It's a reminder that "Oh yeah, I enjoy Brand X, I should get some of their product". You may enjoy Coca Cola, but if nobody around you drinks a can, and you don't ever see an ad, you're less likely to remain a consumer of the brand.

It's also why you might continue getting ads for subscriptions you pay for. They want to remind you of the value continually provided-- it's for retention purposes.

>Do brands as well-known as Starbucks and Coca-Cola really need to advertise on social media at all?

No but they do see increased short and long term sales as a direct result of their advertising campaigns, usually. Especially company's that sell sweet caffeine drinks. Sure you know Coke exists... but are you craving one now? The answer is more likely to be yes for most of their clients soon after being reminded it exists.

Edit: Phrasing

I"m not an advertising expert but I'd imagine those brands became well-known largely because of their advertising, and that continuing to advertising helps maintain their mindshare/encouraging people to "default" to those brand choices.

I'm sure they don't need to advertise in order to inform people about their brand, but advertisements may lead people consume more than they otherwise would. At least some of their ads end with a crack of a can opening, glug glug glug, and then a refreshed 'ahhh'. It seems pretty clear they're trying to get you to think about drinking coke, so you will go drink a coke.

Yes, because they need to make you feel like your life is incomplete and can be completed if you pay them for X.

Coca Cola makes people fat and gives them tooth decay. Their product has a socially negative value. It's essential that they counter these facts with positive images.

I uhh… what? We’re talking about a soda manufacturer here. Look I mean I get the crusade against sugar and being mindful about how many calories are in a bottle. But that’s a harsh opinion about fizzy water that lots of people enjoy drinking enough to pay a premium for. Nobody buys a candy bar because of some existential crisis.

Like do you hold the same opinion of coffee shops that sell sugary drinks, pastry shops, candy makers, snack food makers, ice cream shops, breweries, distilleries? Does “treats taste good” not qualify as a positive?

Like it’s wild to me to think that if I served you a piece of chocolate cake you would be like “how dare you! It has excessive calories and will rot my teeth!”

It's not so much serving a piece of chocolate cake as spending $10,000,000,000 every year on highly sophisticated psychologically fine-tuned mental bombardment to get to serve you a piece of chocolate cake.

The constant fight for your attention. Billboards, storefronts, internet, tv, radio, everywhere you go you have highly researched pictures and sounds that try to manipulate your feeble mammal brain to purchase their products.

Your first paragraph suggests you regard advertising as something far more benign that it is.

Let’s just take the premise that ads are 100% effective and that I, a previously non-soda drinker, now am fiercely loyal to Pepsi Co.

Cool, but I’m still a person who has has a diet, normal hunger, and watches my sugar intake. Like it’s not as if I’m suddenly going to guzzle sugary soda indiscriminately. And it’s not like soda is special in this regard.

If I see an ad for a new flavor of Oreos that interests me it’s not like I’m compelled to buy a box and eat the whole thing in one sitting on top of my regular diet.

Exactly. Comparing to a local cafe is ludicrous.

I mean when I said coffee shop I was imagining Starbucks.

But that seems a little weird. Does coming from a local soda shop suddenly make the drinks have fewer calories or less sugar?

You didn't say that. And I didn't say it either. And it's got nothing to do with anything.

Then what does it have to do with?

* Soda, like all sweets, are bad for your health if not consumed in moderation or at least with mindfulness about their nutritional content.

* Large food-stuff manufactures are quite good at convincing consumers to buy their products and choose their brand over others with very expensive ad campaigns.

What I’m not convinced of, and what doesn’t follow from these, is that ads are effective at persuading consumers to buy and consume their products on top of their regular diets which is what would be required for them to be a public health issue.

Yes, I too assume that despite being a 600 billion USD/yr business, advertising doesn't really work.

If a given person is eating a 2000 calorie diet then I don't believe the presence of ads will suddenly make them eat a 2500 calorie diet to accommodate some products they saw in an ad.

Advertising can be 100% effective but it doesn't make peoples' stomachs bigger.

well you must totally disagree with the head of advertising at every single large company on the planet.

I wonder who is wrong.

This may apply to lesser-known 'influencers' that depend on ads and can't afford to suspend them to 'fight hate speech' or participate in this 'effort'. Unless they have outside revenue like sponsorship deals, Patreon, etc.

As someone that's a real sucker for advertising the adverts for new drinks always work on me, which make me go to Starbucks when I wouldn't class myself as a regular.

Yes. They want to stay in your mind’s eye.