[zupatol]

Some economists have tried arguing that advertising adds value to products, but I think it only hinders people from making choices based on the product's merit. It's a distortion of the market.

We wouldn't lose much if advertising would just be forbidden. A traditional definition of it would probably be enough to get rid of most of it. The main problem is that huge sums of money are involved, and almost all media profit from it to some extent, so there's a huge incentive to shut down this conversation.

[kortex]

> Some economists have tried arguing that advertising adds value to products, but I think it only hinders people from making choices based on the product's merit. It's a distortion of the market.

Precisely. Spec sheets, unbiased reviews, ratings systems that vet purchases, those add value. Almost by definition, what we consider advertisement is designed to distort humans from making rational free-market choices. Stretching the analogy: Attention is finite, therefore every ad you consume moves you further from perfect information.

That's a purely pragmatic argument without getting into the whole bit where ads use all sorts of psychological tools to shape behavior.

[sokoloff]

It would seem that review sites would be a massive beneficiary of a ban on advertising; whether or not they review in a Consumer Reviews (scientifically backed, generally) or Bob’s Internet Affiliate Shills or Celebrity Chris’ Favorites manner is left as an exercise to the reader.

[dane-pgp]

At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal.

Also, if people found themselves regretting purchases of products and services recommended to them by a particular review site, they would be free to use a different review site in future.

Hopefully these sites wouldn't operate on a non-refundable yearly-subscription model, making people reluctant to "waste" the money they had spent. The business model for such sites might be a little tricky, since they shouldn't really be making money from affiliate fees, and web advertising wouldn't exist in this world either.

[andrepd]

>At least review sites would be something that a user would have to seek out, rather than having the information blasted into their field of attention at times the advertisers found strategically optimal.

This is the crux of the question. I don't consent to any of it, but just walking down the streets I'm targeted by an assault on my brain from every direction. Ditto picking up my phone or browsing the web (were it not for uBlock). It's not ethical.

As for review sites being shilled, mandate big disclaimers detailing sponsors (shill praising product X would have to have a big banner saying "this content paid for by X", as its already done in other contexts). Reputation would eventually form around trusted reviwers.

[Mirioron]

>We wouldn't lose much if advertising would just be forbidden.

We would lose the current ad industry and just replace it with some other form of it.

You can't get rid odd advertising, because the existence of the product itself is already advertising. Let's imagine that advertising were banned. How could a car manufacturer still advertise their cars? Put bigger logos on them and sell lots of cheaper models for a while. That way the city will be full of your vehicles and any time someone sees a car they'll think of your cars. Same goes for Coca-Cola and other brands. In that case they just need to take up more shelf-space.

[a3camero]

Wouldn't that be a great outcome? Cheap cars or cheap cola? That's better than more expensive products (because of the cost of advertising that's turned into billboards and banner ads.)

[jimmaswell]

Cheap cars that break down fast aren't good for anyone.

[lotsofpulp]

Cheap cola is not good for anyone either.

[olalonde]

> Wouldn't that be a great outcome? Cheap cars or cheap cola?

Bingo. And that's why normal people don't care about ads if they get Facebook and Google for free.

[criddell]

A lot would also switch to native ads.

For example, if a concert promoter can't buy a 30 second spot on local radio to promote and upcoming show, they will instead pay for the band to be interviewed by a DJ where the interview is little more than the band talking about the upcoming show. I don't think that's an improvement.

[lotsofpulp]

In my experience they will do both, or however many ways they think work.

[d1tch]

We have to ditch the cognitive bias that “products” are what we should contribute.

Information exchange can take place when people use their imagination to create with raw materials. Stock stores with raw materials. Focus public governance on health, not public-private collusion.

Think like open-source; take computer, make it useful to you.

We’re circling last generations emotional model for packaging given their logistics capabilities.

IoT can act as a model here; smaller uni-task gadgets or general compute gadgets, needing less code.

The sunk cost fallacy at scale is how our system works now. That simply props up the ingenuity of those who got there first.

Why the ever loving hell do we need teachers with high education bills and masters degrees? Were we not able to reach reading for the thousand years before?

This social monolith building needs to billionaires is merely following a social monolith to kings and priests.

We move around atomically but pay a tax on our effort upwards. The result? Decades of inequality growth, deflation of buying power.

It’s not technical change we need but emotional; we don’t owe these people deference.

Pre-packaged experience is no different than “here’s your Bible, Timmy.”

[forrestconnors]

That sounds like a good thing...

[agent008t]

Is it even possible to eliminate it altogether, down to the very last 'influencer'?

As long as people care what is popular and fashionable rather than what is good there will be ways of exploiting it.

[paulryanrogers]

Enforcement doesn't have to be perfect to benefit society. Once it was illegal to advertise drugs to the public. After it was legalized suddenly drug company budgets were overtaken by marketing, instead of R&D. In my opinion that was a net loss for society.

[marcinzm]

From what I can tell 70% of drug marketing budget is about persuading doctors and not consumers so I don't see how your example applies. In fact it just shows that companies will find a way to spend marketing money to influence people given enough ROI even if they can't target consumers directly.

[hinkley]

Do we have to outlaw it?

How about just making it no longer tax deductible as a start and see how that goes? Spend some of the money on increased consumer protection.

[Siira]

Non-targeted ads are valid signals of the strength of a brand.