[amelius]

Ads are wrong because:

1. They nudge people towards buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy. This causes a tremendous amount of real waste.

2. Ads are a distraction. When I'm looking up something for work, don't bother me with ads, even if *you* think they are relevant. When I'm working, I'm not looking for a new job, or new pants.

3. On a fundamental level, ads work against the free market: not the best product wins, but the product with the biggest advertising budget.

And there are many more reasons ... Ads suck! And people working in ad-tech should be deeply ashamed!

[elisbce]

Ads suck. But you know what's worse than Ads? Selfish people. If Google, YouTube and everywhere else starts asking you to pay high subscription fees for using their services, are you willing/going to pay? You looked up information for work, for life, for leisure, you spend hours online each day, gorging information and content for free. You even learned valuable things and made money using their services and information. And yet all you have to say is don't bother me while I'm leeching off your free content.

[mikrl]

>If Google, YouTube and everywhere else starts asking you to pay high subscription fees for using their services, are you willing/going to pay?

Based on my rudimentary knowledge of microeconomics, it depends on how much they charge.

But bringing economics into it, it does seem strange that the internet is probably the only industry where this form of exchange (ads, producers, consumers) exists.

In any other industry, the producer pays money to ads, the ads get me to the place and I pay the producer.

[chii]

> In any other industry, the producer pays money to ads, the ads get me to the place and I pay the producer.

how is this not what ads on the internet work?

[amelius]

We already pay these fees ourselves collectively because the advertising costs are incorporated into the price of products.

Plus we now pay an additional tax on top of it to Google et al.

Plus we pay with our attention, and with our data (as someone else already noted).

On top of this all, the near-monopoly of Google is forcing prices for ads up, and there is a vicious cycle where companies need to buy increasingly expensive ads to outcompete each other (or, to stay relevant). Which, of course, the consumer ultimately pays for.

[secondcoming]

You just demonstrated how advertising works.

[spost]

I don't believe anyone is arguing that advertising _doesn't work_.

[charcircuit]

>They nudge people towards buying stuff they wouldn't otherwise buy.

It allows people to find things they value that they were not aware of before.

>Ads are a distraction.

Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

>On a fundamental level, ads work against the free market: not the best product wins, but the product with the biggest advertising budget.

If something really is the best product, why aren't they the one with the largest advertising budget?

[amelius]

> It allows people to find things they value that they were not aware of before.

There are better ways for that. For instance I look it up in the yellow pages. Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

This happens when *I* want to look for something, not when *you* want to sell something.

> Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

So far, it has been a complete disaster. And there is no sign of it getting any better. The incentives are wrong to begin with.

> If something really is the best product, why talent they the one with the largest advertising budget?

What does this even mean? Typo? Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

[jasode]

>There are better ways for that. For instance I look it up in the yellow pages. Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

Yes, I hate ads too but that said... The Yellow Pages are geared towards services rather than new unknown products. Also, asking a store clerk or flipping through Yellow pages doesn't work when the customer doesn't even know the existence of a new product to ask about.

Anybody in any hobby (woodworking, sewing, car engine modifications, etc) that uses tools and gadgets will get their first exposure to the existence of a potentially helpful product via advertisements. Sure, some awareness comes via word-of-mouth... but the people passing that info to you -- got their awareness from ads. Or maybe a trade show demonstration (which is also a form of advertisement.)

Of course, I've gotten bad and unnecessary tools because of ads. But I also got some genuinely useful and time-saving tools too.

Even though a few ads helped make my life better, I will admit that 99% of ads are not relevant to me and just obnoxious noise. I just saw a Wood Whisperer video on Youtube yesterday and the pre-roll ad was "Estee Lauder cosmetics for women". Given that 95% of the demographic watching woodworking channels are men, it seems like Google/Youtube is wasting Estee Lauder's ad spending -- all while irritating viewers like me. A lose-lose situation.

[waynesonfire]

Ads operate under a supply and demand model. There are far far more companies pushing their products via psychological manipulation to win market share then some novel product relevant to your favorite hobby.

Every ad needs to be sold to a pair of eyes and those relevant, novel, and interesting prdocuts that would actually be useful to you have a much smaller budget and just are not that common. And so you get to watch liberty mutual and geico commercials, for the 55th time instead.

[amelius]

Can you agree that ads (or product recommendations) can be limited to a time and place chosen by the customer rather than by the seller?

[MildRant]

> Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

Stores are limited by the amount of shelf space they have and employees will lead you towards certain products they have an incentive to sell.

[IggleSniggle]

This is basically the value prop for mom n pop shops. If the salesperson is also the owner, they have a lot more incentive to get to know you and steer you towards the things that will be best for you, in order to

1) keep you coming back 2) navigate highly localized politics

[MildRant]

Mom n Pop shops are great but getting rid of ads doesn't put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to big box stores and Amazon. It also doesn't solve the shelf space problem. I've found incredibly niche and useful things through online retail ads that a local business would be insane to stock because they would have dead inventory.

[charcircuit]

>This happens when I want to look for something, not when you want to sell something.

Not all consumers are aware of what is out there, nor do they actively make an effort to learn what is out there.

>What does this even mean? Typo?

yes

>Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

No, I am suggesting that a company that makes a purely superior product can always outbid their competitors in advertising.

[psd1]

> a company that makes a purely superior product can always outbid their competitors in advertising

Ah, that's how we know that Oracle is better than Postgres!

Do you seriously believe this to be true? I'm willing to have my mind blown, if you can explain this point adequately.

[the8472]

Well, ok, let's assume for a moment that ads are valuable to some users, perhaps informing them of a solution to a problem they didn't even know had solutions. That still wastes the attention of everyone who doesn't actually need that thing. Making it worth everyone's time can be incentivized by taxing eyeball-pixel-seconds. The numbers reported to the tax authority must be consistent with those reported to the advertising customer and the site owner. This way one would only place ads when it's almost certain that there's some unmet demand.

[whatshisface]

>If something really is the best product, why aren't they the one with the largest advertising budget?

If they are already the company with the highest revenue, why would they need to advertise...

If these are the arguments in favor of ads then they really must be that bad.

[charcircuit]

>If they are already the company with the highest revenue, why would they need to advertise...

Because their potential customers may not be familiar with them. If a competitor makes themselves known they may just go with the competitor despite a better option, that they don't know about existing.

[hightrix]

> Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

The only good ad experience is contextual. There does not exist an experience that is enhanced by ads unrelated to the content being viewed.

If I want to search for a product and an adtech company wants to show me related products, great. If I want to watch a music video, but first have to watch a political ad or an ad for any product, get lost.