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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at.
2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well.
If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.
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)
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)
> 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.
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.
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?
If it's their shop, it is fine. If it's their product, it is fine. Anywhere else, not fine. Even then, it should only be visible as I come close to the place, none of the obnoxiously massive billboards.
It's the same online, you can fill your own website, or your slot on the "yellow/white pages equivalent" alluded to by GP, with whatever crap you want.
> Where should we be drawing the line
Anything without explicit initiation from the user is not allowed. If I walk in front of your shop, cool, show me your ad. If I am 500m away, don't put up a fucking 5x5m billboard 40ft in the air. If I open your website, or scroll past your slot on an aggregator, cool, show me your logo, otherwise, nope. If I s/scroll/stroll past your s/slot/shelf in the s/aggregator/groceryshop then show me your logo, otherwise, nope. There are maaaaybe a few exceptions to the rule, like on highways I'd be fine with seeing $restaurant 8km away, or whatever, but those are rare situations where you benefit from knowing ahead of time, and even this is not necessary with google maps.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?