|
|
|
|
|
|
by vdaniuk
4152 days ago
|
|
|
>99% of online advertisers give the rest a bad name
>My own sketched proposal: http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest... See, the intense irony in your comment is that you are effectively advertising your own content using exaggerated, overhyped claim. If you consider such actions to be a net negative for the society, you are a part of the problem. I do not disagree with you on principle and your proposal has some merit. The thing is that advertising/marketing dicussion is much more multifaceted and complex than HN collective mind portrays it to be: "advertising bad! mmkay?". The nuances and the opportunities to enact meaningful, real change in the advertising ecosystem are lost when rational discourse is suppressed by claims like "99% of advertisers are bad". Good actors should be rewarded and bad should be discouraged economically. By lumping all of them in the bad bucket, you are encouranging detrimental behaviour. Harmful,intrusive,obnoxious advertising is a symptom, not a disease. You can't get rid of such ads without changing the underlying structure of socioeconomic reality, at least for limited cluster of audience. |
|
|
My direct benefit? Discussion of elements of the proposals (I've seen some agreement, challenges, and related suggestions in the discussion above) and a possible slight uptick in awareness and mindshare around the concept.
I do find it downright amusing that an entrepreneurial site engenders criticism for entrepreneurship in the area of ideas themselves. Though not entirely surprising.