[perfTerm]

This is totally true, but in a world where there are tens of thousands of products in our supermarkets alone, sometimes I prefer an easy subconcious choice. If Old Spice deodorant works, and I got there because of an advertisement that played on subconcious desires, eh. I don't really have the desire to conciously evaluate my deodorant purchase (even though I avoid anti persperants at all cost cause there are weird metals and it just doesn't seem natural to not perspire).

If I choose Pepsi over Coke because of some subconciously altered motive, eh. Whatever.

I'm not sure it'll be a popular opinion, but to be honest, I don't particularly mind not having to conciously evaluate my soda choice.

[gohrt]

> If I choose Pepsi over Coke because of some subconciously altered motive, eh. Whatever.

What if you choose Pepsi or coke over water because of some subconciously altered motive? And it contributes toward obesity and diabetes?

[verbin217]

What I want is for someone, somewhere to consciously evaluate my deodorant purchase. At least in some way that doesn't completely disrespect what anyone would want given they had the capacity to consciously evaluate their deodorant purchase. I understand that that is what advertising is supposed to be.

[imakesnowflakes]

>If I choose Pepsi over Coke because of some subconciously altered motive, eh. Whatever.

It is not about choosing Pepsi over Coke. What make you choose (Coke OR Pepsi) over plain old cold water, when you feel thirsty?

Another issue is when you let Ads work, you are allowing the brand that had the most aggressive ad campaign to reap a profit. Not the one with a better product. Wont this prevent a better product from rising in the market?

[azernik]

I don't mind either.

What I do mind is the amount of distraction introduced into my environment in an effort to influence that unconscious and irrelevant choice.

[wdr1]

Yep, this is exactly my objection as well.

[nitrogen]

One could make an easy conscious choice if all products included objective information about their characteristics and performance. Hypothetical examples:

- Deodorant X was found to prevent odor for 5 hours and reduce it for 19 in tests with subjects similar to you.

- Fragrance A had the highest percentage of positive ratings among your desired gender and demographic.

[baddox]

Even then, is it worth the effort? I suspect that the vast majority of deodorants work well enough that the upside of choosing the best option isn't worth the time spent reading the objective data. Textbook rational ignorance.

And for things like Coke vs. Pepsi, where there is (I presume) very little objective differences that consumers care about, how does this idea apply?

[nitrogen]

Well enough is not universally defined, though. One person may just want something to mask ordinary human odor. Another might have allergies, or has friends who have allergies. Various people respond differently to different fragrances. Some fragrances might work better in a professional vs. dating environment. Etc. Objective data could resolve all of those questions far better than any sex-driven superbowl ad.

In the case of deodorant, the question one really wants to ask is either "Will this fragrance upset my coworkers with allergies," or "What fragrance will most impress the guy/girl I want to impress?" Objective, empirical data from the nearest demographic comes the closest to answering that question.

There's no reason that objective data has to require time spent. Computer analysis and machine learning could present the right data at the right times, if the algorithms were designed for that instead of for behavioral manipulation. You wouldn't go to the store, see a rack of 150 different varieties of deodorant, and read the data for each one. You would specify your requirements and see a short list of options, with the principal component of the remaining differences emphasized in the displayed statistics.

More effort is put into seductive advertising than would be required to build and present empirical analyses of fundamental product attributes, despite the perception of complexity.

To address your final paragraph, products that offer no meaningful distinction from their competition would die, while those that are truly useful (even for highly subjective definitions of "useful", like "fashionable") would thrive.