I think the difference is in what the two are trying to manipulate you to do.

His comment is trying to manipulate the reader into believing something that he believes is better for mankind. He doesn't materially benefit, and the reader doesn't lose anything.

Ads and advertisers are not trying to manipulate the viewers into buying a product. They are manipulating viewers into becoming the type of person that buys products impulsively and with little research. The product of the advertiser is not an ad; the product of the advertiser is you. This is not to your benefit.

So, trying to reduce gp's comment and ads in general to equivalence is misguided imo.

What if an advertiser truly believes in their product and thinks it will better mankind? What if they've done a bunch of research into the product and theirs is actually the best on the market? I think the two are closer than you'd like to admit.

That's not really how things work in a modern context. Today we have to distinguish between the people making the stuff, who really may "believe" in their product, and the people advertising those same products, who don't care, and who aren't the ones creating anything of value.

As a shoemaker, you might think your shoe is the best shoe on the market. Google doesn't care which is the best shoe. Google simply sells a product, namely, a credulous audience, to the shoemakers, who want buyers. And their ecosystem is bent toward improving that product. The shoemakers' noble ends don't justify the evil means of the advertisers.

This is kinda what I take the old adage to mean, "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product." You might think that Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, etc. are free services because they don't cost you money. But that's like saying that a stay at the butcher's is free for the cow. They're not free at all; advertisers have to pay good money for access to their product, which is you.

Or so my view goes :) I could be wrong though.

Most companies brainwash themselves into thinking they are making the world a better place.

Selling snake oil becomes no more socially good when the salesman deludes themself into believing the pitch.

Most people brainwash themselves into thinking their opinions are right and others' are wrong.

Yeah. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

What is your definition of "a better place"?

The vast majority of products people buy help them solve problems of all kinds. An economic transaction is a win-win for both buyers and sellers. Look at products like the computer, the car, the telephone, etc. I think the world is becoming a better place as a result.

Silicon Valley had a great bit about this kind of thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8C5sjjhsso

> Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product.

It wants to get me to buy. Any stated aim less than this is a waste of their money.

I studied and worked in marketing for a little while before becoming disgusted by it and leaving. The vast, vast majority of ads have a primary goal of raising awareness, not triggering a purchase. It's extremely hard (and often ineffective) to trigger a purchase, unless the ad is seen while literally standing in front of the product at the store. The best marketing technique is to raise awareness of the product, so that when the user thinks about their own need, your brand/product is the one they think of as a solution.

Perhaps a consumer who is aware of a product is more likely to buy it?

> The entire point of your comment is manipulating human beings.

The difference is in the intention for said manipulation. His comment isn’t trying to get us to part with our hard-earned income for ultimately frivolous goods.

What's frivolous about a wallet or a sweater? Ultimately, all your hard-earned income is to make your life easier via goods and services, some of which may be frivolous. If you can't trust yourself not to make all frivolous purchases, that's a problem you can try to solve on your own.

How many wallets or sweaters does one need? That is the reason I included the word "ultimately" in my comment

I'm not arguing we don't need to buy anything ever. I'm arguing most ads are either pushing stuff you don't really need 99% of the time or selling outright junk. And let's not get into how close some ads are to plainly false advertising (I'm looking at you, wellness / nutrition)

Sounds like you are experiencing poorly targeted ads if 99% of yours aren't things you need :)

Question. If your ads were perfectly targeted in that 100% of advertised products were something that you're interested in, is that not ideal? Isn't that what companies like Google and Facebook are trying to do? Wouldn't you be happier if you didn't get the Wellness / Nutrition / Viagra ads?

Interested isn't a synonym for need. If you are "interested" in junk food, ads for it aren't something to you "need."

Is there no such thing as a win-win? If the business makes money off of a sale and the consumer gets a product they actually wanted?

Or is the default mode of operation always the consumer losing and the business winning?

If I actually wanted the product, I probably didn’t need the ad. I just needed to know about it in a very factual manner

Hard disagree.

You may want a THING, but you don't know about a particular brand or style of said THING. Just by making you aware of them can be a win win.

Say you've been researching "THINGS" for a couple weeks and narrowed it down to 2 brands. An Ad pops for a brand you'd never heard of. Naturally you check it out, only to find out its better than either of the options you were previously considering.

I trust myself to find better products than what random ads will suggest. In my experience, that holds true. I hardly ever purchase anything from "new" brands except for niche products but ofc YMMV

There's so much noise online now, ads are necessity for me to eventually find something I like.

As an example, a couple of months ago I was searching for some new summer outfits. Went through Google, Reddit, various clothing blogs, catalogs, etc. but didn't find a lot that I liked. After a week more of targeted ads on Instagram, I was finally able to discover brands that fit my tastes.

Unless I'm buying something well-defined like a TV or Airpods, passive exposure via targeted ads has been one of the best ways for me to find something worth purchasing.

Sometimes ads do that. I recently had a purchase that I got a lot of value off of based on an Instagram ad to my partner. I would not have known about the product otherwise.

The issue is "sometimes" probably amounts to ~1% of the time, based on my made up anecdotal observations.

"frivolous goods"

Sure, if the good or service is actually frivolous, but what about the case where the human is actively searching for some good or service that offer some actual value?

> Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product. If that is manipulation, so is pretty much any content that seeks to change what people know.

That's what advertising used to do before tracking was a thing. When this was introduced the industry realized that targeting and manipulation is far more profitable and this made ad campaigns that don't do this unviable. Because nobody ever wants to go back to a lower profit margin.

PS Not sure why I get 0 points here :) I have it on good authority from some webmasters that were trying to offer non-tracked ads that advertisers simply don't want them anymore.

They're so addicted to tracking, and 'retargeting' (meaning repeat ads) that they're just not paying for untracked anymore. Not nearly enough to make an ad-supported website work anyway.

Due to GDPR and the cookie ban, things are turning in Europe though. Because now they no longer have the choice.

"Advertising often just seeks to make a consumer aware of a certain product."

And this is why shiny new product is often placed along a half naked beatiful women or alike? Sex sells?

Some marketing indeed exists, that just tries to make a consumer aware of a product. But most marketing campaigns try to associate a certain product with certain attractive person/livestyle/object.

The Malboro Man, the Taste of freedom. Etc.

It is highly manipulative to its core. And with targeted ads, you can play with the target persons fears and desires in a automated way. So far this likely not happening (very well), but the potential is very real and dark.

> And this is why shiny new product is often placed along a half naked beatiful women or alike? Sex sells?

If anything, this was more common in the pre-internet advertising age. Can't remember the last time I saw an ad like this.

It is still totally a thing, it just takes effort to notice it, since it is so common. Also there is still nondigital advertisement.