Why is advertising Terrible?

[Fijiman]

1. It depends. Some ads I find interesting/entertaining, others I could care less about. Then there are those ad which I hope the creators are going to hell for, such as The Sub ad and any banner ad that appears at the bottom of the page on this site.

2. I was under the impression that they were making ads even less discreet. For example the Monster Hunter ad that's been on the site for a while now pops up in pretty much every available ad space on the page whenever it's the one showing. That's not very discreet if you ask me.

3. I wouldn't have a clue in the slightest.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Hate-filled rant incoming. You've been warned. [li]1) Does anybody actually like advertising? Just generally and in a non-academic fashion.[/li]
There must be a few fools out there who actually enjoy it. Come to think of it, every year I hear people say they will watch the Super Bowl "just for the commercials." All I can say to that is are you fucking kidding me?

Yes, I know the companies spent millions creating those ads and millions more on the airtime. That matters to the sum of zero. Suppose you look down at a turd you just made and discover, for whatever reason, the little yellow bits are not corn, but pure gold. While that would certainly enhance the dollar value locked up within the turd, it would in no way make it less of a turd. Cinema has proven over and over that budget does not equal quality.

Even if you were compelled to try and extract the gold from your hypothetical turd, you wouldn't (or shouldn't, anyway) put any value on the main body of the turd, the part that was simply digested food. We might keep the gold, but the rest is forgotten as soon as we flush. Since we don't have this option with advertising -- we can't watch an expensive commercial and acquire any portion of the money used to make it -- all we are left with is the part where the company is trying to clutter our heads with crap. We get the turd, but we don't get the gold.

I value the inside of my head. It is supposed to be my space, mine and no one else's. I resent attempts to steal space there, especially when it's being stolen for This Array Of Cheap Crap No Sane Human Would Ever Want (TM), On Sale For A Limited Time Only, Buy Now And Save Big!!!!.

Companies: Do not shit inside my skull. That is not a polite request. I have never, as in not one time, made a purchase on the basis of advertising. I have, however, withheld purchase on the basis of advertising. I can't be the only one.

[li]2) Why is the focus almost always on making marketing more discreet, rather than on making it in some way enjoyable to endure?[/li]
More discreet? I have no idea what you're talking about. As I type this, I've got ads to the left, right, and top, plus those half-screen Flash popups this site so enjoys throwing at us every 2 minutes or so (all but one of those are blocked, but that's not the point). Every second you spend consuming electronic media, or walking in high traffic areas, ads are hammering you from all sides, relentlessly pounding their way in. Billboards, radio commercials, Internet popups -- the typical American, watching 4+ hours of TV a night, will lose literally years of his life watching commercials. We spend so much time inundated in this sludge, we don't even notice it anymore. Discreet isn't a term I'd use. Discretion is a virtue; advertising has no virtue. I'd use words like insidious, vapid, wasteful, annoying, soulless, greedy, manipulative, exploitative, inane, and let's not forget my personal favorite, insulting. But discreet? No, never that.

[li]3) Even if it is more discreet, are we reaching a point of diminishing returns from advertising as more and more people grow up in an environment that is absolutely saturated in them?[/li]
Absolutely yes. Unfortunately, the only effect this seems to have had so far is to increase advertising volume, persistence, and inanity. Saturation doesn't work, so let's increase saturation! Brilliant.

 

[Olas]

Advertising it necessary. It lets people know something exists or reminds people something still exists.

I don't think anyone honestly believes marketing is "necessary". What vital function does it serve? I can find products on my own. If you think advertising is necessary for small companies to get their products publicity I've already explained my thoughts on that.

So if you are a small company with a fantastic product, how can you let people know about what it is and what it can do without advertising?

A lot of advertising is...tenuously linked (at best) to the product in question, but I don't think it's fair to say that it's the bane of capitalism (if you can't advertise X, people won't know that it exists except by accident)

Surely third parties can provide this. I'm talking about product reviews, magazines and websites like Consumer Reports Online which evaluates commercial items objectively. Unlike with advertising they wouldn't discriminate based on the size of a company or the amount of money going into a product. Of course new companies, products, and brands would be given more attention than old ones so that emerging businesses could get their leg in the door.

Now I know you're probably thinking that nobody reads or pays attention to these, but that's mostly because people choose products based on adds, without advertisements these would be used a lot more.

In addition you would also have word of mouth, which has always been an good way for reliable knowledge of products to spread, but in the increasingly connected world would be faster and more effective than ever.

If anything I would imagine small companies would be better represented than they are now, because small companies likely can't afford to advertise on the level or scope of their larger competitors, meaning they are disadvantaged from the start.

Marketing is the creative side of business and perhaps the only part where being creative is even legal. (Try being a "creative" accountant and see how quickly you end up in jail.)

How about the creativity in designing the actual product? That's where creativity would actually do the world some good. Many industries, such as entertainment and software, require creativity to thrive, some don't. But regardless it should be the quality of the product that resources get put into, not advertising it. The fact that marketing requires creativity doesn't somehow make it a force for good.

No one makes an "unbiased" decision. There is literally no such thing. Every single person on Earth has their own unique biases which one can never get rid of because everybody was raised in a unique way and has a unique set of experiences that shaped how they think. Advertising is only one input in the decision-making process. The evoked set and consideration set are two concepts I suggest you familiarize yourself with.

A bias based on actual first-hand experience with a product is exponentially more reliable and trustworthy than one based on advertising. A bias based on things you've been told by friends and family is at least coming from a source without an invested monetary interest in making you think a certain way. I'd prefer people judge products based on actual objective knowledge and not emotional manipulation, but since the latter is inevitable I'd at least prefer said manipulation not come from the very people who want to sell you the product.

That being said, I like to think I can judge how much I like products with a fair degree of objectivity. Sometimes with food they have blind taste tests to determine which product is preferred without personal bias.

You're highlighting (and exaggerating to the point of hyperbole) the negatives of advertising without bringing up any of the positives. Everything has pros and cons. You're focusing far too much on the negatives, whether they're real or imagined.

What positives? I honestly don't know of any.

 

[Something Amyss]

Advertising drives the economy and whether people admit it advertising effects us all.

It doesn't affect us all on a meaningful level, however. Therein lies the problem.

It has been proven over and over if a person goes to buy a product they will always choose the most familiar even if it is a inferior product or even if they don't even like the product simply because it is the one they recognize the most.

[citation needed]

Because that reads like an asspull, no matter your credentials.

 

[Olas]

Wouldn't those third parties be serving as advertising to begin with? You really think most established reviewers aren't paid in some way to review certain things? Perks and other junk on top of it? Try being a professional movie critic. You get to see countless movies before everyone else.

Yes, that's the current state of most industries, yet some reviewers will still take time to mention or shine light on products they think are being overlooked. [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/9773-Under-the-Radar"]MovieBob, for example, has taken time to self-advertise movies he thinks more people should see.[/a] And because he did I've now seen 2 movies I had formerly never heard of. I know this is anecdotal, but it's a concept I doubt you'd deny. Many films that were poorly marketed have become cult classics via word of mouth after their initial release. And keep in mind this is in a world where adds ARE so prevalent and important. In a world without adds, these alternate sources for knowledge about a product would become our main sources for knowledge.

Ya, I'm an idealist, so sue me. I get that an add free world will never happen, capitalism always wins. But I'm not going to change how I feel about advertising because of that

.

Also, advertising is why so many things are free to use. I can use Google search, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, this very forum, because advertising makes it free to use.

The advertising to make something free to the end user is the new model of the tech world. The model that was first mastered by Google is taking over. And I couldn't be happier about it.

This is probably your strongest point, however I still don't agree. For starters you use the word "free" far too liberally, in fact you really shouldn't use it ever in an economic sense. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Online adds come at a cost to the quality of content delivery, often times they make sites harder to navigate, make videos and other streaming content take longer to consume, and generally make sites less appealing. While perhaps difficult to quantify, this definitely comes at a very real cost to the user of the website. In media theory this is called 'communication noise' and it, by definition, interferes with the content that creators are trying to provide their audience with.

Personally I'm willing to pay a little extra to keep my websites clutter free. You may notice I'm a Publishers Club member on this site meaning I never have to view adds. I'd like to see more of the internet try to implement features like this so that we don't all have to suffer the obnoxious indignities of popups and banner adds everywhere.

"Biased first hand experience" is more reliable how exactly?

I didn't say "biased first hand experience". I said "A bias based on first hand experience" as in an opinion of a product developed from having used it yourself which you then use in future decision making about it. Your own bias is not based on a monetary incentive to sell the product, but on your opinion. That's why it's more reliable than an add will ever be. Every company will tell you that their product is good, it means nothing, but your own opinion of products is coming from someone who has no strong reason to prefer one over another. Your judgment is therefore for more reliable in determining whether you will enjoy the product in the future or not.

There is also no such thing as truly objective knowledge.

Look, I don't want to get into an existential debate about truth and knowledge, I'm just saying that if I weigh two apples from opposing brands and one weighs 0.45 lbs and the other weighs 0.53 lbs, that seems pretty objective too me. All products will have things about them that are objectively true. You can argue about whether The Lone Ranger is good or not, but you can't argue that it doesn't have a 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. Some facts about a product are more useful and significant than others, but one way or another they don't lie or willfully mislead.

Also, people are affected by advertising, yes, but advertising isn't brainwashing. If it was, we'd all be billionaires. It is only one input.

I'm not saying it's brainwashing, don't exaggerate my argument, but if it didn't have an affect on the way people think companies wouldn't use it. The success of an advertisement is basically tied directly to it's ability to influence peoples' buying decisions.

 

[DSK-]

Creative and comedic adverts are the best. I hate the ones that take themselves seriously, with actors with fake smiles and stuff.

 

[josemlopes]

I think the best thing a commercial can achieve in brand awareness. You are not just going to see a commercial and buy immediatly the product, you buy it when you need it. The thing is, when you go buy that thing that you need and you dont have a brand of reference you will remember that a certain brand made you laugh/feel emotional/impressed you in one of their commercials meaning that you will probably give them a chance on checking their products.

I dont believe that any of these "cool" commercials guaranteed a sale but the simple fact that they leave a positive message on the potential costumer means a lot to when he decides to buy a product that they sell (like a car, a beer, a console). If he didnt knew about the brand he probably would go check what they have to offer.

 

[loc978]

Advertising is... necessary to make a capitalist system work, and capitalism seems to be the best way to advance a society technologically. Like all societal concepts, it needs some moderation (generally in the form of government regulation) to avoid getting out of hand. Like all capitalist systems, the US refuses to regulate it properly.

As to the questions posed:
1) Necessary evil. I don't like it or need it, as I do my own research... but I do recognize its necessity for people who don't.

2) I'll hop on the bandwagon that says advertising used to be a lot more subtle. It seems like kids these days must not have been educated in the basic psychology of manipulation, because ads are mostly quite blatant in telling you what to desire nowadays. I was being warned about that in fuckin' preschool.

3) I've seen the opposite. More and more young people are buying into rather than rejecting this blatant manipulation. Blind brand loyalty is more rampant than ever... the megacorps are forming, chummers.

 

[Olas]

These "alternate sources" are also advertising.

Fine, you can call it advertising as well, but that's purely semantics. The people doing the "advertising" in this case are not being paid to make things look good, but to give their honest opinion. And sometimes they'll tear the movie they're reviewing a new one, something you won't see many movie trailers do.

And you're just speaking in a complete hypothetical to begin with. "In a world without (blank)" is a ridiculous hypothetical. Things cannot be uninvented and banning something doesn't make said thing not exist.

Yes, I am speaking in hypothetical, all ideas have to start out as hypothetical at some point. If your argument for advertising is that it would impossible to completely ban, then I think you're almost on my page. I agree that corporations will always try to find ways to push their products ahead of the competition, but even if all that you could do was put some limits on it at all it would be progress.

It doesn't cost me monetarily. That's what free means in this context.

What a strange context. Why would you only consider monetary costs?

(Also, ad-banning extensions on Chrome and other browsers can get you the 'no ad' experience rather easily.)

I would think you of all people would be against using these. I can assure you that every company that has ever considered online marketing is trying to circumvent them. But the fact that programs like addblock exist in the first place tells you something about the affect of these adds, addblock is one of the most popular chrome apps.

Subjective movie reviews in the aggregate doesn't give a movie an objective rating. ("Pain & Gain" is my favorite movie of the year so far, and it's at like 50 some percent on Rotten Tomatoes.)

I'm starting to think that you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that a movie's rating on Rotten Tomatoes is objective, I'm saying that the fact that it has said rating is an objective fact. It's not your opinion that Pain and Gain has a 50% on RT, it's not anyone's opinion, it's a simple truth. The fact that an apple weighs 0.45 lbs is not an opinion either. The fact that a prius gets 44 miles per gallon on the highway is not an opinion. Some facts about a product are not up for debate.

By the way, it is illegal to lie in an advertisement. (Willfully mislead is another topic entirely as trying to define this can be a case by case exercise.)

Yes, I'm well aware, of course it was you who said "banning something doesn't make said thing not exist."
However, my argument isn't even that marketers necessarily lie. It's the job of an advertiser to present products in such a manner that they look more appealing than they normally would. This almost necessarily implies that adds will present a deliberately incomplete picture of a product to make it look good. I know you think that the level of distortion is innocuous, but these little distortions of product image bombard us all the time every day and eventually they can even affect our habits which can in turn affect our lives.

No, it's tied to its ability to make people consider buying something.

Anyone who's ever seen an add before could tell you they're clearly designed to do more than simply make you aware of a product's existence. They aren't simply there to inform, people like MovieBob are here to inform. Adds try to make products look and seem as appealing as possible. They might show attractive people enjoying it, or explain why it's better than everything else on the market. This is all designed to make you want the product. Sure, we're all rational for the most part when it comes to product purchases, but that doesn't mean adds aren't trying desperately to skew that rationality as much as possible.

The consideration set and the evoked set. Please familiarize yourself with those terms. I was academically trained in marketing (in fact, I possess a marketing degree.)

You've already mentioned your degree, congratulations, I hope you do well for yourself and your family if you have one.

Now, if you're just going to throw lingo in my face, it seems you could at least bother to explain what it means, or give me a link with the definition, and then actually explain what it has to do with our discussion. It's very hard to find anything clear definitions just by googling "evoked set" and "consideration set". And yes, I did try to find the definitions.

 

[Doitpow]

1. Can't speak for "everybody" but I loathe it unilaterally and utterly.

2. It isn't. People are paid billions to make it enjoyable, the same "in your face" advertising is still everywhere and is the same quality it has always been. However there is a branch of "new" advertising that is discrete and ubiquitous. It is equally if not more deplorable.

3. No, its probably more effective now than it ever was. Advertising has to constantly re-invent itself to find new ways to entice people. It will evolve. It shouldn't, we should cut it out of society like the malignant tumour it is, but we won't.