magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1yr ago
There are two purposes of ads:
Create common knowledge that deals are available
Hoodwink gullible people into taking bad deals.
#1 is strongly positive-sum because it reduces deadweight loss. #2 is strongly negative-sum; the equilibrium is that everyone gets taught about how not to fall for ads, and also that businesses spend large resources on marketing, both of which are losses to society. Back in the 1930s when marketing psychology and communications technology were far less advanced, #1 was the bigger effect. Nowadays it is fairly obvious that #2 is the bigger effect.
You can't uninvent modern marketing techniques, and you can't ban ads without extreme collateral damage, but reducing their effectiveness is almost certainly a net win. Ads masquerading as non-ads are more effective and therefore bad. Ads that are better targetted to people's psychological weaknesses are more effective and therefore bad.
There's also the third one - capture the territory for the brand in the cultural space. In fact, most of major brand's ads are like that. Coca-Cola ads don't advertise where you can get your sugar hit $0.02/bottle cheaper than usual. They advertise that drinking Coca-Cola is part of the American culture and by drinking it, you're being a good member of society, and all that. When I was in market for a car, I read a ton of articles, discussed on forums, read manufacturer sites, signed up for various deal groups, etc. One thing that was absolutely, 100% useless for me was any brand's ad campaigns. Local dealers, which do run campaigns sometimes, and those could be either 1 or 2 - sometimes gave useful information about actual deals. Brand's ads are almost always "Driving is cool, do it!". Sadly, though completely useless for me, ads of this type seem to be pretty effective overall.
"In your interest" is very vaguely defined. Is being perceived as a cool dude in your interest? For myself, I don't really care for it, but many other people behave, like they do. Can I deny them their agency and claim that their true interests lie elsewhere? I think it's be presumptuous. If they say they want to be cool, then they want to be cool. And then consuming brands that are perceived as "cool" would be in their interests.
There's also the factor that ads could be trying to do 1, but failing. If the audience is wrong, either due to the individual not caring about the thing in question, or due to the individual already knowing that the deal is available, the ad is not helpful to either party, and is an obstruction to whatever the audience actually wanted to do.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There are two purposes of ads:
Create common knowledge that deals are available
Hoodwink gullible people into taking bad deals.
#1 is strongly positive-sum because it reduces deadweight loss. #2 is strongly negative-sum; the equilibrium is that everyone gets taught about how not to fall for ads, and also that businesses spend large resources on marketing, both of which are losses to society. Back in the 1930s when marketing psychology and communications technology were far less advanced, #1 was the bigger effect. Nowadays it is fairly obvious that #2 is the bigger effect.
You can't uninvent modern marketing techniques, and you can't ban ads without extreme collateral damage, but reducing their effectiveness is almost certainly a net win. Ads masquerading as non-ads are more effective and therefore bad. Ads that are better targetted to people's psychological weaknesses are more effective and therefore bad.
There's also the third one - capture the territory for the brand in the cultural space. In fact, most of major brand's ads are like that. Coca-Cola ads don't advertise where you can get your sugar hit $0.02/bottle cheaper than usual. They advertise that drinking Coca-Cola is part of the American culture and by drinking it, you're being a good member of society, and all that. When I was in market for a car, I read a ton of articles, discussed on forums, read manufacturer sites, signed up for various deal groups, etc. One thing that was absolutely, 100% useless for me was any brand's ad campaigns. Local dealers, which do run campaigns sometimes, and those could be either 1 or 2 - sometimes gave useful information about actual deals. Brand's ads are almost always "Driving is cool, do it!". Sadly, though completely useless for me, ads of this type seem to be pretty effective overall.
That is within the scope of my #2, AFAIK. They are trying to get you to buy their brand when this is not actually in your interest.
"In your interest" is very vaguely defined. Is being perceived as a cool dude in your interest? For myself, I don't really care for it, but many other people behave, like they do. Can I deny them their agency and claim that their true interests lie elsewhere? I think it's be presumptuous. If they say they want to be cool, then they want to be cool. And then consuming brands that are perceived as "cool" would be in their interests.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's also the factor that ads could be trying to do 1, but failing. If the audience is wrong, either due to the individual not caring about the thing in question, or due to the individual already knowing that the deal is available, the ad is not helpful to either party, and is an obstruction to whatever the audience actually wanted to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link