[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> And if you do have concern about the way you are parenting, wouldn't you want to improve upon that?

> Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this Reframe is some miracle app that will truly do what you think it claims to.

Reading this discussion, I remain unconvinced. Unless I lost the plot somewhere along the way (admittedly, that's a possibility), it sounds like the context is that of someone advertising a product in a probably dishonest way and it's justified because people want the thing that's being advertised, even though it's not necessarily the thing that's being sold.

> Although I am not sure you have made clear why advertising is to blame for shitty products.

Put another way: what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear? Maybe it's more than just a shitty product.

[randomdata]

> I remain unconvinced.

Was there something we were supposed to convince you of?

> what if the product in question was literally snake oil? Is that still justifiable as marketing because they're making a promise about it which someone wants to hear?

The discussion is about advertising preying on insecurities, not marketing in general. If we assume snake oil were to be advertised, is there some reason to prefer: "Snake Oil: The miracle cure-all!" over "Your bad breath is scaring off the girl of your dreams. Cure it with Snake Oil!"?

If yes, why is the latter less preferable? Is it because it calls attention to a real problem someone might want to solve? Does that continue to hold if we assume snake oil truly is a miracle cure-all that eliminates bad breath?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem. The manufacturer can demonstrate that it will eliminate my halitosis but not that it will get me laid. Using the initial example, I might be less addicted to alcohol but that doesn't necessarily make me a better parent; the advertisement sold me on being a better parent.

(I appreciate your questions. I had to think about that one.)

[randomdata]

> Because the advertisement inappropriately calls the product a solution to an unrelated problem.

Yes, but that is true in both cases. A miracle cure-all, if there were such a thing, would, indeed, solve your halitosis and girl troubles.

If I am to infer something here, it is that you didn't realize what a "cure-all" can do. It took more precise language to get you thinking about specific problems and how to solve them.

So, let's assume for a minute that snake oil is well and truly a magical cure-all. It seems that by the first ad you wouldn't recognize that fact and would end up not being able to benefit from is miracle properties. Perhaps the second ad would actually be preferable?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> Yes, but that is true in both cases.

I think I can see where you're coming from with this but it's still not how I read it. The second advertisement is telling me that the product will cure my bad breath and therefore my girl problems but my girl problems are not necessarily related to my bad breath. It's the same as the drinking father example; a person's parenting can be good or bad irrespective of their drinking habits. (Maybe it fixes my girl problems independently from curing my bad breath but the advertisement seems to be telling me that it will solve my girl problems by means of curing my bad breath. Same as the given drinking father real-world example.)

Can you think of a non-cure-all example for which this argument holds?

[randomdata]

> but it's still not how I read it.

Right. Which also demonstrates why the latter type of ad tends to be much more effective, even though both technically say the same thing.

So, it seems to me that we have two different discussions trying to compete here:

- The acceptability of false advertising.

- The acceptability of advertising that attempts to evoke emotions.

While you are not wrong in noticing that these examples also exhibit false advertising, that is staring to move away from the original discussion, which was about preying on insecurities.

> Can you think of a non-cure-all example for which this argument holds?

How about we turn to the ad that shows up on just about every HN page? It will be well-familiar to everyone here. Here are two variants on one of those ads (with a little paraphrasing on my part):

- "Rust: It will protect your memory!"

- "Still programming in C like it is 1972? The hackers are going to get you. Secure your programs with Rust!"

My understanding from earlier in the thread is that only the first example should be allowed according to the beliefs of those who participated. But, I must say, I'm far more compelled by the latter. It addresses problems I understand deep down when programming in C and then offers a solution. The "It will protect your memory" doesn't tell me much. Why do I need my memory protected? Next.

Assuming only the latter ad catches my attention, which I think is a decent assumption based on what we've seen in this very thread and around ad response behaviour in general, is it possible that the consumer actually benefits from the latter?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

The Rust example is categorically different from the drinking father example. The former evokes emotions around professional decisions while the latter evokes emotions around personal decisions.

The consumer may still ultimately benefit from this advertisement which evokes emotions in such a personal way, especially if we assume the efficacy of the product to be as advertised. The advertisement might also cause a mentally unhealthy individual to become worse as such. The negativity of the emotions might push someone into a worse spot or into learning self-harming or abusive behaviors.

As much as advertisers A/B test their advertisements, I don’t get the feeling they measure the effect they have on national suicide rates. Do you think they’d publish those numbers if they had them?

Admittedly, I dragged this away from OP’s point a bit but I think I brought it back. One person might laugh it off while another abuses their family. It’s really hard to say that the advertisement is not evil, even if it can be demonstrated to be a net good for some.