[tremon]

But isn't artifical demand generation exactly the problem? We already have growing problems with overconsumption, yet we're still told to keep buying more? The only thing your numbers show is that marketing is great at selling its own services, which should not be surprising.

Then (for me at least) there's the problem that almost all TV advertising is targeted at the more vulnerable groups in society: they invariably equate spending with a superficial emotional quality. I can't even remember the last time I've seen an ad that contained factual information.

And since consumer money can only be spent once, it's a zero sum game to me. I'd rather have people spending money on things they really need, instead of trying to fill an emotional hole created by advertising.

[fraserharris]

You are conflating the role of advertising in general vs specific kinds of advertising and consumption that you view as a waste. Our entire industry (tech) relies on advertising to boost awareness of our products. Is it overconsumption that I saw an ad yesterday for Load Impact & subsequently tested & paid for their (very cool!) service?

Overconsumption can be true on an individual level (person X did not need to buy Y). On an aggregate, consumption is "the economy" and advertising is the primary way of informing potential buyers about an offering.

[tremon]

It wasn't my intention to conflate, but I do consider advertising based on emotional appeal as harmful to society. I have no issues with content-based advertising, but that's not the norm in my experience.

I know that may very well be because of selection bias, in that the less egregious forms of advertising don't register with me (oh the ironing). For example, I actively search for reviews when buying new hardware. But the sad state of affairs is that it's very hard to find quality information between all the content-free fluff even though both are produced in the name of "advertising".

I disagree with your latter assertion though, that "consumption is the economy". To me, that's like saying "TV is society" or "the president is politics". The economy is much bigger than consumption, and I did not suggest that less advertising would lead to less consumption. At least that's what I meant with zero-sum game: it would just lead to different consumption.

[jacquesm]

> Is it overconsumption that I saw an ad yesterday for Load Impact & subsequently tested & paid for their (very cool!) service?

I don't know, but I do consider your comment to be an excellent example of an advertisement masquerading as content. (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10573590 )

[fraserharris]

Masquerading? As long as its relevant and engaging, it is content.

[jacquesm]

If you should in the future ever wonder why people dislike advertising or marketing please go back and re-read this comment. I understand that right now you are not in a frame of mind to take that input but imo everything that is wrong with the advertising industry besides the tracking aspects is present in these 11 words.

[taurath]

Relevant yes, engaging fine, but is the outcome better? Being flooded with overly biased information is exhausting and not what is good for the outcome. If I am buying a GPU I want as unbiased a reviewer as possible to tell me all the upsides and downsides to each. Content that pretends it doesn't have a huge bias is lying, and it leads to poor personal decision making.

[tremon]

No, it is fluff, which is why I ignored that sentence. You did not provide any content about that service, other than the emotional qualifier that it is "very cool".

[shoo]

i'll go out on a limb and suggest that most things that consumers buy are things that they don't need to buy -- at least in my part of town.

i wonder how much of the world's economy is geared to providing consumers with things that they don't need? (this easily covers fashion + cars + travel + the latest gadgets + a lot of food)

i wonder how much of the world's economy is B2B style businesses geared towards assisting companies provide consumers with things they don't need? perhaps a fair bit?

i think one can argue that advertising makes "the economy" more efficient, perhaps.

one still has to answer the question of "is the economy a good thing?" -- i.e. efficiency in itself is not obviously a positive attribute - it isn't good to find increasingly efficient ways to carry out something that is a terrible idea.

it isn't obvious to me that the economy we find ourselves stuck inside is a particularly good thing (it doesn't seem particularly good at dealing with the problems that it causes).