So unless "influencers" can drive sales (and show they can) we will see more of this :-)
Just imagine a world where you only see an advert that you are extremely likely to buy. That might be nice :-)
So unless "influencers" can drive sales (and show they can) we will see more of this :-)
Just imagine a world where you only see an advert that you are extremely likely to buy. That might be nice :-)
Wouldn't it be easier if they shipped it directly to your place and debited your credit card automatically? /s
But you'd have to have either a very good model or a very good way of handling returns.
One way in which that scenario could arise is if advertising can effectively get you to buy whatever it's peddling, even if it's not in your interest to do so.
I fear we're somewhat there already, and that it may only get worse.
That might be nicer.
That sounds awful.
Also I might like to get ads from other companies than Amazon, maybe it should be other companies doing the buying then....
Also of course it would have to have your understanding of your personal finances baked in so that it would make the absolutely correct decision as to what you would like to buy, but are not sure if you can afford right at the moment.
I mean I would like to get an ad for something I might like to get for my birthday and not buy it, you know the more I think about it I don't think the logical conclusion that you claim follows at all from what I stated...
(then again, I'm pretty sure soma overdosing means saving for retirement is not a thing.)
If I tell you there's a home burglary every second, and home CCTV can keep you safe - have I improved your life? Or have I created fear in you, then charged you $$$ to feel like you did before you saw my advert?
Products like security cameras do a certain thing, and advertisements inform you of that thing. If that thing is risk avoidance, then you need to judge for yourself if its worth it.
For example, consider advertisements for flu shots and other immunizations. They create fear, by informing people about legitimate risks. Then is it wrong to advertise optional immunizations?
As an aside, I recently bought a Ring camera and later had an attempted burglary. The camera did its job, and woke us up for suspicious activity so our car wasn't stolen as a result.
Think back to the advertisements (I'm thinking about the ones in Byte magazine in particular right now [not sure if it was ever distributed internationally, but you can definitely find issues in the Internet Archive.] They showed maybe a picture of a product and paragraphs and paragraphs extolling the product's virtues.
I despise the modern adtech industry, but I have zero problem with that old type of ad. They helped fund a magazine I liked; I was informed about a product I may not have known existed, and most of all, no one knew if I read the ad or not or how many words of the copy I read, how long I was looking at it, my sentiment while reading the ad... It was a win-win scenario. In fact, every now and then I even like to look at old back issues of those types of magazines, sometimes to just read the ads.
That's not the type of advertisement I despise now. My main point is that the entire 'Oh, well ads on (e.g.) Facebook, they simply inform you about a new product for sale' argument people toss around in defence of ads now falls flat to me now. At its core, it's essentially a motte-and-bailey argument (if you haven't heard of that before, look it up; you'll see it everywhere.)
The entire ad-tech industry is rife with click fraud, which begets endless and invisible tracking, data brokers, databases everywhere, analytics, ad auctions where they bid upon your eyeballs. That's when the media companies, the advertisers, and Google and Facebook frolic about the bailey.
As soon as you accuse them of their secretive tracking and data collection, they run right up to the motte and tell you, "Well, hey! We're just trying to give you relevant and useful information about products you might not know about!"
Well, that sounds reasonable. You acquiesce, and they run back into the bailey and continue to monetize your eyeballs. That's what I find most dishonest about modern ads. They claim to be performing a social good, but behind our backs they go back to collecting every piece of our being that they can measure.
--
EDIT: I'd never install a Ring device, but I'd be being way too ideological to not have the empathy to say I wasn't glad your car was stolen. That's good to hear. :)
Firstly, the entire Web of the past 20 years is a failed experiment for that (or success, depends on your perspective). Secondly, to really reach this goal, imagine a web with 10x more invasive tracking than today's web...
Only for the vendor, personally I don't want to see adverts that are more likely to influence my behaviour.