[Kequc]

You overestimate the consumer's agency, something cannot be taken away that they did not have to begin with. The reason why ads are profitable is that a surprising portion of the general population will buy something if it's put in their faces. If it was something they didn't need before, they bought it anyway.

That is what I think was meant by the comment above yours.

When I rip on the agency of consumers please consider that with any small amount of agency they would search for the best product to suit their needs and advertising would be worthless. In fact advertising makes the product more expensive. Entire product lines are sold on advertising alone despite the existence of better cheaper alternatives.

[beaconstudios]

what kinds of ads are you thinking of when you say "If it was something they didn't need before, they bought it anyway"? There are different types of goods, some with clearer reasons for purchase than others. An ad for a mountain bike is clearly only going to attract people who saw the ad and thought "I want a mountain bike". For luxury goods that rely almost entirely on perception (eg. Tag Heuer watches), people choose to buy something that they think will make others see them in a different light. Classic "bad guy" advertisers like McDonalds are trying to influence customers to pick them over Burger King or KFC when they fancy an easy meal on the go.

None of these decisions are forced by the advertiser, and "influence" as a concept is pretty plain on the face of it. The psychological hacks that advertisers use are mainly restricted to trying to make you under-price or over-value a product in your head, or in the case of late-night shopping channels, to get you to impulse-buy things (which I would consider to be fairly exploitative but is in the minority in terms of advertisers). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion is a good book on the subject.

> When I rip on the agency of consumers please consider that with any small amount of agency they would search for the best product to suit their needs and advertising would be worthless.

I think you're conflating agency and rationality here. A rational agent would indeed shop around, but any old agent can choose to buy or not buy something based on whether they think it has value to them.

[barrkel]

"None of these decisions are forced by the advertiser"

Pavements don't force you to walk on them, but I'd bet you tend not to stray off them. Pathways through the park don't force you to stay on them, but most people tend to stick to them.

By escalating the bar that advertising needs to reach to influence agents to "force", you're proposing a binary relation where there is a continuum. I think it's disingenuous.

[beaconstudios]

> They are legitimately useful, but they are also legitimately harmful by creating needs that you didn't have.

> They are categorically not just about informing people.

> And saying you received value from ad-supported stuff strikes me as very backwards. You still pay, but you pay through being manipulated into buying stuff you don't need.

This was the ancestor comment I was responding about. This person is suggesting that an advertiser can make you buy things you wouldn't otherwise want. My point is that it isn't true - you have to want the product at some level to be interested. If you'd read my comment you'd realise that I agree that they can influence your decision, but not if you weren't at least mildly interested in the product in the first place.

[vmateixeira]

If someone hits your animalistic self, you'll buy everything they're selling, unless you're aware of that.

They just need to get to your not so gone weaknesses.

[beaconstudios]

we have the capacity for higher reasoning, you know - we can override our instincts by making a conscious choice.

[barrkel]

If you walk into a shop, and you see three items on the shelf, you're far more likely to buy one of the items on the shelf, than the one that's hidden behind the counter that you have to ask for.

It's not force, but almost nobody will ask for the thing behind the counter. It's the effect that matters.

[vmateixeira]

Up to a specific level, yes. A simple example of that is the loss of reasoning upon a lifethreatening situation.

The extent of the grey area differs for each individual.