I also think that advertising is often a crutch for incompetence. Build a good product and it can take off all on its own. People advertise for you. Or build crap and hire an industry to manipulate people into wanting your crap. Advertising is manipulation. Watch any ad and ask, “what emotion are they trying to con me into feeling?”
Advertisement is sometimes just to inform and build awareness, sometimes to build brand, but often to persuade, and sometimes it exploits unethical persuasion techniques. The gap between ethics allowed by society and your own personal ethics are very variable from place to place and person to person. For example in a lot of places it's illegal for doctors and pharma to advertise; some might consider it a good thing not to exploit hypochondriacs, but is it ethical if it results in patients not knowing about an actual cure for their condition? These things are endlessly debatable, they're very far from a black and white situation.
I don't have an answer to this question, it's purely hypothetical. And even if it is true that in this hypothetical world, good products would spread, we're still left with a prisoner's dilemma to resolve in the real world.
So I would answer you with, given the extremes defined above, that indeed advertising is a necessity since good products would otherwise rot inside the inventor's home. It being illegal (say, for example) to have ads would mean that it is illegal to even tell anyone that you invented a product.
I think there's got to be some kind of give from the anti-ad side if we want to have _things_ in the world that do stuff - because if I can't even say "I made a better product that does x,y,z" then how the heck is anyone ever gonna find out about it? Where does the word-of-mouth kick off even?
You gotta _tell_ people you made something - but that's an ad.
On average the amount of trickery in advertising will cancel out and decisions still get made based on the quality and usefulness of the products. It is just much easier to sell something useful with sneaky advertising than selling advertising in a vacuum. People not knowing about their options is one of the bigger problems in modern life. There are a lot of things I'd spend money on to change and I'm just not sure how to do it. As far as I can tell that is normal.
"I'd just prefer it be a place that people go to intentionally learn about products and services" - when I see people doing that I'll believe it is an option. Most people sit there until told to do something. Even when doing the thing is in their own interests.
How? Take the examples from above about selling beauty products to teenagers, where is the ad saying "you're perfect as you are, no need to drop hundreds of dollars on any of this bullshit"? All the ads in existence will try to extract money from them by playing up body image issues, so the noise WILL NOT cancel out on their own.
> Most people sit there until told to do something. Even when doing the thing is in their own interests.
To think that you know what's better for people than they know for themselves... Tell me, are you an advertising professional? Because your thought process is just as obnoxious.
Easy mistake, I suppose. But if you read closely, you'll notice that isn't what I said or implied.
People often know what is in their own best interests, they just don't act on it. Consider, for example, how hard it is for most people to get to the gym even after taking out gym membership. I had a running buddy once solely because the gentleman knew he wouldn't go running unless he had someone else to remind him.
People usually need a little push before they do the sensible thing. That is one of the things advertisers tap in to and why they are so valuable to a business.
The gym advertising its memberships would rather you never set foot on their premises.
Beauty products want you to feel good about yourself, but only while you're wearing their products.
McDonalds and Coca Cola do not want you to eat healthier, or enjoy their products only occasionally.
It's actually shocking to see someone frame advertisers as pushing people towards making good decisions for themselves, when we've had to explicitly ban tobacco companies from advertising how sexy and popular smoking would make you.
Name three.
There are a lot of medical devices that help people with relatively minor or uncommon issues. Even doctors don’t always know about them. The companies that make them can’t usually afford to advertise on larger platforms, but they target ads to try and reach those affected.
Local consumer-facing businesses in general need local advertising to survive. This works better for some industries than others, but keeping a competitive space healthy requires some assistance getting a newer/smaller competitor’s message out.
AWS advertising generally has been a major contributor to the success of at least two companies I worked at.
I get reminded from time to time that I could saved quite a bit on my retirement fund if I switched to one with lower fees. One day an ad will probably hit me at the right moment and I'll actually do it.
That, in general sense, violates second law of thermodynamics. More specifically, it also feels like going against some physical law with Shannon's signature on it, though its formulation escapes me.
Point being: even in cases where this "cancelling out" happens, it's not a free process. It uses energy, it uses natural resources, it uses victims' attention, it generates entropy. The more advertisers scale it, the more waste it creates.
As for "made based on the quality and usefulness of the products", that's actually the first victim of advertising - all real information gets lost in the sea of lies, while victims' attention is saturated, so they have very little headspace to evaluate competing offers.
Sorry, what? This sounds like wishful thinking not grounded in reality or data…
I spent a number of years doing market research for advertising, and I couldn't agree more. Data analysis is primarily focused on increasing "top of mind" and "unaided" awareness and linking positively-perceived properties and emotions to the product being flogged.
I got out before "social media" convinced everyone to share everything about their lives with advertisers and their enablers, but back in the day, ad agencies and the marketing departments of large consumer product companies each spend millions every year (cf. BSB Global Scan[0] as an example) collecting a tiny subset of that data.
Given the enormous amount of data available today, I imagine that the levels of manipulation have increased exponentially. And more's the pity.
[0] https://www.proquest.com/openview/46f87cae3614d373064294a43b...
However, it’s expensive. It has been a really tough uphill climb to connect to our audience and convince them the money is worth it here. In a market with marked up shitty quality products it has been a journey to position ourselves, especially since our budgets are maybe 1/10th of that of aforementioned shitty producers who outmarket us.
I honestly feel the work I am doing is near to a community service. Although still advertising our ads are honest of what the products can do.
I think that the rest of your discussion hinges on this assumption, and I completely disagree with it.
What you need actually is for people to know that your product exist.
People have needs & problem beyond the fake ones created by advertising.
People can _ask_ for what options exist to solve their problem. And that to me is fundamentally different.
Having a way for consumers to go out and pull information in about what options exist is fundamentally different from having advertising shoved down their throat.
Where do you propose people ask? Who would fulfill those queries? What formats would you allow the information to be expressed in? Would you filter out any non-objective characterization (“best car in the world”)? Would you constrain packaging (eg color, creativity, etc.) so that it isn’t attention-grabbing? Etc.
Remove the ads and make people pay to use them beyond some number of queries a month. This alone gets rid of the problem of the platform intentionally shoving ads down your throat.
Find a shitty website that SEO’d it’s way to the top and got through the cat and mouse game? Then allow people to blacklist websites so they stop appearing in results. Then as the provider investigate and downrank sites that people downrank and block often.
Maybe also preferentially treat companies that don’t load their own sites with other people’s ads and tracking scripts. Oh and tell the user how many of those trackers exist on the site.
This obviously don’t solve the problem of companies pushing ads onto you. But it:
1. Sets up your information provider to not be the biggest and worse ad pusher of them all.
2. It gives people the tools to start penalizing bad content and ads and to outright block them from their results.
This alone, I strongly believe, would be a great improvement.
Maybe they still do all that, but I'm not convinced. I see so many transparently SEO-ified sites at the top of search results that I regularly think "I wouldn't have seen that in 2008".
They recently rolled out a leaderboard where you can see the top sites people block, downrank, uprank, and pin to the top. Extremely useful.
Regardless of current issues with Reddit's business model, it does seem to have been particularly successful as a US/English repository of product knowledge, despite not having any specific strategies to deal with the problems you mention above.
The proposal that I responded to wanted a system where a consumer can express their desire for a product or service given the problem and that you get back results that don't have the smell of advertising. Put differently, these aspects I enumerated ARE attributes of advertising that the proposal seeks to eliminate.
This is opposed to the current system where they are constantly trying to barge into your life.
It’s about pulling in information when you want it versus having it pushed onto you. See my reply to your other comment.
[1] https://eucyclos.wixsite.com/eucyclos/post/making-advertisin...
This is an example of how businesses and customers can be perfectly happy without any advertising. It's not the only example, just the first that came to mind.
Put up a non-intrusive entry in a directory that people would use to reach out to you. Let them come to you.
Stop hounding people to be the repeatedly ground in impression by repetition. So much time is wasted today... When I think of all the broadcasting/transmission medium throughput that's eaten up by carrying unsolicited advertisements to people that could either A) be left unused, or used to provide better performance for everyone, or B) utilized for, heaven forbid, the public calling out for proposals from service providers!
- no qualitative adjectives
That is, you can say "Foo Corp. makes high speed Gizblams that can help you and your family deal with the challenges of flamming" without it being an ad.
BUt if you say "Foo Corp. makes the best anti-flam devices", it's an ad.
I mean sure, it's sort of bullshit, but there's some sort of idea buried in there somewhere.
“We make Foo. Foo helps you Bar the Baz. Check us out at foobarbaz.com”
Vs.
“Look at this scary Baz. Feel emotions about it. We want you feeling anxious and ill-equipped. Okay now here’s Foo. We want you feeling better. Nicer music. Smiles. Good emotions from you. What a relief. If you’re tired of being a dumb idiot who suffers from Baz all the time, we can fix you with Foo.”
. o O ( Yes, it's a reference to a thing. )
"Foo Corp. makes Gizblams." Whether or not they're high speed depends on the other Gizblam manufacturers, whether or not it can help me or my family depends on if I like it or not.
"PEPSI - When they don't have Coke."
Thanks for sharing that
It is even more complex than that. As it already happens, word of mouth can also be hijacked by advertising resulting MLM pyramid schemes.
To bring about such a world we need more than just banning advertising, we need to make it a socially repulsive behaviour.
What a strange example. Other than Apple products, I'm not sure if most people could tell you what computer they are using, or can recall seeing an ad for any of them. "PCs" are a generic, interchangeable object to most people.
I still found a computer to buy.
How?
The direct reason for this is the existence of advertisement. In a ideal (also pretty much only theoretical) world where there are no ads, only honest reviewers and comparison sites, bad products would fall pretty quickly, planned obsolesce would be suicide etc etc.
If I make a website tomorrow that details the best innovation in programming language technology, how is it ever going to find an audience unless I advertise somehow? At some point I have to go around and tell people about it either in person or via ads, either way I am advertising.
Ads on the other hand often lie by omission when it comes to the limits of a technology being advertised. They exist to get you on their product simply because the business is leveraged in it, not because its a good product, much less to share findings with potential colleagues about what you’ve discovered that might even tarnish said products initial expectations.
Advertising and marketing executives spend all their time thinking up ways to say things that are technically true if construed in the most torturous way possible while implying something else. That is a pure intent to confuse and bewilder and is the lifeblood of the industry.
We can fix this by requiring advertising to inform. Any implication that overstates your product should be false advertising. The test is simple, if your lawyer says: “Well technically…” you lose. You must be truthful, clear, and spend all of your time thinking about how a customer might misinterpret what you say over-positively and nip that in the bud. Obviously, this depends on the target demographic, and the expected viewers who might act on the ad, but the details seem solvable once you approach it from the stated concept.
Advertising should inform, anything else should be the crime of false advertising.
Advertising is a 0 sum game. Everyone doing it and no one doing it has roughly the same result. If your competitors do it and you don’t you lose.
As for advertising driving consumerism, that’s undeniable but it’s unclear to me that consumerism is a net positive. We certainly can see all the negative things it creates in society. It also distorts the market in a way that funds are directed to things that may not be as important but has better advertising.
No amount of drug advertisements will change that. Solve the root cause and the problem generally goes away, but keep putting lipstick on a pig and you just get more problems.
Advertising should be heavily taxed so companies have an incentive to innovate and make better products. All the money that goes to advertising is money that don't go to R&D and salaries.
The internet business model is an exception because there ads actually fund useful services. It's anomally, a clever hack but should really be independant public services whose goal is to expand freedom of associtaion and peer to peer discovery and exchanges and could be funded with taxes.
> The internet business model is an exception because there ads actually fund useful services.
?? Most public information services, including newspapers, radio, and television, are funded in large part by advertising.
TBH, I can't recall the last time I saw an ad for a Dell product.
Computers are actually pretty bad example of this here on HN, folks here do (or at least should) understand pretty damn well what they are buying and ads should never interfere with this process.
Patients shouldn't be researching cures for themselves, they should be given choices by professional doctors. If this process is broken fix that, and not justify amoral for-profit advertising instead.
I literally can't agree with a single sentence you wrote, it all sounds like from person way too deep in PR business justifying their jobs.
As a counterpoint, I chose my last three laptops (Thinkpads, by Lenovo) because I was fed up with the advertisement, in particular grassroots advertisement, by Apple. Lenovo did advertise to people like me, but I was already on the market for a powerful laptop and the last thing I would buy was an Apple laptop, because of all the advertisement as I said. I went with the first thing that was shoved in my face and that looked good enough for my needs.
Honestly I have no idea whose game I'm playing here. When I find the time I'll make a laptop of my own. Only of course it will end up as big as a desktop :)
Isn't this the survivorship bias? If aggressively advertising companies outcompete companies not advertising or advertising less - then if advertising wasn't an option, or if the society was more negative towards ads - then perhaps the latter category of companies would be more thrive.
It's about establishing a duopoly, tell to consumers "here is your choice" and overshadow all the other alternatives.
See Hamilton Holt's Commercialism and Journalism, dating from 1909:
<https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft>
And I do mean see it. Read the damned thing, or at least the first dozen pages or so. It's a highly-readable, information-dense, and exceedingly insightful look at the development of commercial publishing in the US at the time, and its author is a magazine publisher himself.
> No wonder that the man who realizes the significance of all these figures and the trend disclosed by them is coming to look upon the editorial department of the newspaper as merely a necessary means of giving a literary tone to the publication, thus helping business men get their wares before the proper people.
> Thus you see advertising has made possible the great complex papers and magazines of the day with their corps of trained editors, reporters, and advertising writers, in numbers and intellectual calibre comparable with the faculty of a good-sized university. Advertising makes it possible to issue a paper far below the cost of manufacturing — all to the benefit of the consumer. So far as I know there is not an important daily, weekly, or monthly in America that can be manufactured at the selling price. But, on the other hand, with the growth of advertising a department had to be created in every paper for its handling. As advertising still further increased, rival papers competed for it and the professional solicitor became a necessary adjunct of every paper, until now the advertising department is the most important branch of the publication business, for it is the real source of the profits. Because the solicitor seeks the advertiser, and, therefore, is in the position of one asking for favors, he puts himself under obligations to the advertiser, and so in his keenness to bring in revenue for his paper, he is often tempted to ask the aid of the editor in appeasing the advertiser. Thus the advertiser tends to control the policy of the paper.
> And this is the explanation of the condition that confronts most publications to-day. By throwing the preponderating weight of commercialism into the scales of production, advertising is at the present moment by far the greatest menace to the disinterested practice of a profession upon which the diffusion of intelligence most largely depends. If journalism is no longer a profession, but a commercial enterprise, it is due to the growth of advertising, and nothing else.
- Growth especially of large-city dailies and some consolidation of markets effectively gave newspapers some market leverage over most advertisers. There were still some somewhat-untouchable entities, but for the most part, a reasonably-strong editorial independence was achieved.
- It was also possible to go muckraking in another district --- outlying suburbs or cities elsewhere in a state or country, which didn't contribute advertising to that particular institution.
- Increased reliance on classified advertising and legal notices. Each of these were huge contributors to newspapers' revenues, whilst at the same time giving relatively little risk of an advertising boycott. The dawn of Internet classifieds (Craigslist gets a lot of blame, but it was pretty much inevitable, someone would enter that niche) was absolutely devastating in that regard.
There's another bit of media history that I think pairs excellently with the Holt book. It's a 1970s interview with I.F. ("Izzy") Stone, on the PBS programme "Day at Night". That's on YouTube, which is ... somewhat less accessible to me with its current shenanigans, but might be available here:
<https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g>
<https://youtu.be/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g>
In particular, Stone calls out the distinction between major city dailies, which had strong editorial independence over local businesses and politicians in the 1970s, versus small-town and rural newspapers, which were far less independent. Keep in mind that this interview occurred in the shadow of the Watergate scandal, in which two reporters literally brought down the President of the United States --- it was a high-water mark for journalistic independence and power.
I return to both these references often.
> People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are ‘The Advertisers’ and they are laughing at you.
> You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
> Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
> You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs. - Banksy
It doesn't give me a lot of hope we'll be able to reclaim our public spaces from being littered with ads anytime soon.
Best statement against 1) advertising, and 2) copyright, that I can imagine.
Does this guy really not understand the difference between someone asking for money in exchange for nothing as opposed to asking for money in exchange for something of value? If Coca-Cola was advertising a Venmo address to send them money in exchange for nothing it would be much more annoying than what they currently do.
but besides that, people actually enjoy drinking soda. I certainly do from time to time, and I don't find the price unfair.
> CocaCola revenue for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $43.493B
> CocaCola net income for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $9.868B
> CocaCola net profit margin as of March 31, 2023 is 22.69%.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KO/cocacola/revenu...
Which means that it costs them $1 to produce every $1.23 of soda that you purchase. This is a long-shot from being "nearly free" as you claimed earlier, and materially different from "asking for money in exchange for nothing".
That's not a cost to produce their product, or even ship it, or store it. That's strictly just "buying more customers", which has no bearing on my initial claim - that soda is extremely cheap to produce.
Again, materially different from asking for money in exchange for nothing.
That's not correct. The $1.23 you pay at the store includes wholeseller/distributor and retailer margins. The wholesale price of that soda is maybe a quarter of the retail price. So for Coca Cola the bottle the production cost and shipment to a distributor was less than 20% of the retail price.
tangent: I've been to some restaurants that charge $5+ for a fountain drink, presumably to mitigate the lost profit on alcohol. it would be interesting to know why the business model is that way, instead of just pricing a moderate profit into both food and drink.
That's only compounded by the tendency for drinks and sides to be impulse-purchases - easy up-sells that no one walked in intending to consume. And, if choosing the $5 burger has maybe embedded the idea that your place is "cheap", then so much the better, as that makes them likely to spend a little more than they would have at the other place: "I saved $2 on the burger, so I can afford an extra side!"
Tl;dr: Commodity restaurants are trapped in an equilibrium where food has to be a loss-leader for sales of drinks and fries.
Any little thing to extract just a tiny bit more money from people I guess.
> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."
— Adam Smith
Not multinational conglomerate monopolist meat-packing, alcohol, and shelf-stable baked goods manufacturers.
As individuals, Smith's artisans would have faced ample competition both within a community and from others nearby if they attempted to strong-arm customers or degrade products (though there was plenty of both going on, as attested by food-quality and food-purity laws dating back to Hammurabi). They lacked any appreciable ability to lock in more than a very localised monopoly absent armed force or coercion, though those too were abundantly evident (see: America's Colonies and the British East India Company, both of which Smith also writes of).
Why are you so easily fooled by the facelessness and lack of intimacy of the large company that you lose all sense on the matter? If people stopped buying meat today, the single man operations would go bankrupt in very much the same manner the 50,000 man operations would - in the latter case, however, 50,000 people just lost their income and ceased to pay taxes instead of the one man.
Care to clarify?
They were not. They were pointing out that a single-man operation has far less power to dictate market conditions than a 50,000 person conglomerate. Even when they are the only butcher in a whole village, they have nowhere near the price-setting power that a company does (even one that doesn't have the same level of monopoly).
Much of what Smith argues about is power, beginning with among the shortest, pithiest, and clearest sentences in the entire book:
"Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power."
Then there is his very long diatribe against joint stock (privately-held, shareholder-based) corporations, which Smith argues should be limited largely to the financial sector (banks and insurance). Itself an interesting distinction and one that's had me think about those areas of economic activity, and why the so-called "FIRE" sector (finance, insurance, and real estate) are linked together.
One interpretation I've arrived at is that all concern the evaluation of future value over a given portfolio: of loans, of insurance policies, and of mortgages (themselves a class of loans). These all ... have some peculiar and similar behavioural characteristics, risks, and moral and morale hazards associated with them. They also tend toward monopolistic in both scale and practices. Among the notable exceptions to anti-trust regulations against conspiring on prices is the exception for insurance underwriting boards, comprised of multiple companies, who share risk, cost, and pricing data to set premiums.
The first is limited liability to stockholders, whose losses are capped at the value of their investment and not for their full personal assets. That is, if you purchase stock in a company, neither creditors nor plaintiffs may seek compensation above and beyond what's already been invested. This is what is meant in the term "limited liability company", though the protection includes firms not described by that specific term. The protection does not apply to sole proprieterships and simple partnerships, so far as I understand (US law).
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/limitedliability.asp>
The second is the so-called "corporate veil", which further protects specific officers and board members of a firm from personal liability for the firm's actions in many cases. A recent notable (and notorious) example of this has been of Perdue Pharma and the Sackler Family, in which the officers (of Perdue) and the shareholders (the Sacklers) escaped most civil and any criminal liability for the deaths of 500,000 slewn for profits via the company's unwarranted and addictive opioid products.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/piercing_the_corporate_veil>
<https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1031053251/sackler-family-imm...>
There is no corporate protection, large or small, for shifts in overall economic conditions, particularly as affects individual workers (as opposed to officers, board members, creditors, and/or investors). Though of course, large corporate interests do have much greater influence over both government policy and legislation, and often secure bailouts ... which seem rarely to reach individual front-line workers.
ProPublica has a list compiled in 2008 extending from the Penn Central Railroad (1970, $3.2 billion) to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (2008, $700 billion), Citigroup (2008, $280 billion), and Bank of America (2009, $142 billion).
<https://www.propublica.org/article/government-bailouts>
I'd strongly recommend you respond to what's actually been said by those you're responding to, and based on factual and relevant information. It makes for a more interesting discussion, even where, or rather, especially where, there is disagreement.
You mean those people? Because I just want to make sure we know who we're referring to here.
As Smith himself notes:
What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties [(masters and workmen)], whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. ... The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of Parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it.
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...>
The proto-labour organisations were probably the guilds, which existed in Smith's time, and in fact he helped find alternative employment for one guy who had been blackisted by the local Hammermen's Guild (the blacksmith's union, as it were), goes by the name of James Watt. Had him set up at the University of Edinburgh, and worked on one of the fire engines there. What we'd now call a steam engine.
(And for all that, Smith utterly failed to realise what the import of that particular invention on the economic development of Britain during the 19th century would be....)
The first general unions in the UK date to the 1820s and 1830s, roughly three to four decades after Smith, who died in 1790:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#National_general_u...>
I'd compiled a set of quotes from Karl Marx and Adam Smith a ways back and encouraged people to tell which came from whom:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26127620>
The "butcher, brewer, and baker" quote is most often seen in a form that ties it together with another passage hundreds of pages from it within Wealth. That construction was created in the early 20th century, more than 100 years after Smith wrote his work, by Jacob Viner, at the monopolist-defending University of Chicago. My understanding is that this was initially an exercise to show how much one could twist Smith's meaning by selectively editing his work. It's since come to be taken as a flat statement by Smith, as originally intended, when it is in fact no such thing.
In fact, the chapter in which the vastly over-exaggerated and greatly misconstrued phrase "invisible hand" occurs, begins with a discussion of restraint of trade by monopoly interests, including of the previously-mentioned butchers:
BY RESTRAINING, either by high duties, or by absolute prohibitions, the importation of such goods from foreign countries as can be produced at home, the monopoly of the home market is more or less secured to the domestic industry employed in producing them. Thus the prohibition of importing either live cattle or salt provisions from foreign countries secures to the graziers of Great Britain the monopoly of the home market for butcher's meat. The high duties upon the importation of corn, which in times of moderate plenty amount to a prohibition, give a like advantage to the growers of that commodity. The prohibition of the importation of foreign woollens is equally favorable to the woollen manufactures. The silk manufacture, though altogether employed upon foreign materials, has lately obtained the same advantage. The linen manufacture has not yet obtained it, but is making great strides toward it. Many other sorts of manufactures have, in the same manner, obtained in Great Britain, either altogether, or very nearly a monopoly against their countrymen. The variety of goods of which the importation into Great Britain is prohibited, either absolutely, or under certain circumstances, greatly exceeds what can easily be suspected by those who are not well acquainted with the laws of the customs.
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_IV...>
The late Gavin Kennedy's blog, "Adam Smith's Lost Legacy" covers this misrepresentation in depth:
<https://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/>
(I'd need to hunt through that to find specific posts of note, though I'd encourage anyone reding this to go through it on your own.)
There's a book of the same title:
<https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230511194>
Kennedy's hardly the only person to point this out. John Kenneth Galbraith made much of how Smith was misrepresented during his lifetime, and Steve Keen is amongst present-day economists doing similarly, if memory serves.
Smith does best where he comments on that which he can observe directly. He's weak on ancient history and what we'd now call archeology and anthropology (Graeber's own specialisation), as well as on contemporary conditions he'd not directly witnessed --- the American Colonies, again, or China, come to mind.
But in observing and commenting on actual trade, commerce, and politics of his own time and place, there's a great deal of wisdom. His commentary on prices suggests to me a number of classes of goods & services (commodities, assets, rents, wages, skilled / privileged work, public goods, capital stock) with distinct pricing tendencies, some of which behave poorly in open markets. His commentary on the components of wages is excellent (I've mentioned this numerous times over the years on HN). His commentary on the practices of privately chartered companies operating as empires and armies abroad are telling (and little commented on by the usual vociferous "champions" of Smith).
It's useful to keep in mind that all authors and authorities have their strengths and weaknesses. The one shouldn't blind us to the other, either way.
(Graeber also has his ... excessive enthusiasms, I'll put it. But he's also intelligent, a keen observer, and doesn't fall slave to orthodoxies and convention.)
In other words, the average person isn't advertising; at least, not in an intrusive way.
Indeed, the best at any particular job probably are not advertising, because the effort they spent on advertising is effort that was not spent on the job. After buying expensive medication in the United States, I come home and the TV is showing a 90 second commercial from a pharmaceutical company with a catchy song and is overall very well made--guess I know why my medication was expensive. Do we even need advertisements for prescription medication?
Actually, one of the main innovations of the past 20 years is that advertising has become easily accessible to those who are not rich. Small businesses and individuals can easily become advertisers on FB, Google, Etc. This has helped, many, many people earn a living. Myself included. I'm certainly not a millionaire.
Is YouTube a town?
— G.K. Chesterton, The New Jersusalem
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/GKC_New_Jerusalem.html