[tdb7893]

Ignoring political implications here and just on a personal level I wish political ads were banned. Quite possibly my least favorite type of ad to see and I've never felt meaningfully informed by them (generally quite the opposite).

[cj]

> Campaigners say the law will cause a harmful loss of information

I find this quote from the article amusing.

If EU political ads are anything like USA political ads, the objective of the ad is rarely, if ever, to educate the audience.

The objective of most political ads is to confuse, disorient, and distort the narrative.

[jopsen]

I don't think the political ads are like in the US.

Not at all.

Also the scale is no where near.

TV2 in Denmark just ran an article saying that the 24 politicians and parties buying the most ads bought a total of 250k ads ahead of this policy coming into effect.

Note that same month last year the spend was ~1/3.

I know Denmark is small, ~5-6M, but that's doesn't seem like a lot of money.

[beezlebroxxxxxx]

The amount of money in US politics and elections in particular is staggering when you think about it. In 15 weeks Kamala Harris' campaign spent $1.5 billion. That's just insane. Especially when you find out that a lot of that spend goes through "media consultancies" and PR firms...run by former DNC staffers. And the same is true for the RNC. The two parties are basically a giant revolving door and network of jobs with access to this enormous slush fund.

[docdeek]

Here in France the presidential candidates who make it to the second round are limited to spending €22.5 million over the course of the entire campaign (first and second rounds). About half gets reimbursed from public funds, so you 'only' need to raise about €10-12 million. Hard limits on campaign donations (about €4K) mean big money impacts the race less, and limits on advertising means you don't have to spend it on TV ads or direct mail.

Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is near unfathomable.

[jopsen]

> Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is near unfathomable.

Perhaps we should be delighted in the fact that political ads can win an election.

I have a hard time seeing other positive outcomes :)

[dmurray]

It does seem like a lot of money, but distributed across all Americans it's not that insane. Americans spend approximately the same on election ads as on chewing gum.

Here's a source, but h/t James Gleick for the comparison: https://www.statista.com/topics/1841/chewing-gum/

[beloch]

The first thing an American politician does after winning an election is start fundraising for their next election. Governing would be an afterthought were it not so helpful in raising money.

[lovich]

Your post sounds conspiratorial but there are basic economic reasons why those revolving doors seem to exist.

Every campaign is going to need largely the same set of skill sets in their campaign staff. Spinning up these groups and also going through the startup time of any new team learning to work together costs a lot of time and money.

So several of these standard skill sets, like data science, marketing, etc have been spun out into companies or consulting firms that are treated like a pool of available resources by campaigns based on their party.

It’s not treated as a slush fund and there’s usually a handful of competitors in your parties pool but you do end up working with a lot of the same faces at different clients/campaigns if you work at one of the servicing companies.

I worked at one of them once and I recall realizing that fact when I asked why a coworkers email had numeral in his name when he had a relatively uncommon first and last name

[ruszki]

Heavily depends on the country: Hungary. The government routinely the largest spender in Europe for online advertisement.

Btw, they just started categorise their online ads as non political through proxy companies. And they just jump to a new company when one becomes blocked.

[floxy]

>distort the narrative

Whatever would we do if we didn't have the corporate/billionaire narrative to guide our lives!

[dylan604]

Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s

Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.

However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.

[lern_too_spel]

They think their opponent is bad because their opponent is not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though. Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad, which doesn't fit in a banner.

[immibis]

Also that they have to actually be your positions and you can't just promise one thing and do a completely different thing.

[patrickmay]

Holding politicians legally accountable for their campaign promises will never happen, but I love the idea.

[dylan604]

My favorite reform idea is to make politicians wear NASCAR style suits with all of their sponsor's logos attached

[dylan604]

Then they'd all say the same thing with "my positions will be those of whoever writes the largest check"

[immibis]

That would be allowed. If that's what voters want, they can vote for that. Voting to dissolve a democracy is allowed.

[dylan604]

> generally quite the opposite

Very much this. These ads make me very much not want to vote for the candidate which is the opposite of what they wanted.

[immibis]

The advertising industry keeps repeatedly finding that no matter how much you think an ad turned you off a product, you're still more likely to buy that product after seeing the ad, and the more times you see the ad, the more likely you are to buy it. No matter how the ad made you feel.

[dylan604]

It's amazing how an industry can conduct research that provides them with the exact answer they want

[immibis]

The answer they want is the one that correctly tells them how to turn money into more money. Companies with incorrect answers were bankrupted.

[MattDaEskimo]

Depends on your definition of "political ads".

If your definition is: an ad that explicitly involves a party/politician, why?

It seems like they're going to happen regardless, the difference is the subtly. For example, there's a lot of accounts purposefully pushing ideologies, and focusing on specific events for a political purpose on social media.

Arguably, these are much more dangerous than explicit political ads.

[austin-cheney]

Yeah, political ads are so toxic but worse its just lazy money. I am really tired of super PACs buying my politicians with this garbage. I would rather my politicians come down to the district here and hold rallies or town halls where they can lie to us in person.

Yes, I am fully aware the next problem in all this is how does the politician then notify the district of the place and time of the next meeting. It would be great if congress, as a body, had a mechanism in place to handle this so that it is equally applied for any registered candidate regardless of party affiliation or primary favoritism.

Seriously, if politicians want cheap media coverage then they should do something worthy of coverage. There is one politician I can think of right now, far outside my local district, that is on one edge of the political spectrum and simultaneously performing the miracle of picking up tremendous popularity from the opposite edge of the political spectrum. They finally learned to tune their messaging from party political theater to rapidly changing opinions on current events in ways other politicians cannot. I am hearing way more about people like that than the person from my district, who isn't doing anything worth of media attention.

[yieldcrv]

Super PACs are the dumbest of dumb money, and I'm surprised this forum isn't solely about extracting money from them

They have no shareholders or fudiciary duties, they are formed as non profits 501(c)4's with no purpose except their stated political position (for a policy / candidate, or against a policy / candidate) and this comes with no limitation on what they can own and do with the money

and this is all based on the flawed theory that spending equals votes

it's the dumbest reality that I thought would have been solved by constitutional amendment after Citizen's United but nope! how are you not taking advantage of this stupidity! the spending has only grown from all sides

[fsflover]

I would go even further: banning all ads, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43595269

[thewebguyd]

That'd be great. But how would you define what's advertising and what's not?

I've built a relatively successful professional photography side hussle without "advertising" as in, I've never paid for an ad on any of the social platforms or google ads. Most of my business comes from word of mouth, or hits on my website.

But, is the SEO I do advertising? What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel of behind the scenes footage of me photographing a wedding so potential clients can see my process, is that advertising?

I do all of those things with the goal to drum up business, but they fall outside of the traditional meaning of the word. Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc.

How do we even begin to draw the line at what is an advertisement and whats not?

[Certhas]

We have successfully banned Cigarette ads. Not saying there aren't things to sort out, and lines to be drawn, but it's by no means impossible.

[jacobgkau]

We've successfully banned cigarette ads from TV and radio. We haven't banned them from the wall at gas stations. They're also not banned on the internet, legally.

Do you want to ban advertising, or ban TV and radio advertising?

[noir_lord]

In the UK they are sold behind blank displays and the packaging is generic as well.

Sure it’s Unrelated but smoking is now 1 in 8 adults and dropping.

You can ban this type of advertising if you enforce it.

[Reason077]

Every time I’m back in the UK I’m a bit shocked at how many people seem to smoke and vape compared to other countries. Including many of my friends. There’s still a long way to go!

[xnorswap]

Your jurisdiction might not have, mine has, for almost 30 years now.

They're sold under the counter (literally) / behind shutters, in plain packaging.

They certainly are not advertised on posters.

[AlecSchueler]

> But how would you define what's advertising and what's not?

The same way we define what is and isn't political advertising? Or tobacco advertising, alcohol advertising etc.

> But, is the SEO I do advertising?

No, it's SEO.

> What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel

No, this is just sharing your work.

> Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc.

Is it really complicated though? We already regulate what can and can't be said in all these forms of advertising.

[thewebguyd]

Sure, but in reality those reuglations either aren't equally enforced, or companies have always found ways around it. I could even argue that SEO should be considered a form of advertising as the intent of SEO is at the end of the day consumer manipulation.

Even with the tobacco advertising ban, tobacco use in movies is still a problem and even if not one specific product, it still encourages smoking and has a real world effect (and this applies to vaping now as well).

Hell, even product placement and merchandising in stores could be advertising. It does influence consumer behavior afterall.

I'm all for getting rid of ads but it the regulation has to have teeth, and be very well defined.

[fph]

It seems quite simple to me. Are you paying for that? Or providing any benefit equivalent to a payment? Then it's an ad.

[AlotOfReading]

Also things like Superbowl advertising that some people actually want to see.

But to enumerate some things distinguishing those from more offensive ads:

* You put effort into making that content engaging and interesting for the audience

* The advertising is at least vaguely relevant to the content around it.

* Someone can opt out of seeing your social media posts, or watching an influencer, or watching the Superbowl. People are annoyed when this is violated, e.g. by coordinated campaigns across many influencers.

* These ads aren't as violently intrusive, with massive volume and color changes or full screen popups.

* These ads are (perceived as) more privacy-respecting than say, Google ads.

* These ads don't displace better content like a billboard does.

In short, they're a more respectful transaction that people have control over.

[baby]

IMO a bad idea, ads help with discoverability and is one of the most effective mechanism for growth. This includes for small and big businesses.

I think it makes more sense to target what kind of ads should be banned (e.g. politics, alcohol, cigarets, religion, etc.) and what ads format should be banned (e.g. loud ads, ads in the subway, etc.)

[walkabout]

> what ads format should be banned

Practically all of them unless I've asked to receive them.

I'd absolutely sign up to receive info about new products from certain industry groups, niche product promoters, some stores, et c.

[baby]

I get that you're upset at ads in general, because they're on your face all the time, but banning them out right doesn't seem right. I mean this is what keeps a lot of very useful services free.

[walkabout]

Lots of illegal things could fund other things, making them “free”.

[fragmede]

I mean, it worked for the CIA and the Contras...

[dangus]

Sounds like a good way to trap everyone with incumbent corporations.

No quitting your corporate job to start your own business, you’re not allowed to advertise.

[dietr1ch]

You are conflating slapping ads in people's faces with making your business listed on the white/yellow/whatever pages and allowing people to find you without being a jerk.

[JoshTriplett]

The yellow pages are ads, that's why for a while it was really hard to stop getting the phone company to stop leaving it as trash on your doorstep.

[dietr1ch]

But we don't need paper these days. What I meant is to switch from being shown somewhat relevant ads while you try to do something else, to searching for relevant stuff whenever you truly need it.

[dangus]

1. Yellow pages were paid ads

2. If a “directory” is the only advertising mechanism allowed it benefits the incumbents because incumbents are the only ones who have existing brand recognition. I don’t need a directory to know about Coca-Cola or Google Maps. You would have had to ban advertising at the dawn of time for this to work.

[dietr1ch]

1. It makes sense that the business are the ones paying to get listed and vetted. We are now starting to need those blue checkmarks for a reason, some verification process is necessary, and then serving costs.

2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.

[dangus]

For #1 I think the idea basically violates the idea of banning advertising.

For #2, I think that established brands essentially wouldn’t need to be searched for.

In the status quo I can pay to put up a billboard next to McDonald’s and say “I make a better burger two blocks down.”

But if I’m not allowed to do that a lot of people will just assume that McDonald’s is the place to go for a fast food burger.

[guiambros]

Yellow pages, really? Like, let's ban ads and brig back yellow pages", and everything will be solved?

And, if you were not aware, how do you think Yellow Pages made money? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_pages

[gus_massa]

Not that I think it's a good idea, but ...

You go to Google, type "refrigerator" and you get two buttons

* Please show me only adds, sorted by how much they paid to Larry and Sergey

* Please show me only somewhat organic results, sorted by relevance or whatever, and discount me $1 to pay for the servers and crawers.

[dietr1ch]

Yeah, but serving that doesn't cost that much and dropping the advertisement platform would drop it further (and let engineers fix search instead of shaving milliseconds from ad bidding)

[esafak]

That directory for tech would be like ProductHunt. Do you like it?

[simion314]

There could be an index where you list your product/service, so people can find your stuff when they need it. But yeah will be harder to manipulate people to buy your miracle supplement or other garbage that is 99% of the current ads I see. I do not watch Tv, use ad blockers so after years of not watching TV I watched a bit recently and most ads are supplements/"naturists medicine" and for some reasons on youtube without the ad blocker they always show me the same ad over and over again(it is funny Google is trying to sell me the product from the company I work for, and somehow showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in)

[thewebguyd]

> showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in

* not interested in right now.

Showing the same ad to the same person (or cohort of people) works. Eventually, someone in the cohort may be interested in that product/service at some point in their lfie and they are more likely to pick a brand they are familiar with. They are now familiar with that brand after having seen it everywhere all over their internet browsing, sometimes for months or years at a time.

[porridgeraisin]

Yeah. Don't want that. Of course it works, but so does drugging people. Doesn't mean it needs to be allowed.

When I want it, ill initiate a fresh search and find whatever I find, at that time. Don't want things leeching into my subconscious just because you want it to be your brand that I use later.

[dangus]

What’s your stance on signage on physical brick and mortar businesses? Logos on products? Where should we be drawing this line? And who benefits most from that line being drawn?

[charcircuit]

>so people can find your stuff when they need it

And how do are people informed about new products they may need or changes to existing products that they now may need? What about reminding people about things they needed, but they forgot about? There needs to be someway for companies to reach consumers that isn't initiated by the consumer.

[fsflover]

When I want it, I will start a search and find something new. I don't need constant bombardment with brands "I forgot about".

[charcircuit]

This leads to inefficiency in the market. Again you don't know when you want "it", when you don't know that "it" even exists. This gives an advantage to incumbents in the market since you already know of them.

[fph]

> There could be an index where you list your product/service, so people can find your stuff when they need it.

There is already one, it's called a search engine.

[renewiltord]

Please don't shill someone's blog here. This kind of "native advertising" is not appreciated. If you have a point, make it. Don't just use it as an opportunity to astroturf a blog.

[fsflover]

I gave a link to an extensive HN discussion, not a blog.

[renewiltord]

Sure you did. And the link at the top of the page was just a coincidental "banner ad" that you had nothing to do with. If you simply wanted to share that content without the link, it's just plain HTML. Trivial to do.

It's not ethical for you to be doing this kind of submarine advertising on HN without disclosure. Please just admit what you're doing rather than pretending.

[Dylan16807]

Are you doing some kind of bit here? It's easier to share HTML than... a link?

If this is supposed to be an analogy to how people will argue over what's an ad so a rule is infeasible, it's a bad analogy. If it's literal then you're not making sense.

[fsflover]

Let me disclose that I have no connection whatsoever with the linked blog.

[tehjoker]

Commercial ads are also designed to manipulate you emotionally or otherwise present you with information that induces a desire to buy what you otherwise didn't need.

[immibis]

At least the worst thing that comes out of that is losing money. With political ads, you lose a country.

[tehjoker]

Who funds the politicians? Hint: It's rich people that run companies that made money by advertising.

[ThatMedicIsASpy]

The worst form of physical ads in Germany. A slogan or a face and the party name printed on paper and hung up on the streets everywhere. So wasteful.

[Reason077]

Sounds like a pretty standard election sign/billboard design in any country.

[mytailorisrich]

Banning political ads would completely negate what a democratic free society is.