Ad spend works as a passable proxy for it, and is likely understating the impact in modern times since advertising has become cheaper than ever, again thanks to the internet. So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period.
Yes, clearly that was the intent. That doesn't mean you can generalize from your proxy to the thing you have a hard time measuring.
> So ad spend is going up at the same time that the number of ads per spend is increasing, at a rate substantially faster than during their study period.
It seems like you are just making up facts.
The fact is that global spending on advertising is a fairly steady percentage of the GPD. It does occilate a little up and down, but the "exponential" growth you are talking about is merely the exponential growth of GDP.
Thus your argument that internet has increased ad spend and thus decreased happiness is false.
Addionaly, while this is also hard to quantify, the trends for cost per ad view does seem to be moving in the opposite direction. The cost of an impression seems to be moving upwards, not downwards.
Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising. Finally here [1] is a graph of global advertising spend over the years. Yes it is increasing exponentially, and obviously so are the number of ads people are seeing.
[1] - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-global-advertisin...
You could buy a classified with the same or better reach and same price in 1980.
> Your GDP thing is a complete red herring. GDP has no relevance on the meaning of increases in advertising.
You've claimed that internet cause ad spending to grow. Ad spending only grew because the GDP grew so you can't blame the internet for it.
> Yes it is increasing exponentially
Again, because GDP is increasing exponentially.
Also your graph doesn't show total spend, only the breakdown by sector.
And similarly obviously classifieds didn't have even remotely near the same reach. Classifieds were an opt-in categorized system that was delivered to a small subset of classified viewers that was, itself, a small subset of all newspaper subscribers in society. And you're paying for small lines of text delivered to this opt-in audience as opposed to as opposed to graphical images, or even videos, imposed on people against their will.
Its not magic, but spending on certain types of things do increase with GDP. Insisting that they don't, despite the evidence that they do historically because it is inconvenient for your argument isn't convincing.
> And similarly obviously classifieds didn't have even remotely near the same reach.
You are claiming that a classified in 1970 would not routinely reach tens of thousands of people?
> as opposed to graphical images, or even videos, imposed on people against their will
The nature of advertising has changes and I don't really doubt it has been made more harmful. What I don't see is a line between that and your fantastical claim that the internet is somehow a net negative.
In 1980 (this study didn't even cover 1970), there were something like 1750 newspapers for something like 60 million readers. So the subscribers per paper was already (relatively) very low. And with classifieds you get a very tiny subset of that that opt-in to reading the classifieds, and further opt-in to the section you are listed in. It should be beyond obvious that this has basically no relationship whatsoever to modern advertising.
You are claiming that the increased spending on advertising is due to the internet. The relationship between GDP and ad spending pretty clearly indicates that the internet was not the cause of increased ad spend, except in as much as it increased GDP.
If the internet has any effect on ad spend growth, you would have seen the growth rates of GDP and ad spend diverge with the birth of the internet.
To see how clearly wrong you are consider this, part of GDP growth is population growth. You are claiming that population growth is irrelevant to ad spend growth?
> It should be beyond obvious that this has basically no relationship whatsoever to modern advertising.
Even your own numbers pretty clearly indicate that the pricing can be equivalent, which was my point.