> I've yet to encounter an ad that has a hope in hell of manipulating me at all.

If you know what "just do it", "the happiest place on Earth", "think different", or "the world's most advanced operating system" refer to, you've already been manipulated. A lot of ads are just about making sure you have a particular brand in mind and you're keenly aware of that brand's existence. Then, when time comes around to actually buy something, you'll think back to that brand. There's a lot of sneaky group psychology in the advertising industry.

I agree for the most part, but there is a not insignificant part of the population for which those things don't matter.

I know a good number of people who don't buy Nike products, don't own a Mac, and haven't been to any theme parks. For those people, whether or not they know the slogan doesn't matter: if you only drink water then 100 Coke vs Pepsi ads do nothing; if you run an obscure Linux distro you'll laugh at both the "think different" and "the world's most advanced operating system" ads; if you wear "the cheap black ones I think?" then the $90 Nikes won't get your dollar over the $40 New Balance shoes. I'm not saying that's the best way to live your life, but it certainly is one way to neatly sidestep the modern manipulation of ads.

>...certainly is one way to neatly sidestep the modern manipulation of ads.

Things may be more insidious than that though. You may not drink Coke or Pepsi, but maybe you have friends or family members that do? I've certainly known people who didn't like to go to certain restaurants because they didn't serve Coke. Maybe you've also gone along with this at sometime in the past. Or maybe you've had to buy gifts for friends of your children, and they've had pressure procure name-brand items?

..you realize that could be because Coke and Pepsi taste rather different and someone may like one to the exclusion of the other? What does that have to do with advertising?

Have you ever been to a restaurant where there served both Coke and Pepsi?

This comes down to franchise agreements, not advertising.

That depends on your definition of manipulation. Most people consider manipulation to be unfair or unscrupulous. Knowing a motto or the name of a brand is hardly either.

I also happen to know what "get serious about social" refers to even though I've never seen an ad by them, nor have I ever been in a position which would make me a customer. There's nothing "sneaky" advertising techniques. They are well-known.

I know my argument stands on shakey ground, but brand awareness (what you define as knowing a motto or brand name) is absolutely a form of manipulation. Apple has enough money, to buy enough ads, to be in enough places, that they can get their message to the masses. "Pear computers" (an imaginary computer startup who makes hardware better than apple but has no money) who don't have the power (money) to make that campaign happen absolutely have less manipulation leverage and will probably die unless they can figure out how to build a marketing ground swell (aka manipulate enough people to believe that their product _is_ superior and to use it.) See: Beats headphones.

>but brand awareness (what you define as knowing a motto or brand name) is absolutely a form of manipulation.

You're argument isn't shaky, its incomplete. How is this a bad thing? If my friend tells me "Intel makes good SSDs", I now have a brand and a reason to buy from them. Am I being "manipulated"? By your definition yes, I'm probably not going to buy a Samsung SSD, now knowing Intel is reliable. Is this bad? I don't know, I generally consider having information about a product I wish to purchase a good thing.

Your argument didn't get any less shaky, unless you consider any interaction with an agenda, and therefore every interaction you will ever have, to be manipulation.

If you do I feel a great amount of sympathy for you. You must feel inundated.

Brand awareness is the most important part of apple's product. "Better hardware"? Nobody cares.

You can overcome this by developing some habits of mind. First, never make a purchasing decision at the store or when approached by another person. Always decide that you'll buy something in the comfort of your own home, and try to wait on that decision. If you think you need something, stop, forget about it, and see if you need it next week. Only buy it if you still need it then.

Second, always always comparison-shop for things. Read the reviews, identify which specs are most important to you, seek out competitors, and compare prices. The Internet (and now mobile apps) makes this so easy these days.

I've never bought Nike or IBM, usually prefer local amusement parks or carnivals to Disneyland, and had to Google to realize that your last slogan applies to OS X (I think Xen when I hear "the world's most advanced operating system"). Consistently saved 80% of my income since I started working. I love ad-supported stuff, because it means other people pay for it rather than me.

When I want to buy a card, I go to a shop named Cards Galore. I go there because the name makes me think that they sell cards. I know it exists because I pass it every day, and they have their name in big letters on the outside of their shop.

Do you consider that I've been manipulated? More to the point, do you find anything unethical in this?

Manipulation, yes. Unethical, maybe? (when you look at its effect in aggregate)

Honestly I just want all the advertising (be it physical (signage, billboards, smells, etc) or digital) to get out of my environment. It's almost always noise and it's ugly. There's no reason we couldn't build a hyper-connected system where if I'm looking for something, I can find it.

I want socks? Ok, how many sock stores are local? Ok, what are these made of and who is their supplier, and how does their supplier get their product? (I don't want to support sweat-shop labor or non-sustainability, especially if I'm buying socks.) How have other people found these socks to work?

I should be able to find what I need, which includes being able to understand how that product came to be (transparency). Products shouldn't find me. Ads are noise and we've got enough of that as it is. Would Nike, selling socks, be as successful when all is considered? I'd like to think humans care more for their home and, taking away all the psychological manipulation of ads, could begin to choose how to spend their money more intelligently. A man can dream...

EDIT: To me your question raises the problem we should solve, which advertising kinda solves damn poorly. Get people who need something in touch with the people who can provide that something, and make it transparent for both parties as much as possible.

How is a store front with a sign having the store's name manipulation exactly?

I'm not sure where you live, but your desires are incompatible with free speech. Frankly, they're so extreme, I can't imagine you could be happy as anything other than a hermit. I certainly wouldn't be quiet in your presence just because you don't want to hear me.

Two follow-up questions:

1) Is it free speech to blow an airhorn on a continuous basis?

2) Is it free speech to spraypaint over a billboard?

ok, let's assume such a hyper-connected system exists and ads disappear completely. You decide to buy socks. You find a supplier you like. Socks come in black and orange. You like black, but your wife prefers orange. She convinces you to change your mind with arguments such as "orange is more vibrant". Do you consider that a form of manipulation? is it unethical?

The truth is, we as human being are constantly target of manipulation, always was, always will be. If not in the form of ads, then masqueraded in other more subtle forms. Would you rather know you're explicitly being subject of manipulation?

Great reply, and yes, of course I consider that a form of manipulation. It's not unethical because I MARRIED them. I chose to enter into a partnership with them and I want their input within me. Isn't it nice that such an imagined marketplace would allow us to both satisfy our needs together instead of being manipulated by companies as to what's the "right" choice?

I'd rather avoid the manipulation altogether by people I don't know and they can fuck right off with their attempts to sell me something I don't need or am not interested in (all the while contributing to hidden negative externalities). I want to support (manipulate) and be supported by (manipulated by) people I love and know to share my values.

@oldmanjay in another response says this is contrary to free speech, imagines I must be a unhappy unless I'm a hermit, and doesn't mind that he'd be offending me with his noise if we were in the same room. Well guess what, I wouldn't have entered the room in the first place. That's the problem. You can't walk down the street without getting blasted in the retinas by all this damn noise. The fact that it happens on highways while people need to be focusing on the road is just insane. I live in NA.

A concept that has crossed my mind: an Anti-advertising League. Businesses can opt in to a directory containing information on their products and services (including reviews, etc), with the stipulation that they will never advertise.

You'd expect the directory to be filled with businesses that effectively advertise themselves.

Its ironic that your username is an ad for the addictive, manipulative game.

That works both ways. In the UK, presumably elsewhere too, there are long running themed adverts - they drive me nuts on the occasions that I don't hit the mute button soon enough. Brits will know the mongooses, and the two marathon runners, supposedly humorous - incessant, for years on end. Never, ever will I use those services.

Ugh, I'm right with you. When I renewed my car insurance recently, I avoided using either of the 2 comparison sites for exactly that reason. I wonder if brands ever do market research on the number of people actively repelled by their adverts.

BT. The combination of "bad boy" and overpaid UEFA thugs is enough to stop me buying any of their services.

The people who won't buy after the advert "wouldn't have bought it anyways"

The mongooses? Or the meerkats?

(I can't think of any mongoose adverts.)

Possibly a branding fail, at least for the parent commentator :-)

I actually quite like the Meerkats.

I know what "just do it" means but have only bought one (1) pair of Nike trainers in my life (out of, oh, 40+ pairs).

I'm pretty sure I know where "the happiest place on Earth" is but it'll be a cold day in hell before I visit.

Less manipulated, more just a basic cultural awareness, I'd say.

  > If you know [random thing]... you've already been manipulated.

If this is the proposed legal standard, then parents should be banned first.

"Here are some other great manipulation products you may be interested in..."

But this moves the goal posts from your initial claim, which was "I adblock because I do not want to be manipulated into buying things I do not need."

Choosing one brand over another when you want to buy beer is not nearly the same thing as being manipulated into buying beer when you don't actually want to.

Huh, looks like I've underestimated how effective isolating myself from that is. I could only identify the first one of those slogans with any confidence.

Yah, that's not "manipulation".

The only thing that kind of advertising does is make me actively avoid that brand in the future out of sheer spite.

I maybe know one of those ;)

Not all ads manipulate, and not all advertisers are evil people looking to manipulate their target audience.

(Disclosure--I do digital media for a living)

Case in point, I once had a vet clinic as a client. People were seeking out information on Google for certain pet symptoms that owners may not have realized warranted a vet visit, and we ran paid search ads against those terms. People were clicking them and then coming in to get their exam, and often getting in front of what could have been a much worse outcome for their pet.

Was that manipulative or helpful?

Point is, people like to paint with overly broad strokes when speaking about advertising. Make no mistake, the lengths to which publishers have gone over the past couple of years is disgusting. Would you be surprised to learn that many in the industry also hate this kind of crap? I'm not trying to make excuses or anything as there are definitely bad actors (among advertisers, networks and publishers), but there can be very legitimate and helpful uses for ads that also respect privacy and aren't in-your-face. Not all ads are sponsored content or autoplay video units.

The only difference between persuasion and manipulation when it comes to media is the personal biases of the people having the discussion.

Couldn't help but notice you didn't leave other options beyond "persuasion" and "manipulation"...such as "offering an option for someone to self select." There's also another party absent beyond the people in the discussion, which is the end user exposed to this who likely has an opinion as well.

Never try to get in the way of the HN anti-advertising hate train, especially with reasonable counter-examples.

I used to think I am immune to advertising, now, I confess, I never stood a chance. I think most people expect the true enlightened will fall for ads. Its not just you not buying their shit, its just the attention they take away from things you really care.

Of course. You think for yourself. It's only other people that fall for advertising.

It's amazing how many people think this is true.

All the data I have, is consistent with people having different levels of susceptibility to ads. It wouldn't surprise me if there are in fact people who aren't influenced by them.

Do you have data which is inconsistent with this?

I have no data, only the observation that whenever this kind of discussion takes place, there are always people who claim to be unaffected by advertising. I don't think that people are a good judge of their own biases, and that we tend to over-rate ourselves.

If lots of people are susceptible, I have to live in the world with the economy that this situation creates whether or not I'm personally as susceptible as someone else.

Yes, of course. But I think there's a difference between (say) "I play WoW (as opposed to some other MMO) to play with my friends who play WoW because of advertising" and "I play WoW because of advertising".

And I think logingone or joosters were talking about the second, not the first.

I agree with you.

An ad may make me aware of a product of which I had not previously been but it's not going to induce me to buy something in which I had no previous interest.

If I'm thinking of Widget Class X Brand A, an ad might make me aware of Brand B and I may eventually purchase the Brand B but I was going to purchase Widget Class X anyway.

If I had no interest in Widget Class Z, it doesn't matter how many ads I see for it, I'm still not going to buy it.

What if the ad makes you aware of a "problem" that you didn't know you had that they have a product that can address. Think for example an ad reinforces the underlying fear that you are not social enough because you enjoy programming by yourself. It explains that a pill to help "anxiety" is what you need to be healthy or maybe a class to help you become better spoken will change your life for the better.

Many people fail to note that an advertisement often creates or reinforces your fear and sells you the solution to the newly created problem.

Hell, advertisements for candy or drinks. I wasn't aware that I was hungry or thirsty but that sure looks tasty!

That's called psychological manipulation and exploitation.

When you understand and come to terms with the fact that that's what pretty much all ads are doing, it becomes much simpler to view the ads only with disgust and avoid the brands they are peddling in future.

"...in which I had no previous interest"

What piqued your interest to begin with?

You're ignoring subconscious ad effects, which largely are the main effects that advertisers are seeking to use. You scan quickly over some innocuous-seeming ad for Product-X-that-of-course-you'd-never-ever-buy, and now you are psychologically primed -- the shade of blue in the ad was chosen because it tested best for users who also viewed page Y and whose IP addresses place them in your area -- the ad contained a human face with features, expression, grooming, all chosen to resonate with you in a millisecond as your eye saccade glosses over it. Any text or pricing information was chosen carefully to explicitly prime you.

Then, months or years later when you're on the market for something like Product-X, you absolutely do not even ever remember scanning your eyes over the ad, and yet your eyes are just simply drawn to the product, or when it is mentioned by word of mouth, there is some priming memory to be reinforced, and somehow you just happen to choose Product-X to purchase.

I mean you're just taking it to conspiracy levels now. Priming is indeed a thing but those kinds of associations are very short-lived. I don't know of any priming effect that lasts for months and years or at least I haven't read any study that indicates that.

If advertisers really knew what they were doing there wouldn't be so much advertising spam. They are just blasting the speakers as loudly as they can and then tracking every little thing possible because they think they can optimize the pipeline somehow. There is no science behind any of it.

I'm baffled that you feel this way. I actually worked on some of the science behind it when I was in grad school. Here was one of the well-known projects in the field at that time:

< http://ilab.usc.edu/publications/doc/Itti_Baldi06nips.pdf >

There are also many other kinds of psychological manipulation research. For example, this article from Gamasutra talks about techniques for monetization in games, and this is obviously applicable to many ad formats:

< http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/1949... >

The idea of excessive ad repetition is not at all new: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_frequency#Thomas_Smi... >.

Even just a cursory Google search for whatever popular advertising journals there are, then looking at what articles are in their current issues, turned up some pretty quantitative work on allocating to different media formats:

< http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/content/55/4/443 >

Or this article on determining what cognitive factors are related to the avoidance of OTC drug ads:

< http://www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com/content/55/4/401 >

That one, in the introduction, also links to many other studies specifically about psychological factors contributing to negative ad reactions.

I'm really baffled that you think advertisers do not conduct extremely specific threads of research to determine whether they are getting their money's worth from a certain ad or not.

I don't consider any of this to be remotely like a conspiracy theory -- in fact I thought this was commonly understood to be obviously the case, and I'm very surprised to hear that you feel otherwise.

You can be as baffled as you want. My circle of friends is pretty evenly split between people that buy name brand things and those that couldn't care less about any branded products. So either advertisers have figured out how to target those that are susceptible to their kind of priming or they're shooting in the dark.

Reading the abstracts in order:

> The concept of surprise is central to sensory processing, adaptation, learning, and attention. Yet, no widely-accepted mathematical theory currently exists to quantitatively characterize surprise elicited by a stimulus or event, for observers that range from single neurons to complex natural or engineered systems. We describe a formal Bayesian definition of surprise that is the only consistent formulation under minimal axiomatic assumptions. Surprise quantifies how data affects a natural or artificial observer, by measuring the difference between posterior and prior beliefs of the observer. Using this framework we measure the extent to which humans direct their gaze towards surprising items while watching television and video games. We find that subjects are strongly attracted towards surprising locations, with 72% of all human gaze shifts directed towards locations more surprising than the average, a figure which rises to 84% when considering only gaze targets simultaneously selected by all subjects. The resulting theory of surprise is applicable across different spatio-temporal scales, modalities, and levels of abstraction.

Nothing to do with priming. Novelty seeking is not priming and I would expect this result to be true given what I know about people in general and bits and pieces of evolutionary psychology. Do ads try to be novel? Sure. I guess that is one way to grab attention but I don't see any connection between that and long-term manipulation that you talk about.

> A coercive monetization model depends on the ability to “trick” a person into making a purchase with incomplete information, or by hiding that information such that while it is technically available, the brain of the consumer does not access that information. Hiding a purchase can be as simple as disguising the relationship between the action and the cost as I describe in my Systems of Control in F2P paper.

Again, tricking someone is not the same as priming them for the long term. This is the same stuff casinos do so catering to short-term heuristics and tricking a person hardly qualifies as what you laid out in your original comment.

> The current study applied a “mixture-amount modeling” statistical approach—used most often in biology, agriculture, and food science—to measure the impact of advertising effort and allocation across different media. The authors of the current paper believe advertisers can use the mixture-amount model to detect optimal advertising-mix allocation changes as a function of their total advertising effort. The researchers demonstrated the use of the model by analyzing Belgian magazine and television data on 34 advertising campaigns for beauty-care brands. The goal is to help advertisers maximize desirable outcomes for campaign recognition and brand interest.

Sounds interesting but is more about optimizing exposure than anything else. No claims about long term cognitive effects and rightfully so.

Anyway, my bafflement should not be surprising.

I don't feel your reply addresses any of my points. For example, you simply list the Itti/Baldi paper's abstract and say that, basically, because the word 'priming' doesn't appear in the abstract means the research has nothing to do with it. That seems incredibly disingenuous to me. The research is directly about predicting where human eyeballs will involuntarily move when presented with certain visual stimuli. If you can't see the direct connection with drawing attention to priming artifacts in an ad, I think it's probably just not possible for us to even converse about the topic at all.

The rest of the reply is similar. Using ctrl-f to search for the word 'priming' in a source doesn't constitute an effort to see how it could be connected to priming.

The manipulation is subtle, but even if we assume ads don't manipulate you at all, they do manipulate people around you and shared societal consciousness - and that definitely impacts most people.

Maybe "manipulation" is a manipulative way of saying "influence".

It's hard to call the de beers advertising campaign as anything other than manipulation. Maybe the worst example of the set of all advertisements, where the best would be advertisements that only explain what a product is, and where you can get it.

The problem is, Advertisers don't earn their paychecks by being honest.