Thinking utopia -- advertisements should be outright banned or severely restricted

[Astaroth]

Note that this thread is about a political utopia, so complaints a la "big business would never allow this" or "this won't ever happen" miss the mark.

------

I. What are ads?

What are ads? Ads originally stem from the desire of businesses to make the consumer aware of their products. Before modern times, ads weren't anything close to what they are today, but signs outside stores, leaflets, mouth-to-mouth propaganda and the likes have been around forever.

In a way, the basic concept of advertisement makes sense -- as a consumer, you are generally looking for the best product at the cheapest price and are looking for information about the available products. As a business, you want consumers to know about your product and choose it about others. Particularly newer businesses need to make potential customers aware of their existence. Win-win, right? Originally, sure.

However, unfortunately, this is not how ads operate anymore and it is not how they have worked for decades, if not centuries. Ads are no longer a useful means of informing (if they ever truly were, eh) customers or allowing newcomers to enter a market. Most new companies could never afford big ad campaigns. If anything, ads are now used primarily to cement the existing power structures in the market (you always see the same top X companies put ads all over the place, on billboards, TV, the internet etc.).

That in itself might not be the biggest problem, although it stiffles competition when the consumer will always know the well-advertised product better and usually choose it over "no-name" brands.

The problem lies somewhere else. But before that, let's give a brief overview of the supposed positive sides of ads. What's so good about them, really?

------

II. What's good about ads?

Essentially, ads allow for much of the modern entertainment industry to function. Sports, movies, TV, the internet -- all of these primarily rely on advertising money. In a way, that's great - people get to consume so much free stuff and only have to watch a few ads, right?! Free superbowl! Free TV shows! Free sports events! Free internet sites! Free Youtube videos! Awesomesauce. Only have to watch a few minutes of more or less annoying ads every day, eh?

The problem is, none of that content is really free. And this is where the problem lies:

------

III. What's the problem with ads?

Humans hate having to pay for something. Well, duh. But what they really hate is having to DIRECTLY pay for something. If I know that if I have to pay you X amount of money to receive product Y, I might consider it carefully. But if the cost is INDIRECT to me, I might either a) not know/notice in the first place or b) not think about it because it's too far away, too complicated, too abstract. Abstract thinking, considering the future etc. -- that is difficult for most people.

This is why credit cards et al are such a problem - why save up till next year if I can buy that TV now, no problem?

In short: direct costs = bad (who wants to pay cash?). Indirect costs = meh, I'll think about it (if at all) when I get there.

Ads function the exact same way. Ads are nothing but an indirect cost to the consumer. Watching ads is ultimately no different from directly paying money for a service -- the money only takes longer to circulate and takes a more roundabout way. Of course this might not be so surprising to many, but knowing how people will reply to this topic, I'm pretty sure this is not exactly common knowledge. Here are the top two misunderstandings, misconceptions and myths about ads that people always, without fail, repeat in conversations about ads:

1) What's so bad about ads? They are only a mild annoyance, you just have to watch them for a few seconds or minutes. I'd rather watch ads than pay for viewing that site/watching that TV show/consuming service X.

This is probably the biggest misconception here. Let's pause for a second -- many people seem to have this image that ads are just a mild annoyance, that their main downside is irritating the viewer. But look - we live in a capitalistic society. Nothing is for free. What interest would a company have in annoying you, the viewer? Why on earth would they spend millions or billions on ads if they had no clear, causal benefit from this?

And this is where the answer lies: companies directly benefit from their ads, they directly make money BECAUSE of the ads. If they didn't, ads wouldn't exist. Again, capitalism. Now, where does that money, that ends up (more than) paying for the ads, come from? Obvious: from the customer/consumer. The same consumer who watched the ad.

In short, the average viewer will buy a product BECAUSE he watched the ad (otherwise the ad wouldn't exist, see above). How does this work? Because the ad is so informative and the product so superior? Naw. Ads mostly work on a manipulative, subconscious level. Creating a small or big desire for a product that may lurk underneath the surface and only come out later. Ads don't work in a "I just saw this, I MUST buy it" way. Few people are that stupid. Nonetheless, they do work.

In other words, by allowing the company to show you an ad, you are allowing them to manipulate your mind and subconscious, causing you (again, on average) to ultimately buy the product. This means that there is ultimately no difference between paying 10 $/month for a pay-TV channel or watching a "free" TV channel that works via advertising, because in the latter case the money to finance the shows is paid by the viewer as well, just in the more roundabout way via ads.

But what makes ads that much more problematic is how shady their business model is. Few people really understand it (or think about it regularly) and almost nobody is immune to them. If there is a pay-TV channel, you can CHOOSE to pay 10 $/month for the service. However, if the channel is "free", you still pay -- but often without knowing, thinking that ads are really only a mild annoyance on the side. They aren't. They are meant to manipulate and they are very successful at it.


2) The second biggest misconception and reason why ads are rarely ever talked about as a problem is this: Most people think "they are too smart for ads to work on them" or "if an ad is annoying, I'll make a point not to buy the product".

The problem is, again, capitalism: The proof is in the pudding -- if the average person did not "fall for" ads, ads wouldn't exist. But most people are too full of themselves to admit that they are just as open to subconscious ad manipulation as everyone else.


------

IV. What's your solution?

Ban ads in as many places as possible. Ban billboards (worked pretty well in Sao Paulo, Brazil), restrict or ban TV advertising, strongly fight against product placement etc.

But what if that results in many "awesome, free" services dying out? Well, the thing is this: people ALREADY PAY FOR THESE SERVICES indirectly. So why not force companies to make it more transparent? If a TV show is awesome, I'm sure people would buy it or pay on a monthly base for it anyway. However, if it isn't good enough to warrant a DIRECT payment, then why should TV viewers have to finance it via the underhanded advertising scheme?

Good content will survive, trash that could only finance itself via ads would die out. If interest in e.g sports isn't big enough to warrant direct payment, tough luck.

And since many people will inevitably lament the "loss of free content", I'll have to repeat it once again: the content you call "free" is not free by any means. Only the method of payment is less direct, more underhanded, less transparent. In the end, the production costs of a "free" TV series are paid by the consumer in exactly the same way and to the exact same degree that a "not free" TV series is. You are NOT, I repeat, NOT getting free content NOR are you getting a better deal. It's simply an illusion, unfortunately a very powerful one that most people are not willing to let go of.

Because, after all, who'd like to admit that they are so open to manipulation and so unable to understand how indirect costs work?


EDIT: One more thing -- some might complain that this would make it hard to inform yourself about products or that new companies would have a harder time entering the scene. But the thing is, ads no longer serve to inform the consumer at all. Most ads are just entirely hot air, either made-up, unprovable comments or just trying to convey a "feeling" with a certain product (e.g. "coolness", "wealth"). There are plenty of ways to inform yourself about products aside from ads, such as the internet. Honestly, nobody who is actively looking for a particular product "informs" himself via advertisements anyway.

[Denny Crane!]

Its an extremity and like anything the moderation is always the best way. Some advertising is a positive good, advertising for medical awareness. Other advertising is completely benign. I personally love to see adverts for new films and games and even occasionally books. Banning these would negatively impact my life as I might not go seeking and miss out on something I'd hugely enjoy. I don't think you made a convincing case against advertising purely for the benefit of the companies either, I am fine with a vibrant economy which is a good thing and advertising aids it.

[Astaroth]

Its an extremity and like anything the moderation is always the best way. Some advertising is a positive good, advertising for medical awareness. Other advertising is completely benign. I personally love to see adverts for new films and games and even occasionally books. Banning these would negatively impact my life as I might not go seeking and miss out on something I'd hugely enjoy.

People could still create trailers etc. of course, they just couldn't shove them down someone's throat. There are plenty of ways of becoming aware of new movies, books etc. -- go to a book store, to a movie theatre looking at their programme, reading internet forums, reviews etc.

I doubt you would miss out on anything if you put in just a tiny bit of effort. If you are interested in a new book or movie, nothing stops you from checking out a movie theatre or a bookstore.

I don't think you made a convincing case against advertising purely for the benefit of the companies either, I am fine with a vibrant economy which is a good thing and advertising aids it.

An economy largely based on subconscious manipulation and deception, is that what we really want? In fact, even from a libertarian POV, a consumer that is not manipulated and deceived can make a more free and informed decision, which is a good thing.

[Himster]

Capitalism is God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor.
If that means capitalists can trick idiots into buying crap they don't need: Good for them. Stupid people will likely waste their money anyway. Making free and informed decisions is still possible, as it always has been, but people will still be deceived and deceivers will always profit more than their more honest competitors, as it has always been and likely always will be. Banning advertisement is not the way to go, but limiting advertisement space might be the way to go. It's not impossible to avoid advertisement, if you want to watch a TV series but don't want to be be inundated with advertisement: buy the boxed set. Avoiding advertisements costs money, that's the thing. Advertisements may cost time, but that's the choice we all have to make: Time or Money.

[Astaroth]

Capitalism is God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor.
If that means capitalists can trick idiots into buying crap they don't need: Good for them. Stupid people will likely waste their money anyway. Making free and informed decisions is still possible, as it always has been, but people will still be deceived and deceivers will always profit more than their more honest competitors, as it has always been and likely always will be.

It's not a question of tricking someone (i.e. influence them so they have a conscious, but false impression about something) but of manipulating them into desiring a product via their subconscious. It's also funny that you repeated one of the exact same fallacies I outlined in the OP.

Advertisements may cost time, but that's the choice we all have to make: Time or Money.

You didn't read the thread it seems. Advertisements don't cost time, they cost the viewer money. Advertisers don't care about wasting your time, they care about manipulating your subconscious.

[Denny Crane!]

People could still create trailers etc. of course, they just couldn't shove them down someone's throat. There are plenty of ways of becoming aware of new movies, books etc. -- go to a book store, to a movie theatre looking at their programme, reading internet forums, reviews etc.

I doubt you would miss out on anything if you put in just a tiny bit of effort. If you are interested in a new book or movie, nothing stops you from checking out a movie theatre or a bookstore.

An economy largely based on subconscious manipulation and deception, is that what we really want? In fact, even from a libertarian POV, a consumer that is not manipulated and deceived can make a more free and informed decision, which is a good thing.

I'm extremely busy and you want to add more in when someone was willing to put in front of me for free...how very unutopian and quite authoritarian sounding. Seems like your perfection is very different from mine.

Also not seeing that all advertisement is decieving (wtf?) or manipulative.

[Caligula's_Horse]

No advertisement will lead to the market stagnating. Pushing out established players will become much more difficult if all there is to go by is word of mouth; after all, no one's ever heard of this new idea/product/whatever, and without adds, very few people will.
All in all, it'll create a much less competitive environment, and capitalism simply doesn't work very well without competition.

Besides, adds make media like the internet and television much less expensive. As freedom of information is usually considered a good thing, and helps educate the public towards better decision making, I'd say its a big plus. Without adds, we probably wouldn't have internet connection in many developing countries today--there wouldn't be nearly as much financial incentive to connect them.

And to drive the final nail in the coffin, a company can be held responsible for a misleading add. It cannot be held responsible for a misleading rumor, which without adds, is all there is to go by. Better the devil you know; or at least, the devil whose origin you know.

[Astaroth]

Sigh, why do people always insist on posting without reading first? Seek and ye shall find:

I'm extremely busy and you want to add more in when someone was willing to put in front of me for free...how very unutopian and quite authoritarian sounding. Seems like your perfection is very different from mine.

It is not free. Why do people not just read the damn OP before posting?

Also not seeing that all advertisement is decieving (wtf?) or manipulative.

Advertisements are a direct reason (cause) for consumers buying products (effect). If you study advertising a bit, you'll soon find out that advertising is mostly about influencing the subconscious of the viewer in order to create or maintain a desire for a product that he otherwise (i.e. without the advertisement) would not have had. This also explains why most advertisements (at least in the West) are nowadays completely devoid of fact (a la "our product does 1), 2), 3)) and instead focuses entirely on associating a certain emotion with the brand/product that influences the consumer and thus manipulates him into buying the product.

If you don't want to take my word for it, do some basic research into advertising or even just think for a moment about why companies spend billions upon billions on advertising. Hint: it's not to inform the consumer objectively (heck, most ads nowadays contain zero information, objective or not), nor is it intended to merely annoy you, lol.

No advertisement will lead to the market stagnating. Pushing out established players will become much more difficult if all there is to go by is word of mouth; after all, no one's ever heard of this new idea/product/whatever, and without adds, very few people will.
All in all, it'll create a much less competitive environment, and capitalism simply doesn't work very well without competition.

Except that's blatant nonsense, as I've outlined in the OP, which you would have known if you had actually read it. Jesus.

Almost all ads in prominent places are by a small number of super established companies. Not a single small company can even afford anything close to a meaningful ad campaign on the level this thread is talking about, i.e. TV, movies, billboards all over town.

If anything, advertising allows the big powers to MAINTAIN their #1 position. Why do you think companies like Coke or McD spend more on advertising than anyone else? Do you think they are just #1 because they make such high quality products or because nobody else can make burgers like them? A brand is a brand is a brand, advertising plays a MAJOR role in this.

Besides, adds make media like the internet and television much less expensive. As freedom of information is usually considered a good thing, and helps educate the public towards better decision making, I'd say its a big plus. Without adds, we probably wouldn't have internet connection in many developing countries today--there wouldn't be nearly as much financial incentive to connect them.

Why do people post without reading the OP? I just don't get it. It does NOT get less expensive, period. You just pay for it in a less direct way. I'd suggest that you read the OP.

And to drive the final nail in the coffin, a company can be held responsible for a misleading add. It cannot be held responsible for a misleading rumor, which without adds, is all there is to go by. Better the devil you know; or at least, the devil whose origin you know.

The problem isn't that ads are misleading, but that they exist, manipulate and directly cause people to buy products solely based on manipulating their subconscious, ultimately forcing indirect costs on the consumer while maintaining the illusion that the service you are consuming - may it be TV, websites, movies - is free, when in reality you are paying by letting companies A, B, C, D, E, F, G... manipulate your mind without even noticing it.

But of course I am the special snowflake who is above getting manipulated by ads. Yeah, right.

[Phier]

No problem with adds. They pay for a lot of programs I like and don't want to foot the bill for directly. If making me ignore 30 seconds of add works, then I'm happy with my "payment".

[Denny Crane!]

Sigh, why do people always insist on posting without reading first? Seek and ye shall find:


It is not free. Why do people not just read the damn OP before posting?

I did read it I just don't agree with it. Why don't people stop making damn assumptions when they reply to my posts. You are not God who can not be challenged. When it comes to film trailers I am not being charged for it and I doubt the film entry prices are going to get cheaper if I don't get adverts for them in fact I think audiences would go down and it would get more expensive.

Arguments logic and critical thinking and less assuming an argument is unchallengeable is much needed for a good post.

Advertisements are a direct reason (cause) for consumers buying products (effect). If you study advertising a bit, you'll soon find out that advertising is mostly about influencing the subconscious of the viewer in order to create or maintain a desire for a product that he otherwise (i.e. without the advertisement) would not have had. This also explains why most advertisements (at least in the West) are nowadays completely devoid of fact (a la "our product does 1), 2), 3)) and instead focuses entirely on associating a certain emotion with the brand/product that influences the consumer and thus manipulates him into buying the product.

If you don't want to take my word for it, do some basic research into advertising or even just think for a moment about why companies spend billions upon billions on advertising. Hint: it's not to inform the consumer objectively (heck, most ads nowadays contain zero information, objective or not), nor is it intended to merely annoy you, lol.

Convincing is not the same thing as deceit which is concealing or misrepresenting the truth. By that logic if I make a convincing argument to someone that I am right and they believe me then I have concealed and lied to them.

No logic no argument, I reckon throughout this entire thread. I've read your damn OP and I think its a crock of .

[Astaroth]

I did read it I just don't agree with it. Why don't people stop making damn assumptions when they reply to my posts. You are not God who can not be challenged. When it comes to film trailers I am not being charged for it and I doubt the film entry prices are going to get cheaper if I don't get adverts for them in fact I think audiences would go down and it would get more expensive.

In fact, advertising directly correlates to higher prices. Money spent on advertising is money that needs to come from somewhere.

Even if less people went to see a money if there was no advertising for it, this would ultimately just result in lower budgets and cheaper movies, not in higher prices. Y'know, the film industry can't just raise prices at will. Supply and demand, the average person is only willing to spend that much money on movies every month.

Convincing is not the same thing as deceit which is concealing or misrepresenting the truth. By that logic if I make a convincing argument to someone that I am right and they believe me then I have concealed and lied to them.

Convincing someone is using logic, reason and arguments to convey their opinion. That's not how advertisement works. C'mon bruv, it's not so difficult.

Advertising is about the subconscious, the feelings, the emotions, trying to make people remember your message and creating a desire deep inside of you.

I think it's particularly funny that you keep saying that I am of course wrong or that you don't "agree" with me -- apparently all big corporations do agree with me. Why would they spend hundreds of billions on ads if ads didn't work? Honestly, CEOs aren't stupid enough to just do that without good reason. But it is pretty funny that you think you are right - of course ads don't make anyone buy a product! Of course ads on average are only a useful means of informing the consumer! Do you listen to yourself?

[Denny Crane!]

In fact, advertising directly correlates to higher prices. Money spent on advertising is money that needs to come from somewhere.

Yes and when people don't go to the cinema as much films either don't get made or prices on tickets go up either we lose lose.

Even if less people went to see a money if there was no advertising for it, this would ultimately just result in lower budgets and cheaper movies, not in higher prices. Y'know, the film industry can't just raise prices at will. Supply and demand, the average person is only willing to spend that much money on movies every month.

Not really when the film trailer is just cuts of the film it is incredibly cheap to make.

Convincing someone is using logic, reason and arguments to convey their opinion. That's not how advertisement works. C'mon bruv, it's not so difficult.

And advertising a film is just showing me bits of the film not lying to me, c'mon bruv show me how a film trailer is ing lying to me.

Advertising is about the subconscious, the feelings, the emotions, trying to make people remember your message and creating a desire deep inside of you.

Not all of it don't be daft. Guess what I have personally paid for advertising granted I am not a big corp but that just shows how stupid this message really is, you'll stop a small pet shop, or a small taxi company or a small time plasterer advertising because we are supposedly evil lying manipulators.

Again not a shred of logic to this at all. An advert on Google is simply to small to lie to me or create some giant manipulation when it contains all of ten words and no images on a sidebar. In fact there are tons of adverts and countless examples which are not masterfully crafted.

I think it's particularly funny that you keep saying that I am of course wrong or that you don't "agree" with me -- apparently all big corporations do agree with me. Why would they spend hundreds of billions on ads if ads didn't work? Honestly, CEOs aren't stupid enough to just do that without good reason. But it is pretty funny that you think you are right - of course ads don't make anyone buy a product! Of course ads on average are only a useful means of informing the consumer! Do you listen to yourself?

So not a shred of argumentation just an appeal to authority? No logic no real arguments just a retreat to the "evil big bad corporation" meme.

How clever.

[Astaroth]

Yes and when people don't go to the cinema as much films either don't get made or prices on tickets go up either we lose lose.



Not really when the film trailer is just cuts of the film it is incredibly cheap to make.

Yeah, and if you read just like 2 inches up you'd realise that I'm completely okay with trailers. The problem are ADS which, in case you didn't know, aren't primarily expensive due to their high production values, but due to how much it costs to place them in prime spots, e.g. billboards, TV etc. I'm completely fine with a new movie trialer on the 20th century fox Youtube channel or their own website.

And anyway, movie trailers are just such a random niche topic that it's frankly a waste of time to talk about. That's not where the big money is made by any means.

And advertising a film is just showing me bits of the film not lying to me, c'mon bruv show me how a film trailer is ing lying to me.

Misquoting me, eh? I never said anything about lying -- manipulating you by creating, maintaining or increasing your desire for a certain product. Again, movie trailers are such a side issue. I'm okay with that type of ad for ME PERSONALLY as well. But that's completely besides the point. Advertising as a whole is such a manipulative industry that I'd gladly give up the 2 advertisements that I find mildly useful in order to get rid of ALL the manipulation.

Not all of it don't be daft. Guess what I have personally paid for advertising granted I am not a big corp but that just shows how stupid this message really is, you'll stop a small pet shop, or a small taxi company or a small time plasterer advertising because we are supposedly evil lying manipulators.

It's not necessarily about lying, but about manipulation.

And please, the small-scale examples of having a tiny ad in a newspaper just have zero relevance. I have plenty of sympathy for that and I'm more than willing to have a discussion about that. I'm not opposed to actual information -- what I have a problem with is the manipulative, always-present advertisements which essentially exist solely to imprint a brand into your mind so strongly that you cannot help but desire that product, choose that product over others etc.

Sadly, humans aren't smart enough to see through that. At the end of the day, we aren't immune to seeing approx 50 coke logos a day. Just the way it is, like it or leave it.

Again not a shred of logic to this at all. An advert on Google is simply to small to lie to me or create some giant manipulation when it contains all of ten words and no images on a sidebar. In fact there are tons of adverts and countless examples which are not masterfully crafted.

Right. Google is a multi-billion dollar company that essentially lives exclusively off ads and you have the audacity to tell me that their ads "don't work". Lol!

How do you THINK they make their money? Advertisers are just little pranksters, little meanie-heads who enjoy bothering people with useless texts and videos and pay Google a few billion just so the viewers are annoyed?

So not a shred of argumentation just an appeal to authority? No logic no real arguments just a retreat to the "evil big bad corporation" meme.

What does that have to do with evil? Corporations do what makes them money, as long as it is legal (or at least legal "enough" so the risk is small enough). Advertisements are perfectly legal, so what's wrong with corporations doing it from a LEGAL POV? Nothing.

Again, please do tell -- why do you think giant corporations spend billions of dollars on ads that basically give the viewer zero information on the product and essentially boil down to, "this is our brand. Remember it. This burger looks delicious. This product is associated with wealth/daredevils/power/adventure"?

Is it because they don't know how human psychology works when Denny Crane! on the TWC forums has understood it much better?

[Denny Crane!]

I did not say they don't work I said they can't manipulate what you refuse to acknowledge is that they might work without being deceitful.

So what we have boiled down to is that some advertising is OK, quite a big chunk of it really but it all needs binned because big corporations are evil.

OK.

Yeah. Glad this is your utopia you are welcome to it, and if this is the reasoning that goes into it I suspect it'll remain your own.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Except that's blatant nonsense, as I've outlined in the OP, which you would have known if you had actually read it. Jesus.

Almost all ads in prominent places are by a small number of super established companies. Not a single small company can even afford anything close to a meaningful ad campaign on the level this thread is talking about, i.e. TV, movies, billboards all over town.

If anything, advertising allows the big powers to MAINTAIN their #1 position. Why do you think companies like Coke or McD spend more on advertising than anyone else? Do you think they are just #1 because they make such high quality products or because nobody else can make burgers like them? A brand is a brand is a brand, advertising plays a MAJOR role in this.

Why do people post without reading the OP? I just don't get it. It does NOT get less expensive, period. You just pay for it in a less direct way. I'd suggest that you read the OP.

The problem isn't that ads are misleading, but that they exist, manipulate and directly cause people to buy products solely based on manipulating their subconscious, ultimately forcing indirect costs on the consumer while maintaining the illusion that the service you are consuming - may it be TV, websites, movies - is free, when in reality you are paying by letting companies A, B, C, D, E, F, G... manipulate your mind without even noticing it.

But of course I am the special snowflake who is above getting manipulated by ads. Yeah, right.

Maybe its because I live in a small country, but I see a lot of advertisements in popular media from companies I've never heard of. Granted, I'm sure some of them are daughter companies for the bigger ones I'm familiar with, but many more aren't. Compared to other forms of overhead like rent, raw materials and employees, advertising isn't that expensive where I live, and if you can afford starting a business, you can also afford to advertise it. Maybe its different in the US due to the different advertisers having more of a monopoly on certain market sectors or something.

As for the unique snowflake stuff, that's nonsense. In fact, I'm pretty sure large swaths of the population are pretty much oblivious to adds' effects, beyond maybe the realization that a certain company exists--no one ever said those indirect costs have to be levied equally.
And if all an add does is make me realize another option for something I need is on the market, its actually doing me a favor, not a disservice. Adds by and large don't generate revenue from the ether, they move it around from company to company, creating competition. Its the companies that actually take the hit much more then the consumers. The old "buy garbage you don't need" shtick applied to capitalism isn't universally true.

[Raubritter]

Ban ads in as many places as possible. Ban billboards (worked pretty well in Sao Paulo, Brazil), restrict or ban TV advertising, strongly fight against product placement etc.

The last time i heard someone talking like this was somewhat around 4 years ago, when a young socialist tryd to convince me that ads are the most evil thing ever.

You would be shocked how many things will just disapear because commercials don't pay anymore for it.

[chilon]

Note that this thread is about a political utopia, so complaints a la "big business would never allow this" or "this won't ever happen" miss the mark.

------

I. What are ads?

What are ads? Ads originally stem from the desire of businesses to make the consumer aware of their products. Before modern times, ads weren't anything close to what they are today, but signs outside stores, leaflets, mouth-to-mouth propaganda and the likes have been around forever.

In a way, the basic concept of advertisement makes sense -- as a consumer, you are generally looking for the best product at the cheapest price and are looking for information about the available products. As a business, you want consumers to know about your product and choose it about others. Particularly newer businesses need to make potential customers aware of their existence. Win-win, right? Originally, sure.

However, unfortunately, this is not how ads operate anymore and it is not how they have worked for decades, if not centuries. Ads are no longer a useful means of informing (if they ever truly were, eh) customers or allowing newcomers to enter a market. Most new companies could never afford big ad campaigns. If anything, ads are now used primarily to cement the existing power structures in the market (you always see the same top X companies put ads all over the place, on billboards, TV, the internet etc.).

That in itself might not be the biggest problem, although it stiffles competition when the consumer will always know the well-advertised product better and usually choose it over "no-name" brands.

The problem lies somewhere else. But before that, let's give a brief overview of the supposed positive sides of ads. What's so good about them, really?

------

II. What's good about ads?

Essentially, ads allow for much of the modern entertainment industry to function. Sports, movies, TV, the internet -- all of these primarily rely on advertising money. In a way, that's great - people get to consume so much free stuff and only have to watch a few ads, right?! Free superbowl! Free TV shows! Free sports events! Free internet sites! Free Youtube videos! Awesomesauce. Only have to watch a few minutes of more or less annoying ads every day, eh?

The problem is, none of that content is really free. And this is where the problem lies:

------

III. What's the problem with ads?

Humans hate having to pay for something. Well, duh. But what they really hate is having to DIRECTLY pay for something. If I know that if I have to pay you X amount of money to receive product Y, I might consider it carefully. But if the cost is INDIRECT to me, I might either a) not know/notice in the first place or b) not think about it because it's too far away, too complicated, too abstract. Abstract thinking, considering the future etc. -- that is difficult for most people.

This is why credit cards et al are such a problem - why save up till next year if I can buy that TV now, no problem?

In short: direct costs = bad (who wants to pay cash?). Indirect costs = meh, I'll think about it (if at all) when I get there.

Ads function the exact same way. Ads are nothing but an indirect cost to the consumer. Watching ads is ultimately no different from directly paying money for a service -- the money only takes longer to circulate and takes a more roundabout way. Of course this might not be so surprising to many, but knowing how people will reply to this topic, I'm pretty sure this is not exactly common knowledge. Here are the top two misunderstandings, misconceptions and myths about ads that people always, without fail, repeat in conversations about ads:

1) What's so bad about ads? They are only a mild annoyance, you just have to watch them for a few seconds or minutes. I'd rather watch ads than pay for viewing that site/watching that TV show/consuming service X.

This is probably the biggest misconception here. Let's pause for a second -- many people seem to have this image that ads are just a mild annoyance, that their main downside is irritating the viewer. But look - we live in a capitalistic society. Nothing is for free. What interest would a company have in annoying you, the viewer? Why on earth would they spend millions or billions on ads if they had no clear, causal benefit from this?

And this is where the answer lies: companies directly benefit from their ads, they directly make money BECAUSE of the ads. If they didn't, ads wouldn't exist. Again, capitalism. Now, where does that money, that ends up (more than) paying for the ads, come from? Obvious: from the customer/consumer. The same consumer who watched the ad.

In short, the average viewer will buy a product BECAUSE he watched the ad (otherwise the ad wouldn't exist, see above). How does this work? Because the ad is so informative and the product so superior? Naw. Ads mostly work on a manipulative, subconscious level. Creating a small or big desire for a product that may lurk underneath the surface and only come out later. Ads don't work in a "I just saw this, I MUST buy it" way. Few people are that stupid. Nonetheless, they do work.

In other words, by allowing the company to show you an ad, you are allowing them to manipulate your mind and subconscious, causing you (again, on average) to ultimately buy the product. This means that there is ultimately no difference between paying 10 $/month for a pay-TV channel or watching a "free" TV channel that works via advertising, because in the latter case the money to finance the shows is paid by the viewer as well, just in the more roundabout way via ads.

But what makes ads that much more problematic is how shady their business model is. Few people really understand it (or think about it regularly) and almost nobody is immune to them. If there is a pay-TV channel, you can CHOOSE to pay 10 $/month for the service. However, if the channel is "free", you still pay -- but often without knowing, thinking that ads are really only a mild annoyance on the side. They aren't. They are meant to manipulate and they are very successful at it.


2) The second biggest misconception and reason why ads are rarely ever talked about as a problem is this: Most people think "they are too smart for ads to work on them" or "if an ad is annoying, I'll make a point not to buy the product".

The problem is, again, capitalism: The proof is in the pudding -- if the average person did not "fall for" ads, ads wouldn't exist. But most people are too full of themselves to admit that they are just as open to subconscious ad manipulation as everyone else.


------

IV. What's your solution?

Ban ads in as many places as possible. Ban billboards (worked pretty well in Sao Paulo, Brazil), restrict or ban TV advertising, strongly fight against product placement etc.

But what if that results in many "awesome, free" services dying out? Well, the thing is this: people ALREADY PAY FOR THESE SERVICES indirectly. So why not force companies to make it more transparent? If a TV show is awesome, I'm sure people would buy it or pay on a monthly base for it anyway. However, if it isn't good enough to warrant a DIRECT payment, then why should TV viewers have to finance it via the underhanded advertising scheme?

Good content will survive, trash that could only finance itself via ads would die out. If interest in e.g sports isn't big enough to warrant direct payment, tough luck.

And since many people will inevitably lament the "loss of free content", I'll have to repeat it once again: the content you call "free" is not free by any means. Only the method of payment is less direct, more underhanded, less transparent. In the end, the production costs of a "free" TV series are paid by the consumer in exactly the same way and to the exact same degree that a "not free" TV series is. You are NOT, I repeat, NOT getting free content NOR are you getting a better deal. It's simply an illusion, unfortunately a very powerful one that most people are not willing to let go of.

Because, after all, who'd like to admit that they are so open to manipulation and so unable to understand how indirect costs work?


EDIT: One more thing -- some might complain that this would make it hard to inform yourself about products or that new companies would have a harder time entering the scene. But the thing is, ads no longer serve to inform the consumer at all. Most ads are just entirely hot air, either made-up, unprovable comments or just trying to convey a "feeling" with a certain product (e.g. "coolness", "wealth"). There are plenty of ways to inform yourself about products aside from ads, such as the internet. Honestly, nobody who is actively looking for a particular product "informs" himself via advertisements anyway.

You would have to pay more for entertainment per thing without any advertising.

Would you be prepared to pay twice as much for TV, movies, music, games and sporting events to have no advertisements in all forms (such as tickets to live events and to view on tv and internet) ?

Its not a question of whether people would buy it, its a question of would you be willing to pay per unit the enormous increase in costs that no advertising would entail for all forms of entertainment (because advertising funds entertainment).

Oh and there hasn't been "free tv" since the antenna went out (in USA at least). You need to buy cable or satellite or internet, etc.

[Astaroth]

You would have to pay more for entertainment per thing without any advertising.

Would you be prepared to pay twice as much for TV, movies, music, games and sporting events to have no advertisements in all forms (such as tickets to live events and to view on tv and internet) ?

Its not a question of whether people would buy it, its a question of would you be willing to pay per unit the enormous increase in costs that no advertising would entail for all forms of entertainment (because advertising funds entertainment).

Oh and there hasn't been "free tv" since the antenna went out (in USA at least). You need to buy cable or satellite or internet, etc.

Did you read the thread?

People wouldn't have to pay more for it, they would just have to pay for it directly rather than paying MORE than that sum in indirect costs as a result of the ad manipulation.

Don't believe me? If ads didn't make (cause: ads, effect: people buying stuff) at least as much money as they (i.e. the entertainment et al. they finance) cost, they wouldn't exist.

Again, please read the topic.

[Denny Crane!]

Oh dear given he replied to the OP he clearly read the thread. Not agreeing is not the same as not believing this is the lords divine argument, keep trying to explain it, it is not a zero sum game that if you remove advertising the exact same amount of revenue and cost will remain.

Add in basic economics, hell even advanced economics as I'm sure Chilon can expand upon and you'll get there.

[Phier]

ad manipulation.

If adults are easily manipulated and act like gullible children from an ad, thats their problem. Please don't raise my rates because someone had to have a salad shooter.