Hacker News
points by elevation 2 days ago | 0 comments
My parents were frugal; we acquired most possessions second hand, and we learned to view all advertisements with suspicion. Seeing an ad on television practically guaranteed that we wouldn't be wasting our money on whatever it depicted.

Coming from a relatively hardened mindset, it is startling to understand how impressionable people must be for modern advertising to be worth the cost.

[–] autoexec 2 days ago
> Coming from a relatively hardened mindset, it is startling to understand how impressionable people must be for modern advertising to be worth the cost.

There's a lot of question as to how much advertising is actually worth the cost, at least in terms of actual sales. I suspect that many companies could scale back their spending on marketing substantially and never notice any difference in sales.

Advertising does more than push sales though, it also manipulates consumer perspectives and our culture. It sets expectations. It tries to make you feel inadequate, insecure, and unfulfilled. It modifies how we act and the ways we express ourselves. It changes how we see ourselves and the world. Maybe that is what's really worth the money.

[–] rerdavies 2 days ago
My brother worked for Proctor & Gamble, which is a company whose success is built entirely on the magical effect of advertising.

As part of his training he had to run an advertising campaign for a minor P&G shampoo brand. Training for a finance position, not a product management position! Why would you make somebody in finance handle marketing for a shampoo? Because they need to understand the fundamental mechanics that drive the business. There's no such thing as a good or a bad ad. The only thing that matters is that you flash the name of your product into peoples' primitive lizard brain over and over and over. Pantene, Pantene, Pantene, Pantene. People buy commodity products, and are willing to pay more, solely based on whether they recognize the name or not. Humans have no defense against this.

[–] khafra 2 days ago
The Mere Recognition effect exists in pretty much all humans, yes--but it's completely possible to train a reflex of "if I recognize the brand name, it's the same product as the store brand next to it for $150% of the price." My family also did this when I was a kid.
[–] dml2135 2 days ago
I think this is right on the nose. Advertising as it exists today is not so much about inducing customers to buy your product, as it is propaganda to convince people that your product holds a natural place in society.

When you view ads through this lens, the number of ads for things that consumers do not even directly purchase — like prescription drugs, or oil - makes a lot more sense.

[–] NooneAtAll5 2 days ago
there are ads for oil??
[–] BigGreenJorts 2 days ago
Saudi Aramco had ads all over the world cup.
[–] kochikame 2 days ago
Oil companies and gas station chains? Sure, maybe not everywhere in the world but absolutely that exists.

And nowadays they're mainly trying to convince us that these companies are green and part of the zero emissions/carbon negative solution

[–] ufo 2 days ago
In ads, oil companies usually call themselves "energy" companies.
[–] dublin 2 days ago
Marketing ≠ Advertising ≠ Sales As a tech guy, it took me a lot longer than I like to admit to fully understand this. There is tons of money in advertising, but most of it is wasted: As the old saying goes, "I know half my advertising budget is wasted - the problem is I don't know which half!"

And for the record, the last one (sales) is what really matters. As another old saying goes, "Nothing happens until you get a purchase order."

Really aligning sales incentives with the company's goals is surprisingly rare, and seems much rarer now than it was 20 years ago becasue of digital media.

[–] bee_rider 2 days ago
I’m sure we can trust the folks whose whole business model is “we’re real good at convincing people to spend their money” when they say their product is a super effective tool that every business owner should spend money on. Right?
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
It's like that on YouTube today. Every single company that buys in-video advertisements ("sponsors") on YouTube has turned out to be a scam in one way or another. Every single one. The VPNs are probably the least bad, since they deliver the service as promised, they're just overselling how much you need the service, but at least it's not very expensive. Well that and the meal ingredient delivery, which is just overpriced.

Established Titles doesn't make you a lord. Honey doesn't save you money. Brilliant doesn't help you learn things. Betterhelp doesn't connect you with real therapists. I forgot the others.

[–] ThunderSizzle 2 days ago
There's also manscaped. I just assume they are crap too since the rest are.

The VPN side - it feels more like a honeypot than anything else to me.

I'll sometimes use the VPN mode from Proton, but I wouldn't sign up for just a vpn - I simply assume they are selling my data the same as everyone else. The only way to convince me otherwise is an open-source non-profit vpn properly overnighted by the community.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
They have their uses but their uses are not the advertised uses.
[–] voidUpdate 2 days ago
If I get advertised something on youtube, I instantly assume it's not very good. I only use onshape because I was personally recommended it by a friend. It does the job, mostly
[–] vehemenz 1 day ago
The mattresses are fine. They're a little overpriced (aren't all mattresses), but they're at least real products.
[–] throwaway277432 2 days ago
Ridge wallet isn't a wallet.
[–] kakacik 2 days ago
> Seeing an ad on television practically guaranteed that we wouldn't be wasting our money on whatever it depicted.

One doesn't need to be frugal or come from such environment, its more about basic human decency and mental hygiene. You try to manipulate me to buy your product, normalize its existence etc? Ok will make sure to avoid that, there is a lot of competition. Too pushy and seeing it everywhere? it means you over-invested on marketing manipulation and product has probably seen some dramatic cost-cutting to make it all together still financially viable. In any case, customer lost.

uBlock origin with Firefox on internet, including (especially!!!) on phone. Ads simply don't exist in my world under normal circumstances, not on general web, nor on youtube. When something bad happens and I see internet or youtube without those protections, its properly nauseating and outright insulting to me.

But - I've seen people en masse already conditioned to accept this, they watch it all, some of them even take hints for their shopping habits. When questioned, they don't see anything wrong, don't care about manipulation. Sometimes I feel like an alien. Luckily my wife sees it the same, I'll go to great lengths to protect my young kids from this cancerous soul garbage. 'Better' parents from our circles see it similarly, for now at least.

[–] devmor 2 days ago
The secret that most people in business don’t want to admit is that the vast majority of internet/media advertising is not worth the cost.

They are throwing many different strategies out there through many different avenues and banking one the one that just happens to pull in a new chunk of buyers. It’s like lower-stakes gambling.

[–] JambalayaJimbo 2 days ago
What do you even consider advertising?

If I make let's say a children's toy, how am I supposed to let people know that this new type of toy even exists? That WHOLE process is advertising, no? Whether I give these toys away for free at a Santa Clause parade, pay department stores to put my toy in prominent shelves, or buy space on Cartoon Network.

How do you get even a single buyer without advertising?

[–] autoexec 2 days ago
Only a very small part of advertising is actually product promotion. Coca-cola spends $4 billion a year on ads, do you think it's because otherwise no one would know that coke exists?

It's true that advertising is a great way to promote a product, but its far from the only way. For many years now I've done what I can to cut all advertising out of my life and yet I still buy lots of things, including things I've never seen a single ad for.

[–] kuratkull 2 days ago
If Coca Cola stopped advertising for a year, their sales would surely start trending down.
[–] preg_match 2 days ago
Yes, but not because advertising lets people know about Coke. The people who still know about Coke would be the same after a year, I imagine.

The mechanism of how advertising works seems to be not that. I think repeatedly brand exposure does something to the brain and decision making that we don’t fully understand.

[–] ThunderSizzle 2 days ago
Familiarity, I think.

Exposure breeds familiarity, which breeds desire, I think.

Even if all you hear is an occasional ad about the company, you might get curious and research them yourself.

[–] autoexec 2 days ago
If you drink it now, would you stop? Would you forget that it exists even though it's on store shelves, in vending machines, and pushed at several restaurants? Who would stop?
[–] d1sxeyes 2 days ago
Almost no-one can honestly answer this for themselves. I think the truth is likely: 'no, I'd still order a coke at McDonald's, I'd still pick a coke up from a vending machine if I'm thirsty. But if I'm buying a takeaway sandwich, I might not also get the drink. Or if I'm in the supermarket, I might just skip that aisle.'

I'm sure it's almost completely subconscious.

[–] rerdavies 2 days ago
Marketing. Advertising is only one of the strategies that get used to market a product.
[–] devmor 2 days ago
I was referring to internet advertising, I should have made that more clear.
[–] IAmBroom 2 days ago
But it's the dirty little secret of most advertising: there's no voluntary feedback to prove (consistently, objectively) how effective your $$ are being spent.

The last thing a marketing company or media provider wants to admit is that any of their services are underperforming, or worse, turning off buyers.

[–] d1sxeyes 2 days ago
It's partly true, but only if no-one advertises. If I don't advertise but a competitor does, then I start to lose market share. So although the cost may not justify itself independently, in the face of my competitors' marketing budget, it does.
[–] khafra 2 days ago
That reminds me of one of my idiosyncratic policy wishes: An enormous pigouvian tax on any advertising beyond a spreadsheet listing quantitative technical data about the product. Companies don't lose anything, since the relative spend and impact remains the same; consumers gain a lot of information and public funding, and lose daily aggravation.
[–] cousin_it 2 days ago
Pigovian taxes were invented to compensate for externalities. Where's the externality here? You go to a website. The website owner says "watch this ad to access my content". It's a free agreement (or disagreement) between you and the website owner, nobody else is harmed.
[–] khafra 2 days ago
Since advertising spending is largely zero-sum, additional spending on advertising may shift market share, but it does so without delivering new factual utility or consumer surplus. The fact that there's a pareto-superior equilibrium makes it a symmetric reciprocal externality: Robert H. Frank showed, in "Positional Externalities Cause Large and Preventable Welfare Losses" (2005) that positional arms races are shaped exactly like environmental pollution.

But, even if there's a better equilibrium, isn't loading a website crammed with obtrusive ads still a coasean bargain between two parties? Simon P. Anderson and Stephen Coate studied this question in "Market Provision of Broadcasting: A Welfare Analysis" (2005). They identified unpriced externalities like the common-pool attention tragedy, as has been raised in other comments here, and asymmetric information & hold-up, which increase transaction costs.

Divide advertising spend into two components: Informative specs, and persuasive/obtrusive spend. The margial external cost is the sum of profits foregone by rival businesses, and aggregate viewer nuisance. A pigouvian tax with an exemption threshold for factual spreadsheets and apunitive rate on expenditure above that (or visual intrusion metrics) both prices the cognitive nuisance imposed on readers, and collapses the positional arms race between rival firms; transforming the industry from a high-waste prisoner's dilemma to a low-cost, high-information pareto optimum.

Obviously, you still have to watch out for firms goodharting the spreadsheet metric, but that's both a partially solvable problem, and a much better situation than the current nash equilibrium.

[–] cousin_it 1 day ago
Ai;dr
[–] minraws 2 days ago
This isn't true in the general sense, for new products with no distribution or customer awareness it's very important to advertise how else will anyone know about it.
[–] brainwad 2 days ago
Paid promotion in publications is a much more gentler way to advertise though compared to modern internet advertising. Back in the day I'd buy computer magazines - basically the whole point of which was to make me aware of new products. But the articles were at least somewhat at arm's length and not pure ad copy.
[–] minraws 2 days ago
Yeah you can still buy subscriptions to substacks where people recommend you products to buy in certain categories, the entire Semianalysis thing is substack about which GPU/AI Accelerator to buy.

This doesn't in the slightest replace ads though. Before modern internet advertising we had advertising in whatever else had your attention. Ads were meant as we way to simplify and ease distribution.

It's a horrible business in terms of user experience but it's purpose isn't user experience it's meant for businesses to be able to streamline their outreach for much cheaper than the alternatives, imagine cold calls, emails, door knocks, door to door sales has died for this very reason.

I am not trying to explain away the issues and societal problems but they have value of companies otherwise they wouldn't exist. However much people would like to pretend CEOs and founders aren't completely retared.

For initial distribution spikes Ads are the best possible solution, very expensive yes, but if your goal is growth Ads are the most efficient solution since they almost linearly convert spending into visibility in turn producing growth.

Horrible way to do stuff but it's what it is.

[–] asdff 2 days ago
Most new products don’t get advertised. That happens later after they’ve made some initial sales. Those initial sales often happen from just placing it on some shelf space, real or virtual, where relevant consumers are liable to find it.
[–] minraws 1 day ago
Have you ever built or sold products, worked in a startup? I have worked in several many tried the if we build it they will come strat and it fell flat.

The only companies that have made any real money have had to use Ads from the very start.

You can catch lightining in a bottle but exceptions here prove the rule.

It's absurd to think anyone will care about your product if you don't.

[–] asdff 21 hours ago
This isnt if you build it thehy will come. It is about placing it on shelves where your customers already are. Most products I buy are exactly this.
[–] autoexec 2 days ago
Word of mouth is one of the the oldest ways and it can still be very useful. It tends to work best when your product is actually any good though. If you have a product that really is amazing you won't have to manipulate people into paying for it, and you won't be able to stop people from telling others about how great it is.
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
chess.com and lichess

Despite lichess being better in every way except marketing, it's still #2.

It's very impressive word of mouth got it to #2, but marketing experts are marketing experts.

[–] rationalist 1 day ago
The "lichess" name is terrible, the way the word itself looks is off-putting.

It's like why they use sharp points in the hazmat symbol, it just looks bad even if you don't know what it means.

[–] countWSS 2 days ago
the name matters, chess.com= automatically associates with something central about chess. (dot com) lich-ess can be read as lich-chess or leeches, both leave repulsive associations, effectively sub-conscious anti-marketing.
[–] cowlevel 1 day ago
So it's all about who has millions of dollars to buy common word domain names from scalpers. That's a marketing expense.
[–] devmor 2 days ago
That's a fair point, I wasn't really accounting for new products/services in that statement.
[–] aprilthird2021 2 days ago
Absolutely untrue by any metrics or semblance of study. People overestimate how unsusceptible they are to marketing. Marketing doesn't only work if you see an ad and click on it. It's after seeing hundreds of ads, that you start internally building a perception of a brand as whatever they market as (expensive, value oriented, fun, serious, luxurious, splurge material, etc.) Then the next time, maybe months after you've seen any such ad, you need to buy an expensive, splurge type gift for someone. If you remember the brand then, the marketing has worked.

That kind of stuff is absolutely worth the cost of ad spend online

[–] devmor 2 days ago
That is a great example of the impossible to prove woo that advertisers pay for studies to convince clients of.
[–] ErroneousBosh 2 days ago
I just don't buy things that have adverts I find annoying.

I did some web development work for an advertising guy about 20-odd years ago and he found my position on it baffling.

"But advertising works on everyone!" he cried, "everyone remembers their favourite adverts! Why do you buy oh for example the washing powder you buy?"

Well, I buy Persil, because it's what my mum buys, and I like how it smells. I tried other washing powders, but I didn't like how they smelled so much, and there are two brands I won't buy because they have annoying shouty adverts.

He just didn't get it at all.

[–] AndrewKemendo 2 days ago
My father told me: “If they are advertising it you don’t need it”

Everyone is influenced by advertising even if it’s third hand: “oh I like that (thing) where did you get it, oh (person) saw an ad and bought one and I tried it too”

But I agree that if you inculcate a default position of rejecting things that are advertised you can avoid being pulled into wasting your energy on unnecessary things

[–] quectophoton 2 days ago
> Everyone is influenced by advertising even if it’s third hand

Expanding on this.

"Wanna go eat somewhere? Like McDonald's or something?" -> McDonald's is suggested offhandedly[1], but that's only because it's already somewhere in the back of the person's mind, and it's already associated with "eating". It's only "already" there because the person is aware of it. And they're aware of it for whatever reason (one of which could be advertising, but who knows!).

The endgame for advertising is when people become blind to ads, either because they become used to them, or because they hate them so much they "ignore" them (or so they tell themselves). So in both those situations they completely block out the "ad" part of it, and "I saw an ad about a thing that..." becomes "Wasn't there a thing that...?").

[1]: Maybe even defensively, like "if we don't find anything better (or we're not in the mood for anything in particular) there's always this option as a last resort".

[–] nkrisc 2 days ago
The truth today is that almost all consumer products produced today is crap we don’t need. It’s almost literally manufactured landfill, since that’s where most of it will end up.
[–] crassus_ed 2 days ago
That’s a wise remark and I haven’t thought about it like that, but it’s entirely true!

I always try to avoid ads as much as possible and not having any social media really helps. But going to use this remark from now on.

[–] vintermann 2 days ago
We're talking about entertainment products. What do you think it would be like to be the only Star Trek fan in 80s Mongolia? I think it would be pretty sad. Yes, the show would still be the same, still be as good, but you have no one to share it with. They simply don't get it.

So even the most hardcore nerds adapt their tastes to what other people like. It's not so hard, because hey, there are other good TV shows, there's other reasonable entertainment. It's hard to say objectively that a Star Trek convention is better than a Mongolian Chess tournament anyway.

But when advertising comes into the picture... It's not that you necessarily think the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the best thing ever. It's that you know everyone will be talking about it, everyone will be referencing it, so if you can find at least decently entertaining you should maybe prioritize getting into that over getting into Danish underground comics from the 90s.

[–] AngryData 2 days ago
Yeah in my family seeing a TV advertisement was a warning that they spent a lot of the money on advertising and not as much on the product itself.
[–] Terr_ 2 days ago
From a similar mindset: Some kinds of expensive promotional signals (like a smartphone showroom with wasted floor-space) become a bad sign, especially if the company/product already has wide brand-name recognition.

If the company can afford to throw money at Frivolous Thing X, the money has to come from somewhere, which implies it comes from consumers who aren't actually getting a good deal on the product or service.

[–] potatototoo99 2 days ago
If the company is paying for ads, it's being paid off by higher margins.
[–] pampas 2 days ago
Or they have a problem retaining customers and are looking for fresh meat.