I think an important part of your statement is “interested consumers”. A consumer who is not interested should not have to be bombarded with advertisements. At this point (making someone do something they do not want to), is where it becomes manipulation.

For instance, I have no interest in receiving snail-mail ads for credit cards. I am happy with the ones that I have right now, and regularly research on my own via trusted third parties to see if any are available which would be of interest to me. Still, I am unable to stop receiving mail advertising credit cards to me. There is not even recourse I can take because states have fallen for the same “connecting producers to consumers” argument as above, in the most broad sense, where every human is a potentially interested consumer for every single product.

The business is worse off (because they pay to advertise to me, and I will not get one of their credit cards), I am worse off (because I am upset I receive this mail), the planet is worse off (deforestation), others are worse off (perhaps the time spent by postal workers delivering me junk mail could improve service to others or reduce costs).

So while I agree that advertising is not inherently manipulative, when the audience is captive and uninterested, it becomes manipulation.

"making someone do something"? what kind of ad does that describe?

What's the line between "were making someone do something" and "We have an army of psychologists hard at work to convince someone they need to do something"? Is that line different when it's directed to a 14 year old? Or a senior citizen? Or someone you know is likely a addict of what you're selling?

Any ad that is sent to a person does not want to see it, in an intrusive way such that they cannot avoid it. The “something” is “looking at it.”

Captive? At what point does personal accountability matter? Everyone's choosing to be there and look at this stuff.

It matters at the point when an individual is accountable for having seen the ad. There are countless situations where you cannot possibly perform any normal function of life (shy of sitting in the house and having someone else do all interaction with the outside world):

- Billboards. You cannot possibly keep these out of your peripheral (or center of) vision while driving without endangering everyone else on the road. - Mailed advertisements. You have to check your mail, for example, for legal summons, that you are required by law to respond to. - Public transit (lest I be auto-shamed). You cannot, where I am, even look toward where a train arrives, without seeing ads.

To remediate just these three advertising venues, you have to drive and board public transit with your eyes closed and not check your mail. These aren’t even activities I’d consider voluntary - people need to get to work to support themselves, and check their mail for legal purposes. Unless your argument is that we all make choices to participate in our sovereign nation’s legal structure and to have jobs that require leaving the home (not everyone can work in a cushy remote role).

Psychological manipulation is a thing. People write dissertations on this stuff. These people are then hired by advertising companies. Often the people they target are children or adolescents.

Deodorant became popular after advertisements started emotionally negging people by implying that they were stinky and everybody around them were laughing behind their back.

Connecting products to interested customers often involve manipulating the customer into being interested. Think about sugary cereals targeted at kids with songs and colors.

As usual with matters of opinion, there is a positive and negative way to frame everything. You framed the negative. Allow me to frame the positive:

The human condition has been improved now that we all spend $3/mo on deodorant.

Is emotional manipulation a good thing if it has positive outcomes? What about torture, is torture with positive outcomes a good thing for society? Why stop there, what about killing people without a trial, if we can find enough positive outcomes?

You highlighted an important point: ads only frame one side of the story.

If you want the full story, look elsewhere.

Imagine a world where, if interested in baby stuff, you paid money for articles on baby stuff, and advertisers knew to buy pages of ads among those articles; or if you watched TV shows about people doing baby stuff, advertisers knew to bookend those shows with baby stuff?

Research shows contextual advertising (the way it was done for ever before retargeting became a thing) beats retargeting for both purchases per dollar of ad spend and consumer appreciation / satisfaction (versus annoyance).

I'm reminded of the time when I bought BYTE magazine, and when holding it sideways a huge pile of ads fell out of it.

But, yes, you are right. Even this was infinitely better than the current situation with ads.

I've purchased a handful of things that I have scoured the internet for hours and couldn't find because they later came up in an ad randomly. I am extremely satisfied with the products. In fact, the only thing I'm not satisfied about is how much time I've spent fruitlessly which shows search is still an unsolved problem.

That something has some positive utility does not justify all negative consequences.

For instance installing publicly accessible cameras in all rooms in all homes would help reduce domestic abuse, however that obviously does not mean it's a net social good. In the same vein helpful target ads do not make up for all of the other shenanigans in manipulating people politically.

You sound like a perfect candidate for Facebook's new and revolutionary suppository microphone, which analyzes your outputs to more effectively target your interests. Think of the time you would save!

You should opt-in then to the silo where we will put all ads after we ban them from public view.

Fun fact: the original word used for 'advertising' was 'propaganda', and advertising uses several propaganda techniques. There's nothing cynical about that, it's just a fact.

Interesting. Propoganda was also the term used by the Public Relations industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Public_perceptions

> > The entire point of advertising is manipulating human beings.

> No the point is to connect products to interested consumers.

You're both right in identifying points of advertising, and they're not in conflict.

Advertising has _two_ points, which I phrase as:

1. Increasing consumer awareness

2. Increasing consumer demand

Increasing consumer awareness generally feels useful: that's finding out what baby products exist, or showing people a new invention or service.

Increasing consumer demand generally feels manipulative: that's showing sugary cereals and crap toys to children, or associating vaping with success, etc.

The two goals usually are working together — but I find it useful to separate which parts of the advertisement are doing what.

Counterpoint: what makes you think you need lots of baby stuff?

Well, we have relatively little baby stuff compared to some parents, it's still enough though. Some monitoring tech, stroller, car seat, bassinet, diapers, clothing, some early age books to help develop eyesight (supposedly), plus bath stuff.

I guess we could raise him in a cardboard box, bathe him in the sink and not have half this shit that's really for our convenience, but it is all convenient. We're definitely not going that crazy compared to the typical American/Canadian parent...

Wouldn't you prefer to realize you need something, and then you actively go and get it? I don't want to be manipulated into thinking I need something subconsciously just because I've seen it a bunch of times.

It depends. Sometimes you don't know that a solution exists for your problem.

I think it would be more healthy for your kid if you talked to other parents (and not just for finding solutions to problems).

It is a huge conflict of interest "learning" of a solution to a problem from an ad who's express purpose is to get you to buy it. I agree with the sibling comment; fixing problems is fine but do it from something trustworthy, not the company with the biggest advertising pocketbook.

Interestingly most babies in Finland have a cardboard box as their first bed.

It is manipulation of you, towards specific product, within domain you look for. So you and your subconsciousness are outright attacked to buy product whose manufacturer paid the most, regardless of actual quality.

(ie we also buy baby stuff but sure as hell the best products are not ie 'pampers' which are in every freaking ad block on TV I ever saw, probably... same for thousand other household products, advertised ones are very rarely proper high quality within their category, since so much is spent on pushing them down everybody's throat).

I can't comprehend how otherwise smart folks can't grok this basic principle of advertising, its pure logic and simple follow-the-money principle. Its fight for your wallet, and your brain controls the wallet. Maybe it doesn't insult your intelligence to be manipulated like a sheep, but it sure does mine.

I think the field of advertising successfully whitewashes its own public image as innocent and neutral, "connecting products to interested consumers". It's the same as in politics, religion, finance, insurance, and other kinds of mass fraud and racketeering - hypnotizing people with smoke and mirrors, make belief, a theatrical performance. It's insidious and sneaky how it masquerades as normal, how entire individual lived experiences are spent in manufactured illusion, a system of exploiting human beings through psychological manipulation, and extracting value.

The problem is that advertising never gives you balanced information.

You would be better served by talking to other parents, by reading information from consumer organizations, by reading reviews, even by talking to shop personnel (where multiple brands are sold).