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

[Astaroth]

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.

Despite his fairly silly reply, Phier is doing it right: Accepting basic facts yet disagreeing on the moral level.

I strongly disagree with him, but with your post here, there is just nothing there. It's merely a refusal to accept the basic logic of advertising without presenting a single solid argument. In the world of Denny Crane's post here, big companies spend billions on advertising and sponsoring TV shows because... they enjoy annoying potential customers?!

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.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I strongly disagree with him, but with your post here, there is just nothing there. It's merely a refusal to accept the basic logic of advertising without presenting a single solid argument. In the world of Denny Crane's post here, big companies spend billions on advertising and sponsoring TV shows because... they enjoy annoying potential customers?!

Yes actually.
No such thing as bad publicity and all that. People talking about how annoying a commercial is are giving the company free advertizing, and in general annoying sticks in people's minds. Beats a commercial that'll go right under the radar and avoid notice entirely and be quickly forgotten, and a lot easier to pull off then a commercial which will get that much attention for being entertaining.

I believe it was Oscar Wilde that once said the only thing worse then being talked about is not being talked about.

[chilon]

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.

I am not sure what most of your response is on about because you are trying to chastise me to "read the topic" when quite clearly I have read the topic and completely disagree with you on how your hypothetical would work.

Its really not as simple as claiming just "take out all the ads and people can just "pay directly". Removing all advertisements across the board would change the fundamental foundation of business models and you really can't predict what the result would be.

What your whole view is missing is how structurally the entire entertainment industries alone are based around advertising from TV to movies to sports to music let alone everything else. You are vastly oversimplifying things.

EDIT:

Let me simplify my points.

1. You haven't explicitly stated what your ban on advertising would entail. Obviously you are looking to ban commercials on TV and radio but what about print and the internet?
No more ads in magazines or newspapers?
No billboards?
No ads allowed on the internet in any form?
Google AdWords would be outlawed?
What about corporate sponsorships?
Are companies banned from sponsoring their logo on Stadiums and jerseys as advertising?
What about companies that sponsor non-profit organizations?
What about product placement?
What about event sponsorship and banners?

Its easy for anyone to understand your post when just looking at TV and radio commercials but advertising encompasses so much more than that now. Most of your arguments about coercion
don't even apply to most of the majority of AdWords use.

Also bans on commercials and advertisements doesn't address many of the other forms of coercion that exist in business that Rushkoff highlights in that book.

So in short your blanket ban would both hurt any non-coercive advertising benefits to businesses and have no effect or possibly increase non-banned forms of coercive business practices making them less transparent in the process.


2. You haven't really addressed how integral advertising is to many industries most particularly entertainment whose entire business models are built around advertising income. It's not even remotely as simple as claiming "you would just have to pay more directly". Just as one specific example, probably 15 of 20 current English Premier League clubs would be instantly bankrupt. They couldn't even come remotely close to meeting current wage commitments if you removed advertising and commercial sponsorship revenue. The amount of direct pay-per-view prices and stadium tickets would have to raise would differ from club to club and I am not going to calculate it but it would be enormous.

Basically every single entertainment area- music, movies, tv, sports- would have to be constructed on an entirely different model. This could be ninja-marketing where you have no idea if a stranger you are talking to is giving honest opinion or is a paid shill to influence your opinion or it could result in simply entirely different entertainment models than what we are currently used to.

I could link tables to show how much tv advertising and commercial sponsorship income matters for most professional footballing clubs in the biggest leagues around the world. There would be an enormous gap if you removed advertising and sponsorship income. Tickets to games would cost at least two times as much and watching a match on TV would cost at least $20 per match in pay per view. That would translate into an enormous increase that fans have to spend.

That doesn't even get into how many non-profits and noble causes benefit from corporate sponsorship that corporations view as "advertising and marketing" because they get to plaster their logo on a good cause. You might call that "manipulative" but without that advertising and sponsorship money, you are going to see less non-profits possible.

3. You aren't addressing that in a fiat money system, the more circulation of money that occurs the better. By removing an entire sub-system that circulates money and provides jobs (advertising, marketing and related support industries) you are creating a huge gap in the circulation of money and job creation. Of course if you were making up a society for a sci-fi story you could deal with this in all kinds of narrative ways. But if we are talking about the real world, it poses a serious issue that can't be simply dealt with.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So how do you tell people about your product or business at scale?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Hi, I'm ferrets54 and I make enough of a living out of advertising to keep myself in gin.

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'm not one for mental conspiracy anyway but cheers for the note.

------

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.

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.).

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/

Of the top 5 brands, three didn't exist a few decades ago, and one, Google, was founded in 1998. We live in an extremely dynamic world were innovation leads to huge new institutions emerging (or indeed disappearing) in relatively short periods of time, so your central assumption of how the world is can be quite effortlessly dismissed. Facebook is at #18 after only ten years. Google and Facebook both have advertising at the heart of their business models. Apple, it could be argued, is not a triumph of engineering or good business, but of advertising and design.

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.

Yes, that's why nobody chose to use no-name Google over giants AOL and Yahoo, and nobody chose to use no-name Facebook over giants like Myspace.

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.

This is clearly nonsense. If I watch a tampon ad I do not somehow get charged for doing so. If every ad resulted in direct revenue for the advertiser no company would ever go bust.

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.

How is this a revelations? Ads are explicitly there to convince the audience to take an action.

In short, the average viewer will buy a product BECAUSE he watched the ad (otherwise the ad wouldn't exist, see above).

This is circular reasoning. If you watch different ads for different car brands do you buy one car from each brand? No.

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.

If you're talking about subliminal messaging then studies have shown this does not in fact have any impact whatsoever. There are usually also strict laws forbidding such practices. You're operating on fantasy.

You want to ban ads and you say you don't care about free services disappearing. Does that include search engines?

[Rinan]

OP, I too have wondered the same thing, finding advertisements in many ways immoral. Later I became more aware of that one important, good aspect of advertisement, also raised by people above: it raises awareness for new products.

But!

I think we can make a distinction between two types of advertisement.
1. The kind you mention which has existed from the very beginning. The sign sticking out of your shop, saying: "Hello! I exist!" and
2. The "modern kind" of advertisement

Now, it is the second one that I find immoral. Why? Because it influences our unconcious thinking. It tells you what you want, what you need. It implants, subconciously, desires in your mind in order for you to buy their product. "You want to be a real man. So buy this car." "You want the ladies to dig you, so buy our deoderant." -- Or even more subtly, for example by Coca Cola shaping their coke bottles like a female body as to unconciously make their product more appealing.

This way, advertisements implant new desires, make us unhappy about our current situation, plays on our fears. The modern idea of female beauty that is so oppressive to so many women is partially caused this way by advertisements.

So, conclusion? In "my Utopia" I'd ban the second kind of advertisement, because I think it violates our personal psychological integrity, because of its subconcious effects barely resistable and influencing society as a whole, and actually making people unhappy, and therefore being immoral.
But the first type of advertisement, the kind of "Hey, I exist!", "Bakery here!" or "The new Harry Potter book has just been released!" could still exist, because of its less intrusive nature.

Edit: I forgot to mention: what I find most annoying is the ubiquiety of advertisement. You cannot live your life without encountering any advertisement, you cannot choose not to see (or hear them). In a way, you can refrain from using certain services to avoid commercials, i.e. a paid TV-channel without advertisements, or no TV at all; a paid for online newspaper instead of a free one, etc.

But you cannot choose to not walk outside on the streets, where you are bombarded by billboards, signs, posters, more billboards, electronic billboards, billboards next to the road, etc.

So: In a Utopian society you should at least be able to choose whether you want advertisement. The state should not use, or endorse, such a large amount of advertisement in public space.

[Denny Crane!]

Or instead of top down banning and authoritarian approaches you could perhaps encourage critical thinking and other forms of standards that we self impose. Anyone who thinks this is impossible obviously has a very centered approach very relative to their own time period because it was only 150 years ago ordinary men and women in the west thought it entirely appropriate that a man or child be hung for stealing, keelhauled for any offence at a naval officers whim or any other number of atrocities. What we do and the habits we form are for want of a better phrase, memes, that transition in and out.

Or you know we could try the blind top down approach and toss out all the good with what little bad there is (as though all modern advertising is a problem? If even half of it was, I think not).

[chilon]

Now, it is the second one that I find immoral. Why? Because it influences our unconcious thinking. It tells you what you want, what you need. It implants, subconciously, desires in your mind in order for you to buy their product. "You want to be a real man. So buy this car." "You want the ladies to dig you, so buy our deoderant." -- Or even more subtly, for example by Coca Cola shaping their coke bottles like a female body as to unconciously make their product more appealing.

So much just in this paragraph to respond to....

Are you implying some form of subliminal messaging?

What is your evidence for this subconscious influence?

Are you aware that in many academic studies subliminal messaging has actually been shown, as Ferrets already said, to have literally no influence on decision making?

I don't think you are framing this issue the correct way. The way your paragraph reads is really not quite accurate.

Let me give you some examples. There are, of course, factors that influence purchases. One common well studied aspect in academics is "packaging". It was shown in studies that the shape of the bottle of liquor can influence people to purchase that brand over another. Other studies also show that shape of the glass can influence alcohol consumption based on perceived amount of liquor intake vs. actual amount of liquor intake.

However what you seem to imply which the research doesn't show is that shape of the glass or bottle doesn't influence the decision to drink alcohol in the first place. In other the external influence on decision making (appealing shape of bottle) doesn't affect the initial decision (to drink) but only the decision of what product to drink.

While I know some pop-counter-culture like the Adam Curtis documentaries try to paint things one way and they give examples like Ed Bernays and his famous advertising of associating smoking cigarettes with women's suffrage and independence as an example but that is actually pretty rare circumstance of a perfect storm for Bernays.

The key is all about about association of concepts. In a broad you sense you are correct in that ads attempt to make associations in the minds of the audience that lead to logical or emotional conclusions to buy the product. But where you are wrong is that advertising cannot create a desire in the first place. Thats why all the subliminal experiments failed completely. Advertising cannot actually manufacture a desire, it can only influence desires already there.

For instance, lets look at what I have argued has been the most successful advertising campaign of the last 20 years at least. The Most Interesting Man in the World from Dos Equis. I can't think of a more iconic advertising campaign in decades or possibly ever. Yet it doesn't manufacture desire where none exists. Rather it influences people that already drink beer and makes them want to drink dos equis.


(I had more written but lost the save and don't have time to rewrite)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Aside from subliminal messaging being the stuff of fiction, what about the laws against suggestive adverts? There's so much ignorance in this thread, I'd love to see a response from astaroth.

[Rinan]

I don't have time for an elaborate response either, but briefly:

Nowhere did I say anything about subliminal influencing. (Though granted, the example of the coke bottle comes close). I was talking about exactly the same thing you are now stating: they manipulate our feelings, thoughts etc. Through associations. Your example of beer does not contradict my argument. The advertisement plays upon your emotions and desires so that you buy that specific brand.

So granted, perhaps I put too much emphasis on the creation of new desires whereas in reality it's more about the manipulation of desires already present in order for you to buy a certain product. That still means advertisements can deeply influence us, play upon our fears, manipulate us, etc. which still leaves my point standing.

[removeduser_487563287433]

What you are describing would be illegal in the USA and UK.

[Denny Crane!]

What point still stands exactly?

That we should take an authoritarian censorship stance because you are subjectively uncomfortable.

[kesa82]

I don't think the OP addressed the sort of advertising I certainly would like to see banned ( ? ) ;

The , " If it bleeds , it leads " - type.
That is a crime suspects name and picture is paraded before the public --- but the eventual acquittal is buried on page 14 , or the reputation is ruined regardless.
The endless parade of corpses across the TV screen , supposed sympathy for victims , and supposed concern for public welfare , but the reality is that under the guise of "news " the most prurient , morbid, and flatly obscene fare is pushed so you will watch the commercials.
The idea , obviously , is that few people are going to sit through Chevrolet and cheeseburger commercials for the sake of corn futures.
But throw in a few children's corpses and they will.

I think the public could well be sufficiently informed on criminal justice matters without dragging names and photos into it. The point of dragging those into it seems cosmetic = esthetic= presentation = sales pitch = commercial.
Not the facts , but to appeal. Appeal to what?
They use corpses and ruined lives to sell stuff.

[Rinan]

What you are describing would be illegal in the USA and UK.

Clearly not, because you are assuming the kind of advertisements I describe to be the illegal sort. - Also, I don't think it is quite respectful to call us ignorant.

Anyway, I looked up the definition of advertisement on Wikipedia. If this definition is not to your liking, then I challenge you to supply us with a better reference.

Advertising (or advertizing)^[1][2][3] is a form of marketing communication used to persuade an audience to take or continue some action, usually with respect to a commercial offering, or political or ideological support.

and

Commercial advertisers often seek to generate increased consumption of their products or services through "branding", which involves associating a product name or image with certain qualities in the minds of consumers

This is exactly what I have been saying. It's not about deep, hidden, subliminal Goebbels-like messaging. It's simply what advertisements do. I'm not saying advertisements are generally the epitome of evil. Remember we are doing a thought experiment, thinking about a Utopia. Real life is far away from this, and there are many things one would like to see different in a perfect world which is simply impossible to implement (i.e. complete social fairness, no crimes whatsoever, politicians who never lie, etc.) That, however, does not mean we should not consider these issues, here, in our free time, on a random internet forum, in all civility and with an open mind.

What point still stands exactly?

That we should take an authoritarian censorship stance because you are subjectively uncomfortable.

According to some meta-ethical theories any moral judgement is purely based on subjective feelings of being comfortable or uncomfortable. Still, we feel justified to condemn acts we find immoral. Any nation's laws and mores are built up according to subjective reasoning, be it those from the U.S.A. or China's.

[Denny Crane!]

According to some meta-ethical theories any moral judgement is purely based on subjective feelings of being comfortable or uncomfortable. Still, we feel justified to condemn acts we find immoral. Any nation's laws and mores are built up according to subjective reasoning, be it those from the U.S.A. or China's.

By that same token we have subjectively limited governments authoritarian abilities.

So your point is broken by your justification, not allowed under our current government restrictions.

So if this is all it was then this debates done, cool.

[Rinan]

By that same token we have subjectively limited governments authoritarian abilities.

So your point is broken by your justification, not allowed under our current government restrictions.

So if this is all it was then this debates done, cool.

Two problems with your argument:

1. You seem to equate the formulation of a government policy on the use of advertisements (in public space) as something neccesarily equated with an authoritarian government. Sure, it might not be as liberal as you'd like it, but it's not complete Soviet-style either. Most modern western countries put restrictions on what is acceptable to appear on TV, the streets, and so on. (you cannot walk naked on the street, you cannot have porn on TV during day hours, etc.)
2. You are thinking as if the current situation is perfect. It may be, but maybe it is not. We'll only find out by debating! So by all means, this debate is not done.

[Denny Crane!]

Two problems with your argument:

1. You seem to equate the formulation of a government policy on the use of advertisements (in public space) as something neccesarily equated with an authoritarian government. Sure, it might not be as liberal as you'd like it, but it's not complete Soviet-style either. Most modern western countries put restrictions on what is acceptable to appear on TV, the streets, and so on. (you cannot walk naked on the street, you cannot have porn on TV during day hours, etc.)

Banning advertising of any particular sort or even limiting it to the big advertising is a massive anti capitalist move that completely restricts the availability of businesses to effectively market their goods based on assumptions which I feel Chilon has adequately challenged. I'm not going to deny that companies and business can influence or create trends but they don't control or manipulate through.

You are talking about a top down attempt at changing attitudes that would fundamentally alter and detrimentally effect how businesses operate and I dare say on a whim not on evidenced basis, that is pretty authoritarian to my mind!

2. You are thinking as if the current situation is perfect. It may be, but maybe it is not. We'll only find out by debating! So by all means, this debate is not done.

If you had read my original reply to you then you would know this is not the case I merely suggested that the idea that change can be top down and authoritarian is terrible and there are plenty of other methods and with a reasonable case to be made that what is and is not acceptable to a society can change without force rapidly and drastically without the government. Go back and have a look, I know the way threads move I'am sure it just skipped by in the flow. Post 27, think how rapidly this society has changed from 1800-1900-2000 to now and what is acceptable today that was not then. I think we are on the verge of another shift to be honest too. Not in any dramatic new agey fashion mind.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Clearly not, because you are assuming the kind of advertisements I describe to be the illegal sort.

The adverts you are describing are the illegal sort. It is explicitly illegal to put subliminal messaging in advertising, and it is also illegal to imply that products grant abilities or rewards they do not.

- Also, I don't think it is quite respectful to call us ignorant.

I don't care about being respectful as much as I probably should, and yes, I think you're almost totally ignorant on this topic, but no, I do not say this as an insult. There's no reason why you shouldn't be totally ignorant of this topic, whereas I have been in advertising for about five years.

[Rinan]

Banning advertising of any particular sort or even limiting it to the big advertising is a massive anti capitalist move that completely restricts the availability of businesses to effectively market their goods based on assumptions which I feel Chilon has adequately challenged. I'm not going to deny that companies and business can influence or create trends but they don't control or manipulate through.

You are talking about a top down attempt at changing attitudes that would fundamentally alter and detrimentally effect how businesses operate and I dare say on a whim not on evidenced basis, that is pretty authoritarian to my mind!

Okay, banning it might be anti-capitalist, but I don't think anti-capitalism is per definition authoritarian. Sure, banning (certain kinds of) advertising might be a restriction for companies, but the sum of all companies doesn't make a society. We have all the consumers, whose behaviour we/I am assuming are influenced by commercials. Therefore, the populace's rights and freedoms are, in a way, being violated (I'm putting it rather extremely, for argument's sake). You could therefore equally say that keeping advertisement in place is a top-down authoritarian restriction made possible by governments and companies on the consumer.
Not that every company belongs to the elite, but big multinationals can definitely out-advertise the small middle-class shopowner on the street corner.

Besides, as I've said in my previous post, there are more top-down restrictions we place on society because we believe that to be neccesary. The antithesis of any state-restrictions on society is anarchy. For example, a lot of European nations still ban the sales of Hitler's Mein Kampf (including my own), or the display of porn on state-television, etc. Clearly, our modern-day, free democracies also feel the need for censorship for our psychological well-being.

In the end, though, I have the feeling we're not going to agree on this, because it's going to come down on your political preferences, left-wing versus right-wing, etc.

Or instead of top down banning and authoritarian approaches you could perhaps encourage critical thinking and other forms of standards that we self impose.

But how much does critical thinking influence the efficiency of advertising? As OP states, it's not like most of us think after watching a commercial: "O, that's right! I totally need that brand of dishwashing powder, and I'm going to the shop to buy it right NOW!" -- It works on a more subtle level.

The adverts you are describing are the illegal sort. It is explicitly illegal to put subliminal messaging in advertising, and it is also illegal to imply that products grant abilities or rewards they do not.

Could you please tell me, how many more times will I have to state that I am NOT talking about subliminal messaging, until you quit shoving these words in my mouth?

Rather, do you accept or reject the definition I quoted from Wikipedia (on advertisement)? If reject, please supply your own definition, preferably with a reference. If you accept, then you acknowledge my assumptions that most advertising does influence our behaviour is true.

And to be honest, if your argument that it is illegal to imply that advertisements grant abilities/rewards that they do not, then we're forced to the conclusion that a lot of the advertisements we see in Western media are, in fact, illegal. A lot of advertisements don't directly imply such things, but nevertheless do so indirectly by association.

Just a random example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiki19C_SEw
This bacardi commercial associates their product with all kind of desirabilities. Notice the inclusion of tropical island, party, a lot of happy, smiling people -- And a lot of hot chicks. It's not subliminal, but there is a reason why they make their commercials like this. And there are many more examples: car commercials, shower products, etc. etc.

There's no reason why you shouldn't be totally ignorant of this topic, whereas I have been in advertising for about five years.

Okay. Good! Sounds like an interesting and creative job. But a debate should be about our arguments and their contents, not about anyone's authority or perceived ignorance.

[AqD]

IV. What's your solution?

You'd not get a better economy by having smarter people spending money wisely - you'd have a dead one. Nobody buys, nobody sells, nobody makes and nobody transports and in the end everyone go back to work on their tiny farms, producing for basic needs. If that's your utopia, I doubt many people would want it.



Capitalism and ads are not problems. Your only problem is not having enough money.