| ▲ | x187463 4 hours ago |
| I've always been frustrated by the intense focus the modern economy has on advertising. If I am interested in a product, I would much rather discover it by searching. Having advertisements forced upon me at every turn is a massive waste of resources (time and attention) given only a fraction of a percent of the products have any relevance to my life. I block every form of advertising I can reasonably block. If a company raises the friction sufficiently, I'll find a way around it. I'm mostly an amoral participant in the economy. I pay for YouTube, Disney, etc. but if they make giving them money an unpleasant experience, I have no qualms employing a usenet subscription and *arr stack to dodge the whole thing. |
|
| ▲ | riskable 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I actively/mentally block products I see in ads now. For example, when I use Amazon's terrible search feature, I'll make a mental note of which listings are "sponsored" and make sure NOT to buy them. Ever, if possible. When I see ads for things on YouTube, I automatically assume it's a scam... Because it almost always is! |
| |
| ▲ | Vaushite 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The YouTube sponsor situation is actually crazy, I think 100% of them have turned out to be either scams or just very overpriced. Even ones that sounded reasonable, like Ground News, and VPNs. | | |
| ▲ | Guid_NewGuid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's why I don't get viewers getting angry with a creator for taking a specific sponsor. YouTube sponsorships are basically an advisory not to buy a product. It's like an anti-advert in a sense. Something appears in a sponsorship, that thing is definitely bad even if we don't know why yet. | |
| ▲ | busymom0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What happened with ground news? | | |
| ▲ | Vaushite 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ground News presents you a "balanced" news diet by presenting you with two sides that are implied to be equally valid. Except one of the sides is just (relatively accurate) plain old news and the other side largely consists of institutions who publish a lot of nonsense and paid Ground News to be there, or have ownership in common with Ground News. Their target audience is people who were mostly consuming the first group before (not a single Ground News ad was ever run to an audience aligned with the second group) and the purpose is to make them gradually accept the second group as equals to the first group. Also it doesn't actually show you the news. It just shows you links to news sites that you need to be separately subscribed to if you want to read them, so in that sense you're just not getting the product you probably thought you were getting (access to balanced news), so it's a double scam. There's video essays about this on YouTube of course since that's where Ground News was mainly advertised. | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What could possibly go wrong with a (I think) VC funded news aggregator that becomes your authority on what "Right" vs "Left" thought is and how to interpret a bunch of news without actually reading any of it? Where could that possibly end up causing problems? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | potatototoo99 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Modern advertising is not meant for product discovery, but for the incumbents to make sure you associate "burger" with "McDonalds" at a subconscious level. |
| |
| ▲ | tomrod 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've always doubted the veracity here attributed to advertising. There have been few, if any, advertisements that make me think someone's consumable product is best, category defining, or otherwise meaningful. When you dig into advertising model attribution, there aren't a whole lot of signals that the way we currently jam advertising down people's throats actually sells more things. | | |
| ▲ | nswizzle31 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’re missing the subconscious part. You make associations you’re unaware of and you choose the product without thinking. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it and it wouldn’t be the cornerstone of the internet economy. No one is immune. | | |
| ▲ | tomrod an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, I am quite aware of the assertion of subliminality and alleged subconscious coercion. To borrow from Sagan: I could similarly claim that a dragon lived in your garage. You would rightly be doubtful and expect proof of said claims. I'll leave the rest of that gem for you to read if you haven't before (one of my favorites!). |
| |
| ▲ | lazycouchpotato an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Watching this video about how marketers influenced traditions changed my perspective on just how powerful advertising is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWjeM5ltv8 | | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > there aren't a whole lot of signals that the way we currently jam advertising down people's throats actually sells more things. It's a useless tax of human economic activity. It fulfills the same purpose as tree trunks of trees in the forest. And it's similarly expesive for companies and for everyone else around. It should be mostly banned and replaced with state sposored directory of goods and services available at the national market. | | |
| ▲ | tomrod an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sort of. More than a tax, its a memetic pollution of the marketplace. At least a collected tax can be used as funds by a government of some form. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ninth_ant an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don’t believe this is an actual goal of brand advertising. Instead it the goal is to bump up the concept of the brand into your short-term memory, and perhaps as a bonus to associate that with positive emotion or at the very least to normalize the brand. Later when you are making a purchasing decision, the brand is more present in your mind and makes it a more likely outcome. Of course this is more complicated and nefarious when the brand’s products are addictive or have addictive-like qualities, which arguably includes McDonald’s. | |
| ▲ | greatvaluebrand 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I couldn’t begin the hazard to guess how much advertising spend is actually just a way to buy editorial rights over the content, but that number is definitely not zero. | |
| ▲ | fallingbananna 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In that sense, isn't it "anti-discovery"? The goal is to replace your "best hamburgers in X-city" search by just defaulting to McDonalds. | | | |
| ▲ | Jcampuzano2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And interestingly enough, the last place I would ever want to get a burger nowadays is McDonald's. | | | |
| ▲ | busssard 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | i associate McDonalds with Burger.
But not the other way around.
If i want burger i look on GoogleMaps for the best rated BurgerJoint around me | |
| ▲ | 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | TheCapn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am working hard to manage my mental model when shopping now to try and minimize this affect knowing it exists. In a sense I've realized my mentality toward the world is less of "what brands are good?" and more of "how is this company trying to fuck me over?" and then moving from that mentality forward. So when I'm out shopping I see brands that I've found advertised. I see brands I've never heard of. I look at both. But what one is selling products that are fully accessible to me, fully owned by me? Which ones use online features that can/will eventually be stripped and put behind a a subscription model? What ones are using quality manufacturing materials? Which ones are using cheap plastics or vaneers? Which ones have local brick and mortar presence where I can take issues in person? For instance, there's a very heavy Costco effect to my shopping. I've bought products from brands I'm pretty iffy on because I know Costco is going to take that return with no fuss if I get it home and discover there's something about that product I find distasteful. And I should say that I'm not a very big consumer. Trying to do this a lot, buying for a family (kids, spouse, etc.) could quickly become overwhelming. I know how exhausting it is to need to read labels every time you're buying food because how often they enshittify the recipe, adding thickeners or allergens that weren't there the last time you bought it. It won't work for everyone but the answer really is the same thing its always been: Be a conscious consumer. Research what you want before you buy. Know what is worth spending extra on, and what is marketing nonsense. Find companies with positive reputation (but still be observant for how you can be fucked when they sell out next year), and try to support local. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then they have failed miserably. I absolutely do not associate burger/McDonalds. That's disgusting. But continuing your point, I've associated Clydesdale horses with a shitty beer that I'll never drink. I've associated polar bears with a nasty soft drink that I never drink. So maybe advertising is working for me in that I know where not to spend my money. |
|
|
| ▲ | reliablereason an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ads don't necessarily work through the use of "reason". They work because you are infinity percent more likely to buy something you know exists vs something you don't know exists. |
|
| ▲ | deanc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You live in a bubble. There is a huge amount of the population who are happy to get their brain rot (of all ages by the way, even pensioners) interspersed with ads. And it works. I recently saw my mother's facebook feed and it completely explains all the random shit she's bought off sketchy dropshipping sites lately. I tried to hide a bunch of it but the problem is as soon as she interacts with anything ever again it'll pop back up. She doesn't see the harm, doesn't want to stop and enjoys it. |
| |
| ▲ | prism56 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I can relate to this. I run a whole network DNS adblocker and my wife made me whitelist her phone so it's freeeee | |
| ▲ | busssard 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | are there adblockers for feeds?
i dont understand why there are not ways to do that. Both on android and web. | | |
| ▲ | deanc 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There is nothing for that on iOS at least. And there are extensions for desktop that do stuff like this, but facebook has banned the author and some users of said extension. So make of that what you will... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | FranOntanaya 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Always puzzled me how much money can possibly be in trying to optimize sales by some low digit percentage points, versus how much is sacrificed for it. |
| |
| ▲ | riskable 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem is that advertising works! I hate that it works! Marketing and advertising aren't the same thing but I swear both sides of that coin have devolved via some process of carcinization where their claws emerge from the darkness everywhere people gather. Especially places where those claws are inappropriate and unwanted and yet it still works. | | |
| ▲ | tomrod 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think it actually works very well at the rate the big companies use it. I think for a Mom & Pop trying to build some form of brand recognition in their small community, it gets people informed. But persuasive convincing, the mind control target that marketers claim to be able to drive? Nah. | |
| ▲ | apocalyptic0n3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, people in our line of work tend to look down on it and don't understand it because we discover things more manually. But that's not the case with the vast majority of people. Advertising works and it works really, really well. | | |
| ▲ | Vaushite 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We do not "discover things more manually", whatever that means. Statistically, the more someone thinks they're not affected by advertising, the more they're actually affected by advertising in reality. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It works in the same way that the mafia prevents your store from being wrecked. |
|
|