What do you mean by “power”, that makes it sound like a compulsion of some kind, is that what you mean? — DingoJones

Funnily enough, that was his choice of words. I don't mean anything above and beyond what I've previously said, so influence, cause, motivation, effect...

K gotchya. :up:

If we're going to call actions that preceded actions that were performed because someone decided to perform them "causal" as well as calling actions that preceded actions that were performed because they were forced "causal," how are we going to protect against conflation, for one? — Terrapin Station

Well, it seems obvious to me that you could just use the word "force" when that's what you mean. Clearly I don't mean to suggest anything like that anyone reading a book on Marx is then forced to become a Marxist as a result.

The overestimation is that advertising is going to be effective, because of a belief that it strongly influences consumer decisions. — Terrapin Station

But that just misses the point. Perhaps your replies miss the point because you misunderstand the point.

That doesnt really answer my question. Perhaps I could have framed it better, but remember Im not for censorship, even of hate speech.
Agency is not what Im asking about. Lets use your terms: do you think that there are any measurable effects of speech? If so, then have you considered that what we are talking about here (in this thread) is something that involves both the speaker and the listener?

Yes, communication is a two-way street. I don’t deny that.

By “measurable effects of speech” I mean the expelling of breath, the production of sound waves, the movement of the mouth, scribbles on paper etc.

So you think that these corporations are wasting their money and haven't figured this out after so many years?

And, yes, I realize people can believe false things for long periods of time. But you'd think experts, who they tend to consult with, would have let them know that companies that do not advertise do just as well as those that do, and the incredible benefit of saving that money would have led a number of corporations, generally fascinated with money, to try and that confirm this.

Perhaps I could have framed it better, but remember Im not for censorship, even of hate speech. — DingoJones

Then you're for acts of terrorism, like those committed by acolytes of Anjem Choudary, the infamous preacher of hate speech who influenced their later actions and was sentenced to years in prison as a result. You're suggesting that that's a cost which you're willing to accept.

But that just misses the point. — S

What's the point it misses?

And, yes, I realize people can believe false things for long periods of time. But you'd think experts, who they tend to consult with, would have let them know that companies that do not advertise do just as well as those that do, and the incredible benefit of saving that money would have led a number of corporations, generally fascinated with money, to try and that confirm this. — Coben

Yes, a ton of money is wasted on advertising, and there are plenty of studies showing that it's not near as effective as is commonly believed in the business world--or as claimed by the advertising industry, of course.

People need to know about your products or services in order to be interested in them, obviously, but lots of money is regularly wasted on advertising.

Ok, so those measurable effects do not include reactions in others? Is that right?

Then you're for acts of terrorism, like those committed by acolytes of Anjem Choudary, the infamous preacher of hate speech who influenced their later actions and was sentenced to years in prison as a result. You're suggesting that that's a cost which you're willing to accept. — S

No Im not for ACTS of terrorism. Anyway, we’ve been through this. I cannot remember how much of my views we went over, but I remember yours so im good on you repeating it yet another time.

What's the point it misses? — Terrapin Station

That speech, by way of advertisement, generally speaking, is effective, or powerful, or however you want to word it so long as you don't completely get the wrong end of the stick, which is not at all to suggest that it's totally effective or that it's guaranteed to result in substantial success for a business. His point is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone could miss it or disagree with it, but I think that some people here are too entrenched in their positions to see what's right in front of them.

That speech, by way of advertisement, generally speaking, is effective, or powerful, or however you want to word it so long as you don't completely get the wrong end of the stick, which is not at all to suggest that it's totally effective or that it's guaranteed to result in substantial success for a business. His point is so obvious it's hard to see how anyone could miss it or disagree, but I think that some people here are too entrenched in their positions. — S

But the point that I was making was that the effectiveness of advertising is overestimated.

Yes, a ton of money is wasted on advertising, and there are plenty of studies showing that it's not near as effective as is commonly believed in the business world--or as claimed by the advertising industry, of course.

People need to know about your products or services in order to be interested in them, obviously, but lots of money is regularly wasted on advertising. — Terrapin Station

So the effects are exaggerated, but there. People need to know, or they wouldn't come buy them. So putting the advertising out there increases the liklihood of sales. Perhaps the advertisers have made it seem more necessary than it is and more valuable than it is.

Advertising must have positive effects. If this were not the case the case, companies would have experimented with less and none and stopped using it. In fact they do try varying amounts and are devilishly thorough, at least many of them, in tracking results. And these experiments, along with the studies you mention which the companies can find and many must be aware of, would have already led to no longer advertising or minimal use of the cheapest possible information based communication. No branding, no money spent on sets, photos, actors, copywriters color ads, large ads, online banners, marketing research and so on. Just lists of products and where to get them. If that.

Informing people is a kind of communication. It has effects. They are not universal. But no one is arguing that any speech act will compel every human to do something.

But the point that I was making was that the effectiveness of advertising is overestimated. — Terrapin Station

And the point that I was making was that that point misses the point, meaning that whether true or false, it has no logical bearing on what he said. It's irrelevant.

It's effective enough to support his point, irrespective of whether it's also overestimated.

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is,
— unenlightened

And illustrates the overestimation very well. If that weren't the case, no one would ever go out of business. They'd merely need to advertise and they'd make tons of money. — Terrapin Station

Well I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you lot.

And the point that I was making was that that point misses the point, — S

NOS4A2 stated that the power of speech is overestimated.

unenlightened said that it's not in the case of advertising.

But it is.

So the effects are exaggerated, but there. — Coben

Yeah, again, if you follow the conversation, NOS4A2 stated that the power of speech is overestimated.
unenlightened said that it's not in the case of advertising. I was agreeing with NOS4A2 and not unenlightened when it comes to advertising. No one claimed that advertising doesn't work at all.

Well I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you lot. — unenlightened

At least you're not overestimating the power of your speech there.

So you seem to imply that there is a spectrum of influence, is that fair to say? If there is a spectrum, why would you be a free speech absolutist? Is it because you associate too high a cost with any limits on free speech? (Sorry, can’t recall if you addressed this somewhere in that other thread).

So you seem to imply that there is a spectrum of influence, is that fair to say? If there is a spectrum, why would you be a free speech absolutist? — DingoJones

Influence is different than force. I only have moral issues with force.

I thought I explained all of that numerous times, in a bunch of different ways.

NOS4A2 stated that the power of speech is overestimated.

unenlightened said that it's not in the case of advertising.

But it is. — Terrapin Station

Okay, so we're all just talking past eachother. Maybe it is overestimated. Maybe not. It's hard to judge because where do you even begin? You could look at it a number of different ways and reach different conclusions. But unenlightened is definitely right in that it's not overestimated to the extent that it's a benefit to many businesses all over the world. It's a key part of selling any product. Good luck selling a product with no advertising whatsoever.

Okay, so we're all just talking past eachother. Maybe it is overestimated. Maybe not. It's hard to judge because where do you even begin? You could look at it a number of different ways and reach different conclusions. But unenlightened is definitely right in that it's not overestimated to the extent that it's a benefit to many businesses. — S

I'm going by what businesses believe advertising can do, which I've seen many times from many different angles, including that my wife constantly deals with it as part of her work--she's a business consultant.

Right, hence my pre-apology. Alot was said by alot of people so I just wanted to confirm as the essentially same discussion starts up again.
Also, I didnt say anything about force, I was asking about influence. I think we agree speech doesnt compell/force anyone to commit acts of violence.

I'm going by what businesses believe advertising can do, which I've seen many times from many different angles, including that my wife constantly deals with it as part of her work--she's a business consultant. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but again, I don't really care about that. Why would I? I don't think that the main thrust of his opening post had anything to do with a triviality like that. Based on other comments of his, his position is more extreme than that. And I think that unenlightened was probably meaning to get at his more extreme views than to merely deny that some businesspeople overestimate the effectiveness of advertising.

Okay, but again, I don't really care about that. Why would I? I don't think that the main thrust of his opening post had anything to do with a triviality like that. Based on other comments of his, his position is more extreme than that. — S

Okay . . . I get really tired about talking about the same stuff all the time, though. So I try to focus on angles that aren't something we've beaten into the ground already.

Also, I didnt say anything about force, I was asking about influence. I think we agree speech doesnt compell/force anyone to commit acts of violence. — DingoJones

Right. So I'd never have any legislation against influence of any sort. So that's part of why I'd not ban any speech. The only way I'd ever ban any speech would be if speech could literally force something like violent actions.

Okay . . . I get really tired about talking about the same stuff all the time, though. So I try to focus on angles that aren't something we've beaten into the ground already. — Terrapin Station

That's understandable, but I don't think that that was helpful.

Meta criticism drives me crazy, too. ;-)

(Critical discussion about discussion preferences)

Influence is different than force. I only have moral issues with force.

I thought I explained all of that numerous times, in a bunch of different ways. — Terrapin Station

Again, funnily enough, if you deviate from the norm in terms of how you interpret key terms in use, then you will keep encountering this problem. Just use "force" only.