Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by DanAndersen 3979 days ago
Shamelessly reposting an earlier comment of mine (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9909259) because I feel it's relevant here:

---

>For quite some time I've felt that advertising/marketing, at least the sort we've had for the past century or so, is inherently immoral. The fact that it's a necessary evil in our economic system doesn't stop it from being an evil.

>Modern advertising is not merely informing people about products and what they do. It's brain-hacking, where advertisers have figured out over decades of experience, and research into human cognitive biases and failure modes, ways of presenting the same product, the same information, but getting a desired response out of the target.

>We accept this as a society because we tell ourselves that, as rational human beings, we have the choice to listen to or reject these messages. But modern understandings of cognitive biases show how advertising works on deeper levels, and even works despite us knowing about the tricks that are being used on us.

>The problem is that there's a severe imbalance. Advertisers are getting better and better at attacking -- at figuring out precisely what makes us tick, down to the level of pixels on an A/B-tested website. Are people getting any better at defending themselves? Are people being trained in dealing with their cognitive biases to make themselves resistant? Overall, I don't think so.

5 comments

That's a great comment. And you hit the nail on the head with the imbalance, advertisers have had ~100 years to get better at their job, a newly born human has just about 0 chance to successfully defend themselves against the onslaught. It's analogue to VCs that have done 100's of deals dancing with first-time founders.
Advertising today is fundamentally about denying us the chance to listen to and reject messages. When someone's pushing a product on the rational part of our brains, it looks like Amazon's recommended list - features and a price, presented in the faith that we really do want the product.

Radio, TV, and web advertising, by contrast, all share the assumption that most people won't actually benefit from what's being presented (at least, won't benefit more than they would from some equivalent good). As such, the task is to ensure that we're preferentially aware of one brand or product, regardless of its merits.

Your last point is the scary one. Most people have no training of any sort in defending against cognitive failures. Most people's "can't trick me" tools amount to checking unit prices and serving sizes - hardly a strong defense against the combined wisdom of advertisers.

There's a real argument that modern advertising is basically an information hazard. Just hearing a product name a dozen times biases us regardless of our conscious efforts.

I wish you would explain how advertising is "inherently immoral".

But before you do, I'll explain why I disagree.

Advertising is selling ideas. You are selling an idea right now. Just because your idea doesn't make you any money doesn't make it any more inherently moral or immoral.

The old cliche, time is money, is basically true. People are trying to maximize their time and more specifically, the value they get from their time.

That's why a cheeseburger commercial works! People like cheeseburgers and they consider the value of their time to be maximized while eating one (versus not eating or eating something else).

If there was no food advertising at all, do you really think people would eat so much differently? I'm sure they would care less about the brand. But are some cheeseburgers more evil than other cheeseburgers?

Also, do you not think people get better and worse at self-control? The advertisers are adjusting their "attacks" (quite a harsh word) because the same marketing doesn't work forever. People adjust their defenses. They develop new weaknesses and strengths.

When I was young and broke, advertising NEVER worked on me. Now it works on me all the time because I have money to spend. I hear McDonald's commercials all the time but I hate their food (except the fries), so I don't go there.

The companies who produce advertisements and the share holders who pressure those companies are made up of regular people. Those people are trying to maximize the value of their time just like you are. Their advertising messages serve to do just that.

That's not "inherently immoral" in my view.

Just because your idea doesn't make you any money doesn't make it any more inherently moral or immoral. It puts things at a moral deficit, at least. (In other words, it's not necessarily immoral, but it does mean there's ground to make up)

People are trying to maximize their time and more specifically, the value they get from their time. You're treating this as not having moral weight/impact. This isn't a neutral statement to encourage.

But are some cheeseburgers more evil than other cheeseburgers? Yes.

The advertisers are adjusting their "attacks" (quite a harsh word) because the same marketing doesn't work forever. People adjust their defenses. They develop new weaknesses and strengths. This behavior is most notably seen elsewhere in biology. It's not as positive of a comparison as I think you intend to make.

The companies who produce advertisements and the share holders who pressure those companies are made up of regular people. System effects are pretty uncontroversially a thing. What one person does in isolation can be very different in impact from an aggregate of people able to bring vast resources to bear is able to do. One person with a gun and a goal is a robbery. One nation with guns and a goal is an invasion.

Advertising would have a better claim at moral neutrality if it were explicitly opt-in. Not You're on this site, so you implicitly give permission to be bombarded with ads, but "Would you like to see an ad about X? Here you go, a one-time ad about X."

The concept of privacy extending to bodily autonomy isn't super-controversial. There shouldn't be an exclusion of the mind from the body either. Minimizing external 'mental subroutines' is a virtuous goal.

Your opt-in point is a powerful one, because it's not actually countered by the intuitive "but no one would do that".

Amazon's "Recommended for you" page is pretty good, and it's shown me some products I'm glad to own. If we imagine that model on steroids - a carefully cultivated webpage of products I want - I would check it regularly. Just a list of products with text and (optional) video explaining their features and why they're valuable to me.

If buying product X for Y dollars will improve my life, tell me and I'll do it consciously. The evil of advertising, then, is that every appeal to emotion, urgency, or social pressure is an implication that buying product X <i>isn't</i> going to improve my life, or at least that I should be prevented from deciding that rationally.

Modern advertising is a horrible combination of poor targeting and a race to the bottom.

You're going a lot deeper than I am with this.

Do you feel your mind is being controlled by advertisements? Because mine is not.

Maybe I'm some weird exception and maybe you think I'm naive. That's fine.

I'm going to advertise a YouTube video. It's just over 2 minutes in length and shows one reason why some people dislike advertisements of any sort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--LIrN-5PQo

>Advertising is selling ideas.

More often it's advertising products and in a way that's manipulative.

>The companies who produce advertisements and the share holders who pressure those companies are made up of regular people. Those people are trying to maximize the value of their time just like you are.

That doesn't make their actions moral. A person robbing me to maximize the value of their time doesn't justify their action.

I believe if three people come in to my restaurant and ask for fish tacos, it is an inherently moral thing for me to begin selling fish tacos. Furthermore, it is inherently moral for me to advertise that I have started selling fish tacos so everyone else will know.
I agree to both of your points [0], but you ignore a third. What about people who have already heard you are selling fish tacos, don't care, and want you to shut up? Or people who have preemptively decided that they don't want to hear any advertisements for fish tacos, due to allergies, they simply don't care to hear about fish tacos.

How long should they hear that you are selling fish tacos before deciding to avoid you? Should they ever have to hear you advertising your fish tacos?

Note that I said "avoid you" and not "prevent you from advertising your fish tacos". You're free to advertise to other people - but people who have decided they want nothing to do with fish tacos should be free to avoid you.

You provide no compelling reason for why people not interested in fish tacos shouldn't be able to avoid you and your fish taco advertisements.

[0] For the sake of argument I'll consider that selling fish tacos to people who desire fish tacos to be a morally just decision and entertain the thought that other people want fish tacos who may not have heard you are selling fish tacos, and thus benefit from your advertisement is also moral. Morals are relative and so nothing is "inherently moral" though I don't want to confuse you by disagreeing with you on this point.

I guess that's just tough for them.

I can tell you where anti-capitalistic thinking ends up and its not with everyone having more control over what propaganda they are bombarded with--just fewer sources.

Which is where it becomes "inherently immoral".

We have the means to make advertisers shut up without actually silencing them. They're free to advertise to other people still.

Exposure to more and more sophisticated media is bandied about as a potential explanation of the Flynn effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Generally_more_st...

I completely disagree and I find your choice of words - "it's too deep for you", "it's tricking you!", "it's eeevil!" to be distasteful. Seems like a political ad for going to the "righteous side" of being against ads.

There has been only one brand that I can recall to have bought because of "hidden" advertising. Budweiser. I used to see the characters from my favorite series drinking it while eating pizza or other delicious food, and whenever I passed by it in the market I had this feeling that it seemed to taste real good. It's piss. I have never bought it again, and I was fully conscious that I thought it was good because I established a relation between it and people I like eating food I like while drinking it. Even if I had not seen this relation, I would not mind. I for one do not want to see the day when trying to sell your fish the best you can - without deceive - becomes immoral or illegal. Before someone says I'm being "tricked in a deeper level" and buying other stuff without noticing, I don't pick brands. I pick whatever is cheaper at the moment since I'm both frugal and unemployed.

>Before someone says I'm being "tricked in a deeper level" and buying other stuff without noticing, I don't pick brands.

"My, my, that's a spicy meatball"

It was an alka seltzer commercial, didn't help with their sales, but sales of spaghetti supposedly increased at the time. Just because the advertising didn't work for its intended purpose doesn't mean the advertising didn't work on you. The manufacture selling the ad wants you to go to the store and think about fish because there is a good chance you will buy their product. The manufacture buying expensive ads also tends to have the bright colored boxes in the store, they are placed at eye level, there are likely other ad campaigns in the store to direct you to their product. In the end there is a higher probability of 'an average person' buying their product over the other brands. The other fish brands get sales benefit at their competitors expense.

> There has been only one brand that I can recall to have bought because of "hidden" advertising.

If you recall it, then they did not do a very good job at hiding it, right?