[Certhas]

Did I say they are forced?

Do you claim that everyone always needed what they are enticed to buy by advertising? Because I'm pretty sure there's a boatload of psychology research that says otherwise.

Put yet another way, if ads weren't effective at making people buy shit, then why would companies make Google and Facebook obscenely rich?

If people would merely be informed by ads about the existence and benefits of products, why would the ads have such strong emotional messaging and be so free from actual solid information?

If you want to get informed you don't read the ads, do you?

Ads have one primary purpose: To make people make more irrational decisions.

[beaconstudios]

ads are great at increasing the likelihood that you'll pick their product over the competition, and they might encourage people to impulse buy in the future. But there's no way an ad can get you to buy something you genuinely don't want. That's nonsense.

[Certhas]

And you're shifting the goalpost. I never said they get you to buy something you (genuinely) don't want, I said they create needs.

Seems like you don't seriously disagree with that either, just over-interpreted my original statement.

I would also argue the idea of "genuine" needs is a fallacy. Unfortunately one that is common in economic thinking. There is not fixed hierarchy of external needs that we want to satisfy one after the other. That's a really bad model for human consumption behaviour.

If all your friends start having something most people will find that they start wanting it, too.