There are two kinds of advertising. I will call them "scarcity advertising" and "abundance advertising".

Scarcity advertising is, for example, "Joe's grocery now has cantaloupes" (back in the day when cantaloupes were not available all year). It's information - something is now available that wasn't available before.

Abundance advertising is, for example, "The Chevrolet SomeHotCar will give you an exciting life like the people in this ad. Don't you want that?" As someone put it (wish I remember who, I would give credit): "[This kind of] advertising attempts to make the person you are envy the person you could be with their product. In other words, it attempts to steal your satisfaction and then offers to sell it back to you."

The first kind of advertising is useful. The second is abusive.

We could always allow opt-in advertising (“send me your monthly/weekly/whatever catalog”) and ban the unsolicited kind. This could extend to asking for things like trade magazines or email newsletters or what have you.

Useful kind preserved, evil kind squashed.

Usually the second type is called “brand advertising”. The idea is to create a positive association with a brand and not expect you to take any immediate action. The first type maybe “action advertising” (I’ve heard other terms).

Most advertising is actually the first type.

I have run hundreds of millions in advertising dollars for dozens of companies. The vast majority of ad spend is the former category.

There are two kinds of advertising. One kind slaps you in the face at the least expected moment. The other kind is like the yellow pages which you open whenever you need something.

Is the first kind of advertising useful? It seems like there are better ways to obtain that information, like, for example a search. The benefit being that I only am presented with that information if I actually need/want cantaloups

But now I want a cantaloupe and beforehand I didn't, and I'm slightly less happy and satisfied with this lack of cantaloupe that I now viscerally feel.

Whilst I'm at the grocery store is the appropriate time to work out that cantaloupe is an option.

Not in the middle of watching a cricket match.

> The first kind of advertising is useful.

What utility does the first sort of advertising have? At best it seems non-abusive, but it still clogs up our brains with crap we don't need and didn't ask for.

How about an ad (assuming an honest product, since this thread is clearly about ads as such) in a remote village saying "get a work visa to Europe/US, you could live like these people with higher living standards!"

People who were quite happy being subsistence farmers are now aware, or much more aware, of the possibility of higher living standards. Doesn't seem immoral to me. Why would a car ad be immoral then? Perhaps it will improve the average purchasers life? I say it someone who is quite happy with a 15yo Honda Fit :)