Babies and bathwater, here. Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists, and may even not realize the possibility of other options exists.
> Many people legitimately would like to have Thing/Service but don’t know it exists
Sorry to burst the bubble, but that's *the proof that adv is manufactured demand*!
People interested in having something will find a way to know about them.
I think people are confusing the idea of advertising (AKA publicizing) their products or skills, with the advertising market we have today.
They are not the same thing, they only share the same name, for historical reasons.
It's like comparing Risk with WW2.
21st century advertising is nothing but bad news.
If I want a pair of shoes I like, I go to the shop that sells them.
If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them)
If that’s your definition of manufactured demand then even making a product is manufactured demand because making the product means people will become aware of it therefore creating ‘fabricated’ demand by them discovering it. In reality a crowded/undiscovered market needs discovery mechanisms so in theory the right product finds the right person. But also in reality and the point I think you’re trying to make is that the wrong product with the biggest advertising spend will find someone instead of something that’s be a better fit.
> If that’s your definition of manufactured demand then even making a product is manufactured demand
sorry, but you are confusing making a product to solve a problem or fill a need with lying to get the attention of people to sell them something that does not solve the problem nor fills the need.
have you ever lied to these adv platforms?
I have many accounts were I blatantly lie about myself, like for example I say I am fat, I post pictures of fat people pretending it's me and immediately I get bombarded by ads for products to lose weight, training programs that "promise" you results in 2 weeks and dating apps.
I can assure you that I’m not confusing anything just extrapolating your argument in that prior post. I agree though that advertising is a pretty lousy discovery mechanism a lot of the time.
> People interested in having something will find a way to know about them.
[Citation needed]
This is might be true with commodity products, but with disruptive products—the kind most people here are producing or selling—that's absolutely not the case.
> If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them).
Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling. Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of. Some of them are caused by problems the individual is aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions. Marketing that seeks to educate the individual about the solutions available to them is a net-positive, both for the consumer and the producer.
You are the one who needs to prove that without ads people won't get what they want.
> but with disruptive products
Disruptive is a synonym for "unethical"
> Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling.
[Citation needed]
> Some of those needs are caused by problems the individual isn't consciously aware of, but isn't aware of the available solutions
and the solution is advertising?
you're kidding, right?
T: Hi J, I have a problem X, can you help me?
J: Hi T, I don't know much about X, but M does. Ask him.
2 hours later
T: Thanks J, M was of great help. Now I've solved my problem, I am happy, and my trust in you just got bigger.
advertising is *lies* so people not only will try to fulfill a fabricated need, they will also be frustrated by the fact that advertisers *lied* to them.
No, Nikes won't help you to "just do it"
Running won't be easier, if you never did before, because you buy a pair of shoes that sells you the idea that everyone who's wearing them is an athlete, and that athlete could be you, just buy the shoes.
> You are the one who needs to prove that without ads people won't get what they want.
This is the default mode for startups. It results in failure. "If you build it, they will come," doesn't work in the marketplace. Try it yourself.
> Disruptive is a synonym for "unethical".
Hard disagree, sorry. I don't think you're going to find many like-minded people on this site.
> > Everybody has "needs" they're not fulfilling.
> [Citation needed]
I'm not even sure how you can deny this. Do you really think everyone out there is living their best lives? Are businesses out there just performing at 100% efficiency, with no need for any new products or services to help them improve? What do you think economic growth is based on, if not the creation of new value?
> and the solution is advertising?
Yes, the solution is marketing—advertising being one piece of that puzzle. How did 'M' in your example find out about the product? Are "experts" just born with inherent knowledge of their fields?
> advertising is lies so people not only will try to fulfill a fabricated need, they will also be frustrated by the fact that advertisers lied to them.
I advertise. Nothing I say is a lie. I advertise that I can help non-technical founders build their MVPs better, faster, and cheaper than my competitors. That's true. I advertise to people that want to build an MVP. Their need exists before I advertise to them. Nobody is going to see an ad of mine and go "Oh man, I was going to spend my paycheck on food, but now that I've seen this ad about NoNerds.com building MVPs, I guess I'll starve and give them all my money instead."
> How can you not see the fraud is beyond me.
I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. There is bad advertising out there. Most brand advertising is bad. But ~50% of the advertising market is PERFORMANCE, not BRAND. How you can not see the difference between "Buy budweiser and get laid," and "Buy Infotex solutions and save 15% on monthly payroll costs." is beyond me.
> that's grotesque.
Agree to disagree. The economy is based on the creation and distribution of value. Good marketing seeks to inform individuals of potential sources of value to them. It creates efficiency in the marketplace by allowing new solutions to reach more potential buyers more rapidly.
Does it grant airtime to "bad" solutions occasionally? Of course. But in your own arguments, the buyer is ultimately the one responsible for the purchase decision. And if good products are being advertised as well, the buyer is given an opportunity to discover alternatives to the solutions they're already aware of. This increased information allows them to make better economic decisions.
> This is the default mode for startups. It results in failure. "If you build it, they will come," doesn't work in the marketplace.
It worked for many open source products. It worked for games like Minecraft and Factorio.
Looks to me, if you're unique enough, they will come, but if you're not, tough - perhaps nobody really needs another crappy version of what's already out there.
> Looks to me, if you're unique enough, they will come, but if you're not, tough - perhaps nobody really needs another crappy version of what's already out there.
You should try raising funds with that attitude. See what YC's response is during an interview when you suggest that your marketing plan is to be "unique enough [that] they will come".
I don't get the "well technically advertising can be good" argument in its favor, yet it's the most common one I see on this site.
If 5% is good (I'm being very generous) and "seeks to inform individuals of potential sources of value to them", that's still 95% manipulative, deceptive crap.
The inconvenient truth for the anti-advertising crowd is that modern digital advertising is one of the most democratizing forces in business history. I can develop an offer in minutes and spend less than $20 to get *thousands* of eyeballs on that offer by the end of the day. I don't need a $100K marketing budget, I don't need representation on Madison Avenue, I don't need to hire a sales force to make cold calls. For small businesses, that power is revolutionary.
If you're honestly looking for a citation, start with Galbraith's The Affluent Society. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society). This was old hat in the 50s. They just didn't realize it was going to burn the planet (and us with it)
I rarely go to Taco Bell. I would never have known about the Quesarito if I didn't see an ad. I was very glad I did. This same thing has happened many times with many food items.
Same for seeing billboards for various places across the country. I love Taco John's, Taco Time, and Del Taco, and wouldn't have found them without advertising.
The ads' "manufactured demand" improved my life in these instances. Same for various other products in other instances.
A couple of genuine questions for you, not to lessen the good fortune advertising has brought you.
Did you go to eat at Taco Bell because of the ad? Would you have already, and perhaps seen it on their menu boards and tried it as a result?
Were you really not aware of these other taco places, and only became aware of them due to billboards? I know of 2/3 of them, I haven't heard of Taco Time (live in the midwest), but I've heard of the rest from people I know. I don't think I've seen any of them advertised here, but I could be wrong.
> Did you go to eat at Taco Bell because of the ad?
Yes, I don't go there usually. I might have eventually seen it but probably missed out on various short-lived items.
The other taco places I only get to go to on a road trip since I live on the east coast. I can't be sure how I found them at first but it was either conventional ads or those standardized freeway exit food signs, which certainly also count as an advertisement.
The taco bell bit makes sense; promotional period items like that might be entirely missed by infrequent guests, and may be enough to drive them in.
I guess I hadn't much considered the ability for something like a billboard to influence a traveler like that. A very good portion of their audience would see it day after day, but if you were just passing through the area, you wouldn't otherwise know some of the local options, interesting point.
It's funny. Taco Bell to me is _the_ poster child for anti-advertisement sentiment.
I have completely dissociated all correlation of a filling meal/nourishment with this brand.
Again, to me, Taco Bell is a marketing company with a new product-of-the-month every month whose products just happen to be something that you chew and swallow.
Everything there gives me watery diarrhea. Granted, I couldn't get enough of the Volcano Tacos when they were a thing (unless the sauce had been sitting out for hours, at which point it was disgusting; it was very easy to tell by taste how fresh it was), but on the occasion that I walk by a T.V., there's often a silly, attention-grabbing commercial for Taco Bell.
Improving my life? At best, sure, when I was a kid/teenager/broke college student. Kind of like toy commercials, I reckon.
Fast food is one of those cases where I'm completely happy to get their ads for a similar reason to the poster above. Youtube's non video ads too, though for a completely different reason (I get the oddest ads for spinal implants and petabyte storage arrays)
So, I create a web page that describes a product ("Quesarito"). You, the consumer, find out about the product by stumbling upon the page by luck; if you decide to try the product and don't like it does that mean you were fooled?
Can you only be fooled when you are alerted to the presence of a product without your consent?
>If I want a pair of shoes I like, I go to the shop that sells them.
>If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them)
My feet hurt. The shoes at the shop only sells shoes that make my feet hurt. How do I discover shoes that don't make my feet hurt?
He just went into a shoe store. How would he know which shoe store to call? (I remember this, it was pre-Internet and it was awful.)
> Google (in a world in which it didn't have ads)?
In a world without ads, Google would be a bulletin board (no meaningful revenue means no petabyte-sized index). You can replicate this experience on Craigslist today. Good luck!
> Ask a podiatrist?
In the USA, this adds a time tax (many people need to go to their primary doctor first to get a referral, then would have to be seen by the podiatrist to get to ask the question) and a money tax (all those doctors have to get paid).
How is clicking an ad better than advice from someone who should know? Maybe this is just a weak example but an ad that's like "do shoes hurt your feet for some reason? Maybe it's this! Buy our shoe to fix it!" seems a hell of a lot less likely to be useful than finding out why your foot hurts and getting informed advice on what will help.
Seems like you're just very lucky if the advertised product ends up solving the problem. I get that asking people or looking things up is effort but it's also a hell of a lot more likely to yield good results than trusting a stranger's ad to be accurate and helpful. The world would not end without advertising (or with very limited advertising), and people would not be unable to find things they want or need. They might not as often stumble on that information while doing something totally unrelated, sure, but I don't think that happens often enough to offset the harmful effects of advertising.
> Maybe this is just a weak example but an ad that's like "do shoes hurt your feet for some reason? Maybe it's this! Buy our shoe to fix it!" seems a hell of a lot less likely to be useful than finding out why your foot hurts and getting informed advice on what will help.
You're absolutely correct. It is also true that many people will not have the means (insurance, for example!) to do that, nor will they have the motivation to do that in every case (think of how few people employ personal financial advisors, for example).
Also: an environment free of ads would almost necessarily eliminate (or corrupt, via paid placement) product review sites that seek to help people make informed decisions. De-monetizing impartial information sites seems like a bad outcome.
Also: an environment free of ads would also by necessity eliminate
My friend discovered them with his eyes when he went to a different store that sells different shoes. He picked a pair that was visually appealing to him, tried them on and they turned out to be really comfy.
But I'd visit a doctor if your feet hurt no matter the shoe.
> If I want a pair of shoes I like, I go to the shop that sells them.
> If I don't know those shoes exist, I will live happily, because I have no fabricated need to fulfill (and most probably if I'll know about them it's because a friend is wearing them)
This reasoning is flawed because it ignores a common scenario: I want a pair of shoes, but none of the ones I find could fit me well enough. In other words, existing demand has not been met. Discovery has value.
> People interested in having something will find a way to know about them.
Ouch. This couldn't be more wrong. Throughout my life, I've met so many people who wanted something and didn't find it by trying very hard. Sometimes, they finally find it via an ad. Ads definitely helped them.
A world without advertising is - by and large - a world of entrenched megacompanies that dominate their space without fear of usurp. It's a world where the only viable politicians are popular actors.
Like it or not, advertising is an important way of spreading new memes in a liberal society based on voluntary exchange. Banning advertising is a recipe for stagnation.
that's nonsense. memes do not rely on advertising to exist, and as advertising is a service (that costs money) it's the biggest wallets that benefit the most from it.
hell, look at Facebook and Google, both advertising companies and I'd argue two of the biggest and most entrenched.
Organic meme spread is extremely random and unpredictable. Yes, rich people (and conglomerations of not-so-rich people) have better access to advertising. So what?
Facebook and Google are just mediums, like "television" in the abstract. The social value of advertising comes from the people doing the advertising. Like everything, some of it's crap and some of it's great.
It would be strictly worse. Advertising is at worst an annoyance. On the other hand, a legally-enforced gatekeeping bureaucracy that decides whose speech is allowed to reach other people is an Orwellean nightmare. Do you trust <insert your opposing political tribe here> to decide which political ads are acceptable?
Despite HN's fixation on G and F, there are multitudes of advertising channels both online and offline.
My main concern's dragnet spying and user-targeted (not content-targeted) ads but I do think it'd be nice to get rid of (nearly) all ads, too—it's just that if I can only pick eliminate all ads or eliminate all spying, I'd pick the latter. I think that priority order is why people tend to fixate on big tech, for which the spying is all tied up with the advertising, but I also think magazines selling subscriber lists should be illegal, the CRAs should either be eliminated or much more tightly regulated, credit card companies shouldn't be able to sell your purchase data, et c. No companies should be able to do those things, it's just that Big Tech does a lot of that (but so do financial institutions and so on, sure, and those shouldn't be able to do it either).
Separately, yes, it would be nice to at squeeze all advertising down to some very small factor in the economy, if not completely eliminate it (which is probably impractical).
[EDIT] But back to the original point, your scary-no-advertising-world post mostly just describes the current state of our has-advertising world.
Yeah. Along the same lines, anyone who has ever attempted to start a business knows that advertising in various ways is essential.
If you banned all advertising, you'd be doing a huge favor to the largest, most established companies--the ones that already have high brand awareness.
As much as ads suck, they also provide a relatively democratic form of access to markets for new entrants. Without them, the only hope is going viral organically, which is more or less equivalent to winning the lottery.
That does not justify advertisement. The problem you describe could as well be solved by a neutral third party actor (could even be a public service) providing impartial news about the kinds of products that exist in the market.
> So then what, you get curators like Google who become super powerful?
Doesn't Google currently own one of the biggest advertising platforms on the entire planet, and don't they curate what categories of products are allowed to appear on it?
There are lots of problems with curation, but I am not convinced centralization is one of them. At least, I'm not convinced that centralization is any more of an issue with curation than it currently is with advertising. There's no reason to centralize curation and give control to one company/government any more than there is reason to centralize Internet ads with one company/government.
Advertisement I would say on Google are more free then their "curated" search.
When ads for instance are not allowed on Google, all that's left is google's opinion on whats useful. Which is weirdly enough most likely less free and more opiniated.
I don't really understand where the difference is that you're seeing.
Google bans categories of ads, and bans advertisers that it views as bad actors, the same way it does with search. It also uses an algorithm to figure out what ads to show you, the same way it does with search results. It uses a lot of the same data (location, history, preferences, etc) to make those decisions.
The only difference I can see is that advertisers pay money to influence that algorithm (ie, a company willing to pay more money will win an auction against a company that has less money). Is that what you're referring to as the thing that makes it more free and less opinionated?
I think, logically, if they wanted thing or service, they'd know they want it, yes?
What you mean is, they want it after being told how this and that it is, how utterly special, how pathetic they are for not having it, how bad they look without it, and a spell of desire and want are cast over them, to covet thing $x.
So many things, are only a thing because someone else has it.
Most successful startups provide products or services that address problems that lack solutions, where the solutions aren't sufficient, or where they cause additional problems. When these new, "disruptive" products emerge, the marketplace needs to be educated about them.
This is what the term "Marketing" means: it's about creating a market by injecting demand into the marketplace. If people aren't aware that a product exists, they can't demand it.
It's easy to focus on Budweiser ads, because those are the memorable ones. But only ~50% of advertising spend is brand advertising [1]. Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem.
> Most advertising isn't about making you feel less cool, or promising increased sex appeal. It's about identifying with a customer, calling out a problem they're having, and educating them about a solution to that problem.
This is quite a bad faith description of "performance advertising".
