It seems that society can't delineate between accepting a practice and promoting a practice.
but it would cut off a lot of services and opportunities for everyone else who is able to pay with their attention (to ads) instead
Dig a little into the idea that people can "pay" with their attention (and with their poor health, crappy buying decisions, personal freedoms) might fit the dictionary definition of sinister.
why should those at the top 5% pay for more than basic subsistence to the 25% at the bottom? Welfare is for survival (and survival only), not for services that is not essential.
Maybe that wont happen in our current system for a generation or two. But then the question those 5% at the top have to ask themselves is whether they feel lucky to avoid an uprising against them in their lifetime.
The bottom of that 5% looks like extremely upper middle class. Big houses, probably a vacation somewhere nice once a year, new cars fairly regularly, etc.
The middle most likely live in gated communities, with any kids going to private schools. They fly first/business class everywhere and can probably even afford to buy one of those tickets at a moments notice. Their closet is worth more than most people will earn in several years of working.
At the top end, these people have multiple tennis courts, pools, basketball courts, etc in their back yard. If there is something they want, they most likely have staff on hand to handle it. If they want to go somewhere, they hop in one of their private jets, helicopters, or chauffeured cars and go there. Oh, and they have a team of lawyers ensuring they never pay a dime in taxes.
Source: spent some time with each of these personas in my life.
Not Having Enough Information is the least of anyone’s problems.
> I do think a lot of ads go too far, but I think some form of advertisement is necessary to get new awareness of new brands and products. Otherwise only the pre-established large brands and products will ever get sales, which would lead to a lack of competition and all the negatives that come with that.
This is a very post-hoc rationalization. Given that this isn’t how advertisement was invented and I have seen no evidence that this is how it works in practice, I don’t see a reason to accept it as a premise.
See political advertisement in America. That massively, massively favors the big players, not the little ones. Not only to boost them directly but also by actively smearing the other candidates, which moves the outsider candidates from the category of “never heard of” to “scumbag” in the minds of voters. (If you have no other information you have nothing else to go on.)
You don’t advertise until you are confident that 90% of your potential market segment knows about you. You advertise continuously as long as the desire-making makes a profit according to whatever projections the marketing department makes.
You say that that Coca-cola is one of the biggest advertisers. At the same time everyone knows about them. Are they simply pouring money down the drain?
One of my favorite is Kenshi. [1] Within a few months after launch, the dev was left with literally tens of users. Yet he continued working on it endlessly (while working as a part time security guard) and today it has near to more players than ever. And that's because of word of mouth. Which I suppose is something I'm also here partaking in. It's a great game!
If word of mouth is the only advertisement replacement allowed, it would force many companies to rely on fake sockpuppet customers to try to get started.
It will actually benefit small structures that have no money for marketting anyway.
And big ones won't be able to rely on their treasure chest to generate more of it, they will have to earn it.
The age old use of advertisements that were generic and placed on TV channels were IMHO the "peak" of what advertising could be. All other forms of advertisements have proven to be predatory. Sites DEMAND you view their ads so that they can receive money to keep the site going.... That inevitably results in traffic to the site going elsewhere and the same result is that the site dies so I absolutely agree that if the site/product requires continuous profit through advertisements because otherwise it would not be able to continue operating then maybe that site/product does not need to continue existing.
no? promoting stuff with a plausible chance of adding value to someone's life is not bad imho
the problem is the stuff that kills value, like smoking and gambling. not advertising in general. so yes advertising (the many) bad stuffs is bad if that's what you mean by "most things"
This clip [1] where Coke managed to get a couple of bottles placed in front of Ronaldo during a presser is awesome. A visibly agitated Ronaldo places them aside out of the frame, grabs a water, holds it up, says 'Agua!' and the carries on. But Coke is so dependent on these false associations, that that one little event saw them lose some $4 billion in market capitalization! Imagine if advertising wasn't a thing, and people only associated Coke with the sort of people who regularly drink Coke. The world be a much better, and healthier, place.
And Coke, as scummy as they are, are one of the less scummy advertisers in the advertising world - such as it is.
but you decided (for others) that this stuff kills value. Not all people would agree with you. And while it's pretty clear that smoking is harmful, the smoker might want it as it relieves stress or for whatever reason, and they're willing to make the health trade-off. Ditto with gambling.
These are not the only things that kill value. Turn off adblock for a week and count the ads you see for quality products that you actually need, that you would not be worse-off for purchasing. Generally if something would actually add value to your life, nobody needs to trick you into buying it.
Advertising can be annoying and a bad influence, but I think it's one of those things you'll really miss when it's gone.
The bottom line is that advertising comes about from a need - that need will emerge again, even if you tried to make it inefficient to fulfil that need.
We also have a need for food and sleep, but that doesn’t mean we should accept being forced into eating or sleeping when visiting web pages or consuming media. The absurdity of that example should prove the point.
There's no "society". Obviously people can tell the difference. You're the one saying the law should treat them differently - why? We have certain exceptions, but what's your case for a blanket rule, or a deny by default rule?
Yes.
Advertisement is in practice predatory. Predatory psychology. It’s not a symmetrical exchange of want-information vs. has-information. It preys on us.
And I don’t think lotteries are particularly bad. They sell daydreaming and one-in-ten-million chances. Not a bad thing for anyone in moderation. Not that last part: all other vice sellers (candy, other unhealthy food, tobacco, alcohol) have no better arguments for their existence.
If it were up to you, what would you allow to be advertised? What’s your allow-list? And how would you define it in a way to allow the advertising of future products and services?
No, you cannot. You are meddling with the forces of nature with this sort of talk!
Without unregulated online advertising, there is no Facebook or Google or Twitter. Modern Silicon Valley could not exist without the fortunes made by showing people ads. Apple, Netflix, Amazon are all deep in it now as well.
Awesome!
The Silicon Valley full of genocide cheerleaders? Sounds like you're threatening me with a good time.
Facebook is ghoulish, and has scammed and brainwashed a huge portion of the most vulnerable people. Google is evil. Twitter is the dumpster fire other dumpster fires are ashamed of.
People seem to be missing your Network reference. Regardless of how you intended it, yes, advertising is undoubtedly one of the greatest and least noticed evils of our age. There have been many warnings over the decades, but they don't get much airtime for some completely unsurprising reason.