Is Advertisement Bad?

TheHedoMinimalist

I want to discuss the goodness or badness of fully unsolicited advertisements specifically like commercials. Here are some arguments for and against ads that I have thought about.

<<For Advertisement>>

Free Stuff on The Internet Argument: it may be argued that ads are good because they primarily fund almost all free services on the Internet. Everything from social media sites to YouTube to porn sites to torrent sites. Without advertisement, many popular free sites wouldn’t exist or would cost money. I think the effectiveness of this argument is dependent on whether or not it’s worth having our online privacy exposed in order to have access to social media and whether or not the benefits of social media outweigh the harms in general. It also is probably largely dependent on whether or not having access to free porn is good or bad. I tend to think that if someone greatly enjoys social media then it’s kinda hard to argue that them having access to it is bad just because their data will be used for targeted advertisement. I honestly never understood what the big deal was with that. I also never understood what the other alleged downsides of social media are. Though, I actually don’t like to use social media myself because I think it’s boring. I do enjoy porn very much though. But, I actually think it’s much easier to argue that free porn is bad for the world though. I think there is probably a lot of shady practices and abuse in the industry. Being exposed to porn at a young age is probably problematic for many people. FSOTI argument is compelling to me as a defense of advertisement because I really like YouTube and free porn but on a worldwide level I think it kinda fails to be super convincing.

Economic Stimulation Argument: it may be argued that ads stimulate economies. They create jobs in the ad industry. They arguably increase demand for certain products and that arguably creates even more jobs and that arguably makes our economy better. I would say that economic stimulus has some value but I’m not sure if it’s too worthwhile to make our economy larger by giving people desires for stuff they probably don’t need in their life. So, I think it’s a weak argument at best.

<<Against Advertisement>>

“They are Annoying” Argument: this argument is simple. Ads are annoying and that makes them bad. I think this argument is pretty solid but it’s arguably kinda weak. Many people might say that annoyances are such minor harms that the arguments for advertisement provide a greater consideration.

Waste of Resources Argument: ads arguably lead to resources being wasted in our society in several ways. The first way is that they seem to do that is by creating demand for products that are not particularly useful to people. The thing that comes to mind is the excessively luxurious things that don’t seem to have a good value to price ratio like diamond necklace and caviar. In addition, it can be argued that companies collectively needing to spend money on ads either makes products more expensive or poorer in quality. I think this is a very strong argument against ads.

Borderline Scams Argument: it seems that many borderline scam companies are largely dependent on ads for their success. The kind of stuff you see in infomercial type ads and porn ads are perfect examples of this. This seems to obviously be a bad thing. But, it could be argued that ads should just get regulated better and they are not inherently bad.

I think this is enough arguments to start a discussion. I would say that the arguments against ads are stronger.

Apollodorus

I would say that the arguments against ads are stronger — TheHedoMinimalist

I think so too. In most cases it's just some people trying to make money out of you. And of course, ads are also used to manipulate people for political and other hidden agendas. So, I would say about 90% of ads are no good and most of them should be banned. We get bombarded with too much information as it is, so the last thing we need is ads.

tim wood

What I would like to see is a set of laws that make misstatements of facts - lies - actionable on terms that favor the plaintiff. At all levels of society. Your widget is the best and does X, Y, and Z? Well, it had better be the best and it had better do X, Y, and Z.

And the penalties such that nobody will want to even come near lying. To be sure, in some cases these laws already exist, but the cases are difficult and expensive to mount, and the penalties uncertain - and that could be changed.

unenlightened

What I would like to see is a set of laws that make misstatements of facts - lies - actionable on terms that favor the plaintiff. At all levels of society. Your widget is the best and does X, Y, and Z? Well, it had better be the best and it had better do X, Y, and Z. — tim wood

That is the law in the UK more or less. But it doesn't work very well because

Incomplete sentences - because what doesn't quite make sense is not quite a lie. Eleven out of ten. People we asked, agreed. (and they're worth it.)

Most advertising works by inducing social anxiety about smells that everyone else smells except you, disgusting bits of your body like hair or any kind of mark, or sofas or kitchens that expose you to the sniggering contempt of your neighbours. But now, Dr Foul's unique Spice will cure all your worries in just one puff. The neighbours will have to project their anxiety onto someone else when you become a spaced out zombie with Dr Foul's all new Spice.

TheMadFool

I do enjoy porn very much though. — TheHedoMinimalist

:rofl: This is the highlight of my day! Kindred spirits sharing their darkest secrets on a public forum. :rofl:

Jokes aside, advertisements seem to be a very significant aspect of life in the so-called civilized world tailored along the lines of European and American (US) ones. If I'm not mistaken, my hunch is, living in Europe or America means coming into contact with at least one adveritsement every day and sometimes more. Such a frequency of advertisement to people contact indicates, to me, the magnitude of the phenomenon - to those who think nothing of it or treat it as a non-issue, the apt response seems to be, "it's a serious!" or "this ain't a joke!" That said, those who talk like that might be making a mountain of a mole hill.

Insofar as the dark side of commercials go, all that concerns me is the alleged nexus between psychologists and ad creators or if such is a mere myth, the psyhcological aspects of ads. I'm sure anyone can connect the dots as to what I'm implying here.

Now, the good of ads. A few words should suffice to again point in the general direction of how I feel about the matter. Creativity (I hear there's a premium on it), Cultural value (ads are short snippets of culture), Satire (pokes fun at established customs/norms past/present), Education (some ads seem to be based on facts/truths), so on.

Kenosha Kid

I think this is enough arguments to start a discussion. I would say that the arguments against ads are stronger. — TheHedoMinimalist

I'm not sure I'd agree, but then the strongest argument against advertising that I can see is not enumerated: it's impact on health, both physical (junk food cues) and mental (anxious materialism).

TheHedoMinimalist

I'm not sure I'd agree, but then the strongest argument against advertising that I can see is not enumerated: it's impact on health, both physical (junk food cues) and mental (anxious materialism). — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, I forgot to include that argument. Though, I do think there is a decent response that supporters of ads can give to this argument. It could be argued that healthy food products get advertised just as much as junk food and if you dispute that claim then they could still argue that the reason they don’t get advertised as often is because junk food has a greater pre-advertisement demand to begin with. If junk food has a greater pre-ad demand then ads seemingly make no difference on the demand for junk food because people would still be mostly buying junk food even if it never got advertised. Another point that could be made is to point out the example of illegal drugs. They never seem to get advertised and there are actually ads warning about the dangers of those drugs. Nonetheless, it’s not clear if the lack of ads for illegal drugs does much to reduce the demand for those drugs.

As far as anxious materialism goes, I think that’s definitely a downside to ads but it’s not clear to what extent this is actually a big problem. I have personally never heard of any actual person who has what I would describe as anxious materialism and I certainly never seen anyone seemingly need professional help for it. One could speculate that this issue doesn’t get recognized by society or the psychological establishment because we live in a society that wants to indoctrinate people into believing that being a big consumer is always good but I’m not entirely convinced by that myself. There seems to be a great deal of recognition of the phenomenon of reckless spending and taking on too much credit card debt which does seem to show that there is a general social disapproval of excessive consumption. It could also be argued by the opponent of ads that this sort of thing is caused by anxious consumerism. But, it seems that it’s more likely to be caused by people trying to alleviate their boredom or depression by going shopping. Anecdotally, I haven’t seen where anxiety about how much stuff you own really contributes much to this. In addition, I think anxious consumerism would still exist if ads never existed and it could be argued that ads make up only a small increase in anxious consumerism. Though, I suppose it could also be argued that ads help encourage people to use shopping to alleviate their boredom or depression and it doesn’t particularly matter what the precise cause of reckless spending is. We could argue against ads either way. I think that this argument is strongest when focused on reckless spending but that seems to fall more into my Waste of Resources Argument as we probably spend too much money on things we wouldn’t ever want without ads.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪TheHedoMinimalist

There's so many variables it's hard if not impossible to say.

When I think of the people in my life, particularly the women, shopping brings them so much happiness - and advertising encourages this behaviour that brings happiness.

Even people that have no interest in material things, would be unhappier upon losing free sites such as Youtube and porn sites. Some people that are depressed etc, having nothing else to live for.

Jack Cummins

↪TheHedoMinimalist

I think that advertising affects us on a subliminal level, but not just in terms of specific products, but with a whole set of values about what is desirable. It is about having the 'perfect' body, and home, lifestyle and a whole underlying rhetoric of consumer materialism. Adverts are extremely entertaining, and appear so often to those who watch television. I am not someone who watches much television at all, but I am sure that many people do, and, for this reason, adverts are a hidden subtext, affecting what people expect and seek in life.

NOS4A2

Advertisement is fine and harmless. It only provides information. It lets others know of the existence of your product or service, which is almost necessary these days because awareness of your product is the first step to selling it.

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact on someone’s health.

But there is a fine line between advertisement and graffiti.

BC

↪TheHedoMinimalist

To a large extent, advertising is the program. The drama you like to watch, the magazine or newspaper you like to read, the social media you check every 30 seconds, the porn--all that is the bait.

Newspapers were sustained by advertising. It was advertisers' shift to the internet that killed off many newspapers. Content costs money, whether it is news, high quality science and dramatic material, or soap operas. Where is the cost of production going to come from? It's either advertising or frequent pledge drives and government grants. Take your pick.

There is, apparently, a debate among economists about whether or not advertising is worth its costs to sellers. When you confront a laundry detergent display, which product do you buy? Do you go on price alone, the packaging, the brand, or your last experience with the product? If you just want a cheap, reasonably effective soap, advertising won't sway you much. Most people, though, are influenced by product packaging and advertising. Brands and reputation matter.

Maybe laundry soap isn't your thing. What about shoes, clothing, and electronic items? Autos? Bikes? Music? How are people's strong preferences formed? Most people are looking for more than mere functionality.

Advertising a holiday sale is one thing; building up a taste for a certain kind of product (Nike instead of an off-brand; Toyota vs. Ford; Apple vs. Acer...)

BC

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact someone’s health. — NOS4A2

True enough, but only in the short run; It's not an irresistible force. In the long run, advertising can shape what people desire, what they think they need, what they like. Steady pressure applied over time.

There are differences between commodity production and consumer production. If your company makes electric switches, a catalog of products is all you need. If other manufacturers find your switches to be cost effective and reliable, nothing more needs to be done. Advertising is part of the overhead of consumer production. It is quite counter-productive to make a new consumer product without planning for its promotion.

Tzeentch

What I dislike about advertisement is that the way ads try to influence people is manipulative, almost a form of "mind control". The people making the advertisements know their target audiences better than those audiences know themselves.

Unless one is very conscious of advertisement, their messages find their way into one's subconsciousness whether one wants them there or not.

NOS4A2

↪Bitter Crank

Yes, very true. I’m my own industry I rely on word of mouth.

I just can’t get over the metaphors, though. What do we mean by phrases like “shape what people desire”? Advertisements are not like hands and we like clay. When a man sees an advertisement that is the end of the interaction. Everything after that—whether he decides to buy the product or forgets about it—is caused by the man.

praxis

When a man sees an advertisement that is the end of the interaction. Everything after that—whether he decides to buy the product or forgets about it—is caused by the man. — NOS4A2

Man is persuaded by an advertisement to purchase a product or service that has particular attributes for what he judges to be a reasonable price, but, further along the interactive buying process he finds that the deal wasn’t as advertised. Every touch point between a business and customer is an interaction, in other words, hence the importance of consistency in branding/advertising.

Nils Loc

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact on someone’s health. — NOS4A2

Advertisement, as appearances (eg. sexual selection), might have shaped more species than we can count. Don't advertisers hands/minds shape advertisements?

Sight/perception does not mediate action (force) of choice? It has no bearing on whether you bump into a pole or fall down a well, whether you go to grocery storer #1 or #2.

Is a colorful fig in some jungle an advertisement for the animals who eat figs?

TheHedoMinimalist

I think that advertising affects us on a subliminal level, but not just in terms of specific products, but with a whole set of values about what is desirable. It is about having the 'perfect' body, and home, lifestyle and a whole underlying rhetoric of consumer materialism. — Jack Cummins

I agree. I think most people have too many redundant and useless gadgets that they don’t need. For example, I always wonder why anyone would own an iPhone and an IPad and an Apple Watch when I think the IPhone pretty much makes the other gadgets redundant.

TheHedoMinimalist

What I dislike about advertisement is that the way ads try to influence people is manipulative, almost a form of "mind control". The people making the advertisements know their target audiences better than those audiences know themselves.

Unless one is very conscious of advertisement, their messages find their way into one's subconsciousness whether one wants them there or not. — Tzeentch

I’d have to disagree with that. Most ads that I view on a daily basis on YouTube seem to be terribly out of touch with my personality. For example, the ads are extremely irritating to me to the point that I literally turn off my headphones to avoid listening to them because I’m driving and can’t skip the ad. They like to ear rape with sudden loud noises for some reason as well. In addition, they often give off a scammy vibe when they talk about “the secrets that the industry doesn’t want you to know” and “I’m going some kind of a secret trick”. That just rubs me the wrong way. I kinda think most advertisers are kinda moronic. They seem to be better at pissing people off than actually getting people to trust them and want to buy their product. What I think would actually be a convincing style of ads is quick and purely factual type ads like “are you looking for a new place that give your car an oil change? Well, we have a tire shop in your that you can check out”. That kind of ad is short and simple and they aren’t trying to say that they are the best company or even a good company. Rather, they let you make your own judgement about the company. I kinda think this builds trust and this makes the ad more effective.

On the other hand, maybe over-selling yourself works really well on some people. I once did a social experiment on a dating app where I made what I thought was an obvious “too good to be true catfishy type” fake profile. It included a photo that looked like it was a photo of a male model that was produced in a studio that I found with a quick Google search and I created a cheesy persona for that guy that he was an outgoing country boy(which is very popular where I live) who likes hiking and camping and is only looking for a gal to eventually marry and have children with. Surprisingly, I got a shit ton of likes from women (more than what my actual honest profile would have ever gotten). The women really seemed convinced by this obviously fake profile. So, I guess many people are gullible. It’s hard for me to say for sure though because I don’t consider myself to be unusually smart or good at not getting manipulated or tricked. So, theoretically, if ads don’t seem to work on me then they shouldn’t work much on others either.

NOS4A2

↪Nils Loc

Advertisement, as appearances (eg. sexual selection), might have shaped more species than we can count. Don't advertisers hands/minds shape advertisements?

Sight/perception does not mediate action (force) of choice? It has no bearing on whether you bump into a pole or fall down a well, whether you go to grocery storer #1 or #2.

Is a colorful fig in some jungle an advertisement for the animals who eat figs?

From the moment the light reflecting off an advertisement hits the lens of the human eye it is manipulated by the human body. The advertisement first must be brought into focus, seen, the symbols and images upon it scanned, understood, long before the product itself is considered. At no point in this interaction or any other is the advertisement acting upon the human body, unless it falls on someone’s toe. If the advertisement cannot act upon the human body, how can it shape minds?

Nils Loc

If the advertisement cannot act upon the human body, how can it shape minds? — NOS4A2

Isn't this comparable to saying words that form concepts in the minds of people have no possible effect on the actions of those people. Language does not shape minds? Neither can visual stimuli move us. Specific orchids can not dupe wasps (mindlessly) to mate and therefore disperse their pollen?

You don't think a young child, who has had a McDonalds Happy Meal and a toy, would not see a giant McDonalds billboard and then start crying out for McDonalds. But yet this advertisement does not cause anything to happen? What is advertising for if it doesn't do anything.

praxis

A 2000 study* examined data on tobacco consumption from 22 member countries of the Organization for Economic Development and Development (OECD) from 1970 to 1992. The research confirmed that tobacco advertising increases consumption, comprehensive advertising bans reduce consumption, and that partial bans have little or no effect. OECD countries with comprehensive advertising and promotion bans experienced a 7.4 percent reduction in smoking and a 5.4 percent reduction in overall tobacco consumption.

* Saffer, H. Tobacco Advertising and Promotion. In: Jha P, Chaploupka F, editors. Tobacco Control in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 2000. p. 215-236.

NOS4A2

↪Nils Loc

Isn't this comparable to saying words that form concepts in the minds of people have no possible effect on the actions of those people. Language does not shape minds? Neither can visual stimuli move us. Orchids can not dupe wasps (mindlessly) to target disperse their pollen?

You don't thing a young child, who has had a McDonalds Happy Meal and a toy, would not see a giant McDonalds billboard and then start crying out for McDonalds. But the advertisement does not cause anything to happen.

If words were able to form concepts in the minds of people we would understand a foreign language simply by reading or hearing it. Rather, one has to do the required work, put in the effort, and shape his own mind before he can utilize words. In a sense, the mind shapes the language, not the other way about.

Well yes, a young child who associates McDonalds Happy Meals with tasty food and toys will no doubt see an advertisement and remind himself of the association. But one who cannot associate it, perhaps because he does not know what McDonalds is or how their Happy Meals taste, will be unable to make that association. In each case the cause of these different effects is the child, not the words.

praxis

If words were able to form concepts in the minds of people we would understand a foreign language simply by reading or hearing it. — NOS4A2

Unless it's learning by brail or olfactorily, we do learn a foreign language by reading and/or hearing.

In a sense, the mind shapes the language, not the other way about. — NOS4A2

Our neural pathways are constantly being rewired or reinforced, and our memory is auto-associative.

Well yes, a young child who associates McDonalds Happy Meals with tasty food and toys will no doubt see an advertisement and remind himself of the association. But one who cannot associate it, perhaps because he does not know what McDonalds is or how their Happy Meals taste, will be unable to make that association. In each case the cause of these different effects is the child, not the words. — NOS4A2

If McDonalds did no branding/advertising then in both cases no association would be made. It's highly unlikely that a billboard plainly displaying "Food next exit" would inspire much enthusiasm from a young child.

Mikie

Advertisement has done untold harm. It's gotten worse with time. Less about information about a product, more about flashiness -- use of sex appeal, "catchy" jingles, slogans, etc. Repeated over and over again, this effects our psychology in many ways. Plenty of studies on this. It goes right along with the public relations industry, Edward Bernays and others: ways to influence the public by creating wants and swaying opinion.

True, we can continue with the delusion that it's all about individual choice and that advertisement isn't to blame -- but that's a complete joke. Advertisement, like other kinds of manipulation -- propaganda -- most certainly has effects, and not for the better.

Leghorn

The main personal way I perceive advertisement on tv as bad is that it detracts from the actual programming, the thing we turned it on to see in the first place.

I turn the tv on to watch the French Open men’s tennis semifinal b/w Djokovic and Nadal. First I have to endure the big build up by the commentators who want this to be the most epic of all tennis matches, who shove various information down my throat about their past meetings, their records against each other on various surfaces, their paths to this point in the tournament, the details of their personal lives and how they might bear on this match, etc, etc...

...then, after the match actually begins, between games I am bombarded with ads. These don’t last long of course, because there is a definite time limit, rare in tv advertising, measured by the time on the court that the players have to rest between games. Nevertheless, during that break I don’t get to see the players sitting in the chairs, don’t get to observe their countenances, demeanors, and judge how the match is going from that. Nor do I get to observe a player’s comments to the chair-umpire during that break, or their interactions with the crowd or ball boys/girls, etc. All these little missed details might add much to the entertainment.

The ideal television broadcast puts you there, where it is being broadcast, showing you everything that is happening, from where you are somewhere far away. That is what the word television means: seeing from afar. Our commercial society, however, has passively accepted this conspiracy whereby the most ads, and most expensive ones, fund the broadcast, and preempt at least half its time. This need not be so, as the ads of tv in the 50s proves: then there were no commercial breaks at all. The host of the broadcast held up a box of Borax and said, “buy Borax. It will clean your clothes white as snow”, put the box down, and proceeded with the show...

...but how else were network executives going to become so rich? The net result is that they become rich, and I poor in what they promised to deliver to me.

Is Advertisement Bad?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions