Like here in advertising. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no good form of advertising. It is a fundamentally bad thing. There are just different degrees of badness.
And since it's a fundamentally bad thing, perfecting it makes it worse.
Like here in advertising. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no good form of advertising. It is a fundamentally bad thing. There are just different degrees of badness.
And since it's a fundamentally bad thing, perfecting it makes it worse.
After thinking it through, I thoroughly agree. I'm not convinced of a proper course of action to correct it, but I do definitely think it's a problem as a whole.
A world where we just seek out and buy the things we need and that will actually enrich or lives sounds like a great improvement over the current system.
The problem is tracking and dependence on ad networks. Corporations doggedly chasing the bottom line don't want to spend the time or the money to pick and choose specific forums and sites to advertise. They want to pretend to automate that process. Their laziness not only killed the old networks and communities around various product segments, but helped start the "listicle" de-evolution that has decreased content quality across the entire internet.
I used to be able to type in "product_name review" and get some useful, well-known sites. Now I get recycled garbage content, and I have to check all of those sites individually or restrict the domain in the search. It's ridiculous.
Personally, this is the model I long for again. If I’m looking at articles about bike maintenance, I’m getting ads for bike tools and supplies. Instead, I’m getting ads for USB power cords because I just purchased a new one to replace the one my dog chewed.
It’s quite hard to imagine.
It also sounds quite inefficient. Like everybody running their own wood stove vs using centrally generated electricity. But I don’t know.
Anyone aware of books that talk of life in these times? For the early 1900s, I enjoyed “The World of Yesterday”. It would be great to get the same glimpses into the world of the 1800s.
The conclusion I came to was that when there's few people and they're all manually whacking at wood with axes you're (as a group) okay. When the wood collection is essentially strip mining a forest for millions of customers it just isn't the same thing. Not really comparable.
Manual labor and using an axe is an efficient system in the sense that it ultimately limits use and production of wood per person.
At the turn of the century, Canada was >70% rural or some such. Now, it's reversed. >70% urban.
When you live on a farm, in the county, and own 100 acres, a few extra acres for wood provides a long supply of wood, with time for more to grow.
Every farm tended to have rocky, unusable bits, but still ok for trees. Back then, before everyone had backhoes, removing large rocks, even small rocks, was work.
So some fields were best left for trees.
And one of your neighbours would likely own 1000 acres or more of bush land, ok for trees, but too rocky or swampy for farming. Or local crown land would be used for harvesting trees.
Back when people went in with sleighs in the winter, felled trees by hand with axe and hand saw, no one strip cut. Why would they?
(It is easier with horses to pull logs out on sleigh, in winter, than over uneven, soft ground. Especially in frozen swampy land. Even today, people will use snowmobiles and sleigh to get trees out for personal use.)
Anyhow back then, it was only people living in higher density locations, away from nature, which exceeded easy supply.
Of course, population growth happens, and wood burning can be dirty, so now we warm homes with other methods typically.
Much of the supplies for day to day life came from your own work, money was spent on certain tools and other necessities- and sometimes on fancy foodstuffs.
Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death[2] is also on-topic, he discusses how advertising has changed since the foundation of the United States.
[1]https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691147727/th...
one of the foundational problems with this sort of analysis is that "corporation" isn't really very well defined for this context.
If I live in some imaginary small town 1800's western America, and the owner of the general store convinces me to stock up on something that they happen to have an excess of, is this "corporations influencing our behavior" ?
If I live in some imaginary mid-size town in 1950's USA, and the local Ford dealer is on the radio telling me all about how their latest cars are just the absolute best, and this persuades me to get a Ford for my next car, is that "corporations influencing our behavior" ?
If anyone says anything to me that changes the behavioral trajectory I might otherwise have been on, how do I know if that's corporations influencing my behavior, or "just what people do" ?
Although this definition, like all definitions, brings to light uncomfortable corner cases…
Like, is Facebook a corporation, or a Sole Proprietorship?
(I know legally it’s a Corp, but spiritually, is it just Mark Zuckerberg, since he has the controlling stake?)
At what point along the path from where I am now to being the next FAANG do I become "a corporation" in the sense of the comment under discussion? If I have an LLC and 1 employee, legally I'm certainly a corporation, but this seems to not be what the comment was describing?
I don’t know, I don’t think there’s anything inherently bad in a person or business wanting to facilitate the discovery of something they’ve created.
Other than the modern RTB ecosystem I don't think any other form of advertising is inherently flawed.
Edit: Also consider that some definitions of advertisement might arguably include exit signs on the highway.
> to try to manipulate people into purchasing your product.
Edit: Also, any advertisement for the advertising platform itself would be self-referential and thus violate your “generated by something else” clause.
Edit2: You could also take ads out to convince someone not to take an action even if there is no alternative. Still manipulation, but not to get someone to purchase a particular product.
In other words, advertising is tolerable when the whole chain is thoroughly competitive.
In social media, for example, there is currently competition. Yes FB is big, but new players are entering the market and causing them to shrink precisely by making the web even more toxic and unpleasant. Perfecting this process and introducing more competition (read desperation among product managers in the losing firms) isn't something I want to witness.
(Which isn’t to say that, in a world where everybody does this, actual listening and radical honesty couldn’t be a much more profitable strategy.)
No, it is not the same thing. The scale matters. Much of what is wrong with the world comes from allowing huge corporations to do stuff because a single person is allowed to do "same" stuff and we see no bad effects.
Do you think glossy ads in niche magazines are a problem?
This isn't a critique of capitalism, or at least not only. I happen to live in a country where the government is abusing its power to spam the public with its propaganda.
What you're talking about it a whole other thing, I'd say, though still an interesting topic.
Do you think glossy ads in niche magazines are a problem?
Yeah. That system is super flawed. Those magazines usually wind up totally beholden to the advertisers.We should really have a beer. I started in advertising when I was 15. (My dad said "sell shoes or find another job"). I was in and out of agencies through my twenties. Advertising is a fundamentally bad thing. But if your clients trust you, you can sometimes use it for good. You just have to actually twist the hell out of their message to do that, use their money in ways they didn't anticipate, and always have a really concrete idea of what you want to accomplish. All while making it seem like you're just having fun.
One thing it taught me is that there's no "system" in capitalist america. Not the way people talk about it. "The system" / "the man". The system is us. Just people in offices deciding how to frame something that will reach 100 million people. I was hated by teachers in art school for arguing my case in fine art crits. But arguing for showing something they don't like is the same skill that lets me argue the minority case for putting out controversial, socially meaningful ads that might get us in trouble, instead of inoffensive corporate pap.
You can always do good in advertising, simply because you have more power than almost anyone else. The temptation, and the easy thing, and the thing that pays, is to perpetuate little evils. But it's surprisingly easy to do good. It ain't "art". It's arguably more important, though. You're in the trenches where the battle for minds takes place.
We can shape things in limited ways. With some effort, we could see interesting results.
Do you have any examples of advertising that does good?
Right; it exists, it's just emergent rather than planned. Our intuition and education are still poorly-adapted to recognize this kind of phenomenon.
I’m not quite sure what the solution is, but I suspect it involves taking our foot off the gas of the “marketise everything” bandwagon and pluralising our approach, but without throwing the baby out with the bath water and removing these market mechanisms entirely.
It might be...
This, and also the modern era of mass-consumption of cheap goods.
"How would that even work?" and in response. "Why (the hell) would anybody do that?". Those two questions are what make entreprise work, period. If a solution fails to address those two questions it is a guaranteed pipe dream or scam.
"Someone will repair my roof." "How would that even work?" "They show up with tools, climb onto the roof and inspect for damage before patching or replacing it." "Why (the hell) would they do that?" "Because it will get them paid a hefty bill."
Simple but there is still ample space pie in the sky thinking and outright lunacy in the heuristic. An example below to show what a thoroughly unconvincing answer would look like.
"Aliens will come out of the sky and fix my flat tire!" "How the hell would that even work?" "The electromagnetic emissions of our brain echo out into space of other dimensions unless retroreflected with a tinfoil hat. Then they'll ride space unicorns and laser fix my tire." "Why the hell would do that?" "For clicks on their alien equivalent of youtube."
And arguably this form of marketing is necessary under consumer capitalism since you need people to use a lot of their income on consumption in order to keep the economy going.
This form of marketing and advertisement has been around for over a century and there is no going back.