still, I thought we’d be much further along by now with finding things I didn’t know I needed. Maybe it’s the ROMI which doesn’t work with small firms? Maybe marketing requires a minimum buy for efficacy?
Likewise incredible is the fact I have to see spanx ads on YouTube.
Such as?
I can't recall myself purchasing anything [just] because of an ad, or knowing anyone else who did, or even seeing an ad for something I was interested in.
Everything that I've spent money on, has been discovered through manual search, word of mouth (on online forums), voluntarily subscribed newsletters/feeds (like a favorite developer announcing a new game or app) or random recommendations algorithms (like these clips of Mortal Engines and Ultimate Chicken Horse that I just saw on YouTube, or featured spots on the App Store, Steam, iTunes etc.) which I guess may count as a form of advertisement but they show me what a product is actually like.
I pick these up from store aisles more or less at random.
> How much weight would you say your friends or colleagues experience with a car brand has influenced the decision you made to purchase one auto manufacturer's model over another?
None, I don't own a car, but I can see the point you're trying to make with that one.
> Advertising works and if it didn't it wouldn't exist.
There is a possibility that it actually doesn't and is a case of the emperor with no clothes, an unnecessary industry perpetuated by those in the industry.
All of these untargeted ads are meaningless to me. Even before the Internet, if I needed something I went and looked for it when I needed it. An ad on TV for a product I need? Yeah, I'd just take note and look for something cheaper/better, which I always found.
On that note, avertising does work for many products if it's at least somewhat decently targeted, otherwise it's brand awareness, so not a total waste of money.
People that think this are delusional. Just because you've convinced yourself you are impervious to it doesnt mean you are.
Almost like religious fanaticism, forcing people to acknowledge gods and demons and boogeymen.
More broadly, the question isn’t whether advertising works, but whether it has positive or negative social value. If it largely just reallocates spending, then everyone (including the firms currently engaged advertising arms races with other firms) would be better off if it were abolished.
Where we lack independant, reliable regulation, advertising is more valuable because it provides brand trust.
cheapest one available from nearby stores
> shampoo
tested many brands, found one that works well for me.
>car brand
Absolutely none, unless they are car maniac.
> While I do understand and am with you on your philosophy of making an informed decision, so much of our impulses as we purchase the things required to live daily are influenced by ads whether we're aware of them or not.
I do not dispute that, but isn't this paper arguing that ads aren't fulfilling their informative purpose(the only reason they were allowed to get so prevalent)?
to quote the paper
>In the information age, the only remaining nonredundant use of most forms of advertising is persuasion. To the extent that enforcers wish to return to the mid-twentieth-century view that persuasive advertising is fundamentally manipulative, they may now do so without concern that prohibiting advertising might deprive consumers of the information they need to make purchase decisions
That simply isn’t true. Other than those extremely cash-constrained choice of car is a very personal thing, as much as style of clothing.
the only remaining nonredundant use of most forms of advertising is persuasion
Ads are obsolete where brands are obsolete in a world where everything is made in the same factory in China and merely gets a different sticker on the case. Basically any electronics now for example.
Speaking for myself, I bought cars based on what I valued, which was often different from what friends and colleagues valued--which is exactly the meaning of "personal."
I get what you’re saying but lots of people do do that. Certain demographics flock to BMWs for example. Within a pretty narrow range you could guess a BMW driver’s occupation, and you would almost certainly be correct about their personality. Another demographic loves their Subarus. Or Porsche, classic choice of the male midlife crisis.
But pretty much everyone who can afford to, buys a car that they feel reflects their lifestyle or the lifestyle they aspire to.
The obvious comeback is [1]. All the existence of advertising indicates is that either the producer or the consumer is not an ideal perfect-information homo economicus. It doesn't say which of them it is.
Every large company with economies of scale has a waste budget: the amount of inefficiency it can tolerate before competitors without its scale advantage will eat its lunch. As long as irrational behavior doesn't go beyond the waste budget, it may well persist, as the article shows of online advertising.
[1] https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h...
In the context of advertising and marketing it is interesting to consider why we use shampoo at all.
When people need things like those they just pick whatever they've always been using, or whatever's available and they don't associate any previous bad experiences with.
What kind of bizarre disconnect from reality do advertisers have? Is it like they're watching some kind of Matrix rain of numbers and choosing to see what they want to see?
Going a few years back, those lithium-ion-based car jump-starters were a genuine surprise for me. I'd only had experience with the much larger, bulkier lead-acid ones. An ad showed me an impossibly tiny & light combo jumpstarter and powerpack, and now there's one in my glovebox. It's been used, too, and I'm glad I had it.
But no, word of mouth being like if I found something on my own and mention it on Reddit or HN etc., then it's not advertisement in the commonly agreed-upon sense of the word.
Let's just take a regular product like a smartphone. Assuming you have a smartphone. Let's imagine you ignored all branding or something and purchased the cheapest smartphone on Amazon... but how did you even know that smartphones existed in the world? How did you come to know that Amazon sells these smartphone things?
Oh boy.
I guess your comments are advertisement about advertising too, then.
This forceful insistence that someone is influenced by advertising even when they repeatedly say they aren't, just affirms the possibility that the ad industry is a sham and a con.
Most people are numb to advertising, not influenced by it.
Though, I still haven't ordered one. Waiting on some reliable peer review first. So I might be agreeing with you...
Marketing does not create demand.
And all that aside, ads for fractional lending, for example, would theoretically generate capital, and not merely move it around.
There is a line by Jude Law in 'The New Pope' about harvard being ossified and in decline. The above line is exactly that. They are working on a dated understanding of advertising. Advertising today includes a vast array of activities. The above statement only applies to old fashioned billboard-type ads, which are basically meaningless in the modern context. Those online reviews that are making "ads" less influential? Those ARE modern advertisement. They are purchased. That great review on YouTube, also purchased. Those white ear bud designed to be seen across a busy street? Part of an advertising campaign. That music crafted to be that little bit louder when played. Advertising.
>>Persuasive advertising should be subject to per se condemnation because advertising is, like price fixing, harmful to consumers in all cases, requiring no case-specific inquiry to determine net effects. Persuasive advertising makes consumers willing to pay more for the advertised product for reasons that, because of the principle of innovation primacy, must be assumed to involve no gain in consumer welfare.
Lol. That is the entire fashion industry. Fashion advertising is about adding perceived value to otherwise identical products. "Consumer welfare" is also an outdated concept. Anti-features are deliberately engineered to weaken products. The goal of a producer is not to increase 'consumer welfare'. It is to SELL product. If that means damaging the consumer with a product designed to fall apart, then so be it. The advertising is there to convince the consumer to re-purchase the nearly identical product by attaching perceived value. Modern advertising even convinces consumers to throw away perfectly functional products by creating false perceptions of inadequacy or danger. The above line in effect condemns modern consumerism. Good luck with that fight.
Marshall McLuhan
So basically, "modern" advertising is as beneficial as a viral infection, so it really ought to be criminalized or regulated into nonexistence.
What? Billboard ads that I see from a train are literally the only ads that I remember after months (if they are well done).
Billboard ads are ideal for subliminal propaganda, that's why they are used for state propaganda in Germany (the government is just, state television is awesome, the military is great).
In many developed nations all tobacco advertising and marketing is banned. I would argue that this is actually good for the tobacco companies: they save billions of dollars a year and no new competitor to them can emerge, as it would have no way of telling smokers it exists.
This example makes me think that advertising of mass market consumer goods is like nuclear weapons: if your competitors are doing it, you'd be too scared of losing market share not to do it too. But in aggregate, all that really happens is that consumer prices are higher, and the ad industry gets rich.
But actually, if none of the companies advertise, consumers still find what they need through retailers, word of mouth, or simply continuing to buy what they already buy.
I don't know how it works in the UK but in USA, advertising also happens inside the retailers' locations:
- endcaps displays of products via promotional payments are a form of advertising [0][1]. A related concept is "slotting fees"
- instant tear off coupons on the aisle shelves is a form of advertising
- workers giving out free food samples (e.g. blue uniform contractors at Costco) is advertising
- informational videos mounted on displays in the aisles is advertising
>, word of mouth,
The first person in the word of mouth chain was often a recipient of advertising.
> or simply continuing to buy what they already buy.
But a lot of consumers don't want to always buy what they already buy. They want to buy new and improved products. In my case, I saw an advertisement for Oatly in a magazine which is a new brand of non-dairy milk. I used to use soy milk which didn't taste great but it was better than drinking black coffee. The new oatmeal-based milk tastes much better and I would have never found it by going to the same regular retail grocery store I normally shopped at. I had to go out of my way to find a different retailer that carried it.
Although 99% of advertising is terrible and irrelevant, it sometimes exposes me to new products that make me happier.
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/9ghlbh/in_your_opini...
They did not need to 'advertise' in the traditional sense - they just needed to logo-ise their packaging in a recogniseable way.
Armitage Shanks for those not of a certain age in the UK is a brand of toilet bowl manufacturer - they simply put the name of their company visibly on the bowl of every toilet I used for probably 30 years. I doubt they ever spent a penny (!) on billboards.
Pretty much every single intro to marketing class talks about this and uses it as the default example when first discussing game theory.
A competitor's product could just show up in the store, and if the product was superior and/or the price was better, consumers would choose the other one. I'm not a smoker, but if this isn't happening, I'm guessing it's because the products aren't really that differentiated and/or the consumer gets (biologically) addicted to whatever brand they started with meaning they don't really have the desire to try something new since they just want to satiate their addiction.
Their article attempts to pigeon hole advertising down to one function, informing existence and facts of a product. There’s a lot to argue against (modelling behaviour, ads as art, ads as culture, line between art and ads, short term v long term memory), it’s quite reductive but I’ll pose this question instead of a laundry list of counter arguments.
Take a teenager learning to skateboard, he is destined for many hard knocks and scrapes. He sees Nike shoes in his price range that are physically okay and some Adidas shoes that have more padding. He buys the Nike’s because he wants to live the dream of athletic achievement that he saw in many Nike ads. Every time he falls over he is still in the spirit of winning, shoes equipped.
Is that manipulation of his preferences for good skateboarding shoes, the ad making him impulsive and changing his desires and making him buy a worse product?
Or is the ad informing him he can buy access to a spirit that will accompany him on his self selected journey and help his own desires and achieve his goals?
In your example, yes.
>Or is the ad informing him he can buy access to a spirit that will accompany him on his self selected journey and help his own desires?
No.
One shoe is better for its purpose, the other has stronger associations with positive ideas and feelings.
The quality of the shoe you buy is the necessary determinant of how well it will perform.
Conversely, the brand you buy from is not necessary to having certain thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations, etc.
The notion that buying X product with Y association in some way supports Y is exactly the deception. Flowery language about buying access/hope/a way of life is romanticizing the deception.
Nike (née Kay) used to be the Greek goddess of victory. Nike the shoe brand is the updated copywritten form of that spirit that has been a part of humanity since forever. It’s not brand related despite the commercial rules, but the spirits are real.
Teacups can be bought with a gold trim that does nothing for performance and yet is seen as higher quality. You can’t divorce the mind from qualitative judgements.
There are qualitative ranks of fictional stories. You can judge the quality of spirit something embodies. We reject a lot of soulless, dispassionate product because it may be functionally viable or performant, but looks like it belongs in the soviet era (ugly concrete, hard unfriendly edges, ect). The US military puts high value on making sure it's equipment looks the part as well as plays the part, because of the impact it has on judgement.
This is ridiculous. The name of the shoe is the brand name, the name used to market the shoe! It is used in advertising! Any company can name themselves after some Greek goddess, regardless of the quality of their product. The name of a shoe has no impact on its utility/meaning to consumers, unless that name has been associated with flowery, false emotions instilled in them by ads. No one intrinsically feels uplifted by the mention of some Greek goddess that likely very few people would have heard of if not for Nike's decision to name themselves after her. The spirits are not real; survey a group of random people and ask them what Nike's namesake is; most will not know. Ask them if they like Nike shoes; they likely will. But hey, maybe Greek mythology enthusiasts do buy Nikes because the name gives them pleasure or confidence. But in comparison to Nike's ad budget and mindshare, this is minuscule.
I'm not dumb enough to say that Nike is a reference to a dead culture from thousands of years ago. I'm saying that the concept and conscious idea of victory expressed as a piece of culture has existed for thousands of years, in roughly the same way despite the different window dressing; like seeing it as a god or as a brand. It's the same spirit in a different frame.
It's the same as the idea of a rich man being framed as Mansa Musa, Bill Gates, Aladdin from the 1992 film and many more examples. They all have similar culture connotations in some sense that make up the spirit of the 'rich man' and if you kill all cultural representations of the 'rich man', people will make new ones regardless of who it is. They will be framed in a way that is culturally successful at the time. Bill Gates is occupies the spirit of the rich man, framed as smart guy business savvy leader with a touch of ruthlessness. A catholic priest from before lutherian protestant reform would have occupied the spirit of the 'rich man' though he would have been framed very differently to bill gates, draped in catholic finery and religious imagery. When people want to access the spirit of being rich they would seek a catholic influence instead of a SV tech influence. Ages before that they would have saught the culture influence of Mansa Musa and his billions in gold. It's still the same spirit of the 'rich man', with different frames.
The same way Nike and Nike are the same spirit of victory with different frames.
Jesus christ. Read some Paglia.
Is that really true if the mind is what makes it so?
Product advertising convinces you that you can do a thing, so you succeed. Emotions are much more powerful than rational thought and in the case of the shoe, can be a catalyst for a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Performance is almost never purely mechanical with products that interface directly with the human body.
Whether the customer performs better based on the (sub)conscious influence of the brand on the shoe is a different question entirely. But it's not one that anyone in these comments has provided the faintest whiff of evidence for.
So far, we've had romanticized assertions about emotional impacts nobody has measured.
The real question is whether this advertising process produces any unique benefits vs. a more product information based process. People found motivation and inspiration in things before the rise of modern branding. IMO, the presumption should be that sources of ephemeral emotional inspiration could be replaced without requiring the attention-hijacking form of advertising.
The anti-ad argument is that he shouldn't have to buy this spirit. If Nike ads were replaced by a non-commercial alternative, then the boy could have that spirit without needing to spend the extra money on fancy shoes.
Elvis Presley's guitar/clothes are worth more than the sum of their parts because he imbued it with that meaningful connection to whatever was higher than him.
Can you have a spirit without it being imbued in an object? The only other way of distributing connection to this stuff I can see is via people and you end up with a socially mediated distribution system.
If not, you're stuck with capitalism distributing spirits like it does everything else.
Wall to wall advertising to help everyone live a better life as cheaply & with as little environmental damage as possible.
The skateboarding teenager sees a nike bonfire and an adidas bonfire. The nike ads associate enhanced skateboarding with throwing money in the nike bonfire.
How much money should the teenager throw in the fires?
If throwing $50 in the nike fire motivates him to achieve his dreams, then surely it's worth it. How does he know that will happen though? What if after burning the money, he is disappointed by his lack of supernatural enhancement and gives up skateboarding? What if he misses out on the valuable lesson of motivating yourself without burning money first?
What if after burning $50, he achieves minor success and then tries burning $1000? Should he burn additional money monthly or weekly?
How will he know if burning the money actually helped him or if he would have been better off keeping the money?
Any ad can try to associate intangible positive benefits with an arbitrary action, but it doesn't mean there is truly a causation. If you could create causation between arbitrary actions and intangible positive benefits with an ad, wouldn't it be much better to make the action something more productive than burning money?
The entire point is that it doesn't motivate him or change his feelings, those are his to have on his own terms. It provides a direction (buy sneakers) and a comforting spirit to support his behaviour.
Here's the reverse to your thought experiment. A man sees a small boat and a big boat. The small yacht can take 4 people out frequently on small trips. The large yacht can take 100 people out on bigger trips deeper into the ocean. Both are holes in the ocean into which you pour money, which one is more performant? The bigger one has bigger engines, can fish more, can go further into the ocean and is unquestionably the better boat. It also burns money like the space program, just through maintenance time instead of fire.
What if the bigger boat doesn't deliver all the parties that was promised, or the fish have left the accessible sea around his port? What if he finds out people only like him for his boat and it sinks his self worth? What if he could support the payments up front but found out he couldn't support them over time, too late?
Would it be better if he spent money on shoes instead?
But they are not on his own terms, as you admitted in your earlier post ("He buys the Nike’s because he wants to live the dream of athletic achievement that he saw in many Nike ads").
He wants Nikes because Nike ads told him he would feel victorious/cool/whatever by buying them. Nothing in the skateboarder's mind intrinsically wants to buy Nike over Adidas. Nike shoes have no meaningful difference in utility or material to give him different "cognitive spirits". The "athletic achievement" in the ads are not connected meaningfully to the shoes; they are intended to manipulate his thinking into buying the shoe or associating it with an abstract value that is not inherent to any single brand of shoe. The reason he wants Nikes is because of the ads; his desire for them is manufactured by the media he consumes.
It precisely is his own terms, you can choose which spirits you want to participate in, or none, as you have just shown multiple times.
If ads are capable of brainwashing, why wouldn't they just put out an ad that removes the idea of disagreeing with ads forever? It's nonsense. Where are these totalitarian ads that prove that you have no free will and are open to manipulation all the time? Why do people rebel against foreign ads?
That's a false narrative.
We know brand advertising is generally psychologically bad for people. There's no psychologist who will recommend you "watch more ads".Almost nobody watches most ads out of their free choice.
This contradicts my own experience. I have discovered products I ended up buying many times through advertising. I often use ads, e.g. Amazon's product pages, as a starting point to learn about a product.
To some extent advertising works on me, as a learning channel as well as a sales channel. I'm a weirdo in several ways but doubt this is one of them.
Also, I find it odd that all the ads I see on Facebook are for scammy products - never big brands for things I actually buy.
FWIW I work in Advertising/Marketing.
Big brands from what I've seen also try and build a following via content marketing. This has more upfront cost but no cost per view.
I mind bad noise to signal ratios.
As cost of production plummeted, switching flow of data from "pull" to "push", I've had to transition from foraging to filtering strategies.
I've always been good at foraging.
I'm much less good at filtering. Worsened by my inability to keep my foraging habits in check.
"Oh we'll have so much good information at our fingertips!"
Reality:
A torrent of misinformation drowning out the actually good information.
The early internet wasn't so much idealistic, as it was only highly educated people having access to it.
It takes having lived pre-internet pre-google to appreciate that in the past, most dinner conversations revolved around arguing shit we can now google in 2 seconds. There is much good information - is there much freedom/resource to take advantage of it is another question.
I spent several years at a respected branding firm whose primary methodology boiled down to '16 ways to poke the lizard brain.' Even if your mind mistakenly believes that it makes rational choices, there's a section of that methodology that knows just how to appeal to you.
Someone said it better than me - human psychology can't handle how good we've become at manipulating it. Advertising is the primary driver behind this, but it only exists because reality unfolds through an array of complex sensory inputs that are mostly made up of subconscious impulses.
I'm curious if you think there's any way we can fix this.
I didn't consent to it.
Imagine someone following you on the street, screaming random true facts at you. I would hate it and wish to be left alone. And if someone would defend this practice saying "but, you know, true facts are useful; actully once in a few years I hear a fact that is somehow useful to me", I would be like, yeah, okay, whatever, good for you, but leave me out of it.
I prefer not be distracted. Screaming at me on the street is not okay. Sending me spam is not okay. (Please don't explain me how one person in a million might find spam useful. My point is: I don't.) Pushing advertising everywhere is not okay. You will keep doing it anyway (both the spammers and the advertisers) because there is money in it for you, I get it. I still do not consent. No, I don't care that in your opinion, it is actually good for me. In my opinion, it is not, and I prefer my own opinion about my preferences over your adsplaining.
Targeted ads and online reviews don't provide this signalling value, precisely because they're relatively cheap and efficient from the seller's perspective. Any two-bit operator can cheaply buy a bunch of five star reviews on Amazon, then relaunch under a new brand name when the real one star reviews start flooding in. If I see a lot of targeted ads from the same company, they might be engaging in a hugely expensive media blitz or I might have been identified by their algorithm as a total sucker. Untargeted mass advertising tells me that a) the company is heavily invested in their product and b) all my peers are seeing the same adverts.
Then there is the problem that big companies get bulk discounts for advertising and show up higher in the listings (in spite of paying less per-ad); this gives them unfair competitive advantage.
Most small projects these days understand how difficult it is to compete for attention and convey information. This is mostly because big corporations and startups backed by big VC funds have monopolized the media.
Technology has progressed greatly in the past few years but most people don't know it yet. Technological progress has been hidden away, drowned out in noise.
For example, there are some very interesting and radical things happening in the blockchain space but these projects are not visible because they cannot get any attention. Instead, what all people know about blockchain are the scammy mainstream projects - These mainstream projects are in fact discrediting the entire industry and hiding real progress. But it's the same thing with startups; that's why there hasn't been any major new unicorn since WhatsApp.
The whole system will be an eternal war between ad pushers and ad blockers, until we provide a third way, and I think the 'free with ads, pay a subscription to take ads off' is a fair solution to the issue of 'How do websites get paid for their services without relying on selling user-data and bombarding us with ads, while also keeping their website accessible for most'.
I'm sure there are other, but choosing the 'don't pay and don't watch' when they at least try to provide a solution to get out of ads is counter-productive in the long term.
Advertising can never be obsolete. Among other things it does these useful things:
- Informs or reminds customers of potential solutions to problems they have, may encounter in the future, or of benefits they need or desire.
- Informs customers of improvements.
- Build's brand awareness that a source of a product type stands behind the product's benefits with resources and their reputation on the line.
- At its best, does this in a way that is informative, entertaining and/or uplifting even to non-customers.
The problems of advertising to me all seem preventable and unnecessary at least at the individual companies' level.
Show respect for all viewers, customers or not, and your brand is going to build a great reputation: No cluttered ugly, psychologically manipulative, advertising. Nothing that mucked up people's lives with more dreck.
Keeping advertising constructive for everyone is a brand enhancing opportunity.
~90% of the ~$500B/year spent globally on advertising is Brand advertising.
First line is untrue. Beyond computer parts there's generally very little I can find in the way of differentiating information for just about anything. Just recently I was shopping for power tools on home depot and it really came down to trusting price as in indicator of quality.
But it isn't entirely home depot's fault, although in order to make the UIs simple enough to be written once and minimally managed they have to genericize product information substantially, but the real issue is that the average consumer is too ignorant and/or lazy to care.
For a long time I assumed all modern consumer power tools were Chinese junk. Then I watched AvE tear down some tools and describe differences in design, materials, and tooling that you can't find anywhere.
When you optimize away every penny and design for the broadest, laziest, and/or dumbest common denominator, you cripple the capable among us and all of society is worse off for it.
Not sure review sites are neutral information either, but cool scotus history.
In 2020 ad-supported platforms are the channels through which the product information is made available to consumers; that's not a but-for argument (something else would spring up in their absence), but the separation between ads & product info isn't as total as the article wants to make it.
Banning ads wouldn't make the information environment any less hostile.
How do you fund the google replacement if you're not allowed to sell adverts? You'd have to charge people who want to use the search engine. How do you fund your magazine or news site? You'd have to charge the viewer.
In a world where you have to actually _pay the cost_ for all this stuff everyone would be much more discriminating on what they bought.
A) have unlimited time and memory to research every decision they make and store all that information
and
B) will make rational decisions based on said information
Both are so obviously wrong it makes me wonder if the author has ulterior motives.
Being published under the brand of Yale Law Journal gives the words more authority than they deserve.
The author clearly doesn’t understand how modern search engines nor modern advertising work. The positioning of the information you see on Google (SEO) is advertising.
I personally think that simple algorithms for searching web content have been undermined so badly by malicious/exploitative content that curated search or web directories are needed for it to continue living up to its potential as a medium in terms of social value.
Most people in USA and Europe consume more than they produce and there is no reversing of this trend - the average IQ is 100 and we can pretty much automate most things we can train a 100 IQ person to do and at the same time we can't train them into not acting like self destructive idiots, so, we've got a bit of a problem :)
And no the average US person produces more than any other country and spends slightly less of their budget. Here is a visualization:
https://howmuch.net/articles/breakdown-average-american-spen...
Similarly, most people consume more than they produce. Because non-idiots are so amazing, they enable idiots to have an amazing lifestyle in developed countries.
This is patently obvious by the fact that these countries have borders - those borders are there to protect idiots, not neuro-surgeons, from immigrants destroying their cushy government-sponsored way of life.
Neuro-surgeons would only benefit from open borders and abolishment of minimum wage laws - they'd each immediately hire a dozen servants, which is what already happens in countries like India.
Wow, didn't realize this was NOT the only use of advertising (the other stated intent was provide consumers information, according to article).
The argument that easy access to product information online eliminates any consumer benefit of advertising misses a key point.
I only do research online for products that I care deeply about.
I am never going to bother to seek out information online to figure out what kind of laundry detergent to buy. It's just way, way down on my priority list. So I'm perfectly happy to passively consume the advertising and let that shape my decisions, for the 20 seconds of thought I give this topic as I walk through that aisle in the grocery store.
What information does advertising convey to me, as a rational consumer?
1) How successful the company is [inferred from how much money they seem to be spending on advertising].
2) What characteristics they think matter the most - price? Stain removal? Efficiency? Sometimes a company will emphasize something I don't care about - which lets me know I'm probably not the target market for their product, and I should look elsewhere.
3) Whether they have any new products I haven't tried.
I once tried a detergent brand I had never heard of - Persil - because I saw a TV ad for it. Probably somewhere out there there's a laundry detergent enthusiast forum that already knew about it, and they have strong opinions about Persil, and debate whether it was reformulated in 2016, or whether's it's really the same in the US vs. Germany. I don't know, because I don't care! But I liked the smell and I'd buy it again.
Conversely, advertising for cars is totally ineffective on me, because I'm a car nut and I know about every model coming out 2 years before they would ever be advertised in any medium. But, there are plenty of people in the world who think about cars in the same way I think about laundry detergent - and might go to the Honda dealer and check out a minivan because of the ad they saw that showed it had a built-in vacuum cleaner in the trunk.
I've mentioned on HN before that I bought a Casper mattress largely because of the incessant ads for it on my favorite podcasts, which I heard long before I actually needed one. Without those ads, when the time came, I probably would've just driven to the mattress store and tried out what they had in stock. It never would've occurred to me to search the web to see if someone had revolutionized the mattress business - this was a chore, I wanted it over as soon as possible, and I didn't want to spend my mental energy doing research on fucking mattresses.
But because of the ads, I knew that there was an established company that had come up with what they claimed was a better product in this space. I checked out a few reviews to make sure people actually liked the mattress - then I ordered one, it showed up in 3 days, and I love it! Thanks, advertising.
Ironically it should be reverse: you send a lot of time on the mattress, it directly affects quality of your sleep and consequently health and quality of life.
Are you sure ”mattresses are important for your health” isn’t largely a product of advertising? That would be ironic.
> I only do research online for products that I care deeply about.
Honestly, it seems backwards to start your research with a product. It seems more sensible to start with a need/problem, and then search for products that meet that need.
I don’t know if this is true, but it seems just as likely as not to me. Surely, for some products, it must be true; for some, it must be false. It probably resembles a normal distribution, and thus, advertising is a net negative. (if it cost nothing, it’d be neutral)
Consumers especially don’t have access to all product information. You literally can not compare a good chunk of products because I do is gated or not shared on purpose.
- I’ve only read the abstract so far, will edit if skimming other sections provides answers.
I don’t want to be a dick but this argument lacks weight. Does your brain work less effectively when it’s cloudy, since it takes mental resources to see clouds rather than clear sky?
Ads are not designed or deployed to serve the user. Are you seriously saying the average ad you see is optimized to provide you useful information? When did you last see a Tide commercial cite the studies that showed it cleans the best?
Ads are designed, bought, placed and engineered to interrupt your thought process and direct it elsewhere, then present information that's optimized to make you remember and select that product. Sometimes (in proportion, rarely) that information happens to be useful, but it was still presented in via psychosocial dark patterns.