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.
That's the sad state of affairs in 2022.
[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.
How can you not see the fraud is beyond me.
> Marketing that seeks to educate the individual
wow.
that's grotesque.
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.
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.
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".
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.
> I'm not even sure how you can deny this. Do you really think everyone out there is living their best lives?
I would say it's a bit of a stretch to assume the majority of "stuff" that's advertised contributes to someone living a better version of their life.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that's brand awarness, the product is the same.
When I go out eating I try different places, because some of them is surely better than the others.
The ads for "Quesarito" it's their product, if you didn't like it, you would be now thinking that you were fooled by the ads.
Exactly what taco bell did to you for all these years.
Can you only be fooled when you are alerted to the presence of a product without your consent?
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?
How did your friend discover their shoes?
Google (in a world in which it didn't have ads)?
Ask a podiatrist?
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).
Which of these is better than clicking an ad?
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.
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
But I'd visit a doctor if your feet hurt no matter the shoe.
Facebook ad for stretching program for back pain shows up a few times. I eventually decide to buy it.
It works, resolves my back pain.
I had a real problem, a solution was advertised to me, I bought it, and it worked.
No induced demand.
> 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.
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.
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)