Ads Don't Work That Way (2014)

His explanation of "cultural imprinting" stuck out to me:

> In a way, cultural imprinting is a form of inception, but it's much shallower than the conventional (Pavlovian) account would have us believe. An ad doesn't need to incept itself all the way into anyone's deep emotional brain; it merely needs to suggest that it might have incepted itself into other people's brains

This is loosely connected, I know, but it reminded me of the "impostor" story from A Scanner Darkly. Had a hard time finding the text on my own, but luckily another user had already posted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27049625

> ERNIE LUCKMAN ... this guy appeared on tv, claiming to be a world-famous imposter. He said he'd posed at one time or another as a great surgeon, a theoretical submolecular high-velocity particle research physicist, a Finnish novelist, a deposed president of Argentina...

> BOB ARCTOR He got away with it? Never got caught?

> ERNIE LUCKMAN See, the guy never really posed as any of it. He only posed as a worldfamous imposter. Turns out he just pushed a broom at Disneyland, until he read about this actual world-famous imposter, and he thought, I can pose as all those things, then he thought, hell, I'll just pose as an imposter. Save a lot of time, a lot easier. Made almost as much money as the real imposter with books and movie rights.

I am pretty stubborn. And I stubbornly believe that advertising is a bane of society and has been for far too long.

But then I recently was pointed towards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf8mZVmof2g by twitter. It's a 2 minute ad I don't regret watching, and it has changed my opinion a bit.

If a company wants to spend $x million on paying artists, I find that a worthy thing to do.

Somehow, if I imagine how Coca-Cola would have spent the same money to make a generic "<sports personality> praises product in an extremely generic manner" ad, 95% of the money would have gone to the celebrity.

I don't know why to me, that makes a difference. Maybe I am just baffled by actually enjoying an ad.

The task of "making a consumer aware that a product exists that they would be interested in purchasing" can be valuable to the consumer. The problem is that since it's a task currently being performed by the sellers of specific products, their incentives are not aligned with those of the consumer. So you get the current nauseating mess of creepy targeting or scattershot non-targeting, and it gets thrown in your face in passing, instead of at a time and in a way that you've chosen.

Pay-to-get-attention could in theory still be a meritocracy where good products make money and thus can pay to get advertised more - but in practice it's more a matter of who raises the most money from investors, or incumbents using their past success to out-market the scrappy newcomers with a better product but smaller war-chest.

I think there's still a big opportunity here, in creating marketplaces or similar that are closer to true meritocracies, where the best products get recommended, that put the wants and needs of the consumer first, where avoiding "noise" and "false positives" from the perspective of the consumer is a top priority. The problem is that the obvious monetization of something like this is to start compromising the integrity and trust you've built up and amplify those willing to pay, and we end up back where we started, with yet another Google, Facebook, Yelp, Trustpilot or similar.

Discussed at the time:

Ads work by cultural imprinting, not emotional inception - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8344345 - Sept 2014 (98 comments)

one other bit here:

Melting Asphalt: Ads Don't Work That Way - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20342073 - July 2019 (1 comment)

Advertising is corporate propoganda. Often quite effective in all kinds of ways, but that doesn't change the fact that it's supposed to distort markets. We're just so used the status quo that we can't imagine an alternative. Imagine billboards had positive and encouraging messages.

The article called it "cultural imprinting", but I've been calling it "prestige marketing" for decades. Humans seek prestige above all other things once their basic needs are met. Given alternatives, the choice will always be the option signaling to others the highest prestige the user can afford. And by "afford" I mean the combination of finances and social credit of the individual selecting between the options.

Indeed, most ads are not here to push you to buy something as much as to remove barriers to buy it:

- make you know or remind you that the product exists: removes the barrier of ignorance.

- show it in a context that is not bad for the product or the company or make the product consumption looks like something normal: removes the barrier of social pressure.

I think the article does a good job of establishing that this type of "cultural imprinting" is real, or at least that marketers seek to tap into it. But I don't know that it finishes the job of showing that "emotional inception" is not also something advertisers seek to do. The bedsheets example claims that sheets aren't advertised because they lack conspicuous social consumption. But I see adds for obscure consumption products try to establish an emotional context all the time:

- Pest control services saying "protect what's yours" establishes the idea that your home is a fortress and you are duty bound to exclude all intruders, be they people or ants. - Financial institutions and advisors referencing their hundred year history to establish comfort, confidence, surety. You could claim that these are factual assertions of a superior product but they tend to have too much emotional context for me to think the ads aren't also trying to "incept" you. Otherwise why always use an older, gravely voiced, white, male Sam Waterston type instead of someone else? - Laundry soap wants to be breezy, relaxed, calming. Basically exactly what an overtaxed mother/homemaker wants to experience, and might be missing when in a hurry to get the grocery shopping finished.

The above examples are all common in that they identify some anxiety in the mind of their primary audience and then try to counter program against it. There's a direct association to the product "working" but also a wider association that they're trying to leverage:

- Your house will be pest free (because you are a good protector and provider) - Your financial future will be secure (because you are a prudent and responsible decision maker) - Your laundry will be immaculate (because you are a skilled and confident homemaker).

Maybe this is still tapping into the "how I want to see myself and be seen by others" vibe of "cultural imprinting" but it's definitely at a different layer than "because other people observe me using the product".

I wish advertising was just illegal, or consumers could actually legally opt out of ads.

I don't have a TV, and each time I see my mother and she watches TV, I'm just so shocked by TV adverts.

I don't understand how most people accept to be manipulated this way.

I have trained myself, over decades, to treat anything I have seen advertised as fundamentally crappy. For any advertised product, another one 30% cheaper does the same job better: each has a choice between spending on quality, on undercutting competition, or on ads. If I need something, I look for one that did not choose the last.

Things advertised most heavily identify exactly what you need least.

It has worked out pretty well. I only wish I could get other family members on board.

Most things that are overpriced end up piling up at thrift stores. So, name brands there can be OK.

Even though I understand that differentiating a strictly pavlovian conditioning with "cultural imprinting" might be interesting, the two proposed modes are still extremely similar. A "cultural imprint" is useless unless it eventually evokes a feeling in the customer. The only difference is that the "imprint" works by extra steps.

Personally my emotional reaction to ads is to go out of my way not to buy from the advertiser if possible.

My theory is most of the hate for ads is by people who just don't spend money and aren't ever the target audience for them. So they feel grouchy and left out.

The target audience for ads is more than likely thankful for them. There is a lot out there, it is good to be told about the bits of it that make life better.