There are better ways for that. For instance I look it up in the yellow pages. Or I find someone in some store to talk to.

This happens when *I* want to look for something, not when *you* want to sell something.

> Yes, which is why apps need to design good ad experiences to balance monetization with user satisfaction.

So far, it has been a complete disaster. And there is no sign of it getting any better. The incentives are wrong to begin with.

> If something really is the best product, why talent they the one with the largest advertising budget?

What does this even mean? Typo? Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

Yes, I hate ads too but that said... The Yellow Pages are geared towards services rather than new unknown products. Also, asking a store clerk or flipping through Yellow pages doesn't work when the customer doesn't even know the existence of a new product to ask about.

Anybody in any hobby (woodworking, sewing, car engine modifications, etc) that uses tools and gadgets will get their first exposure to the existence of a potentially helpful product via advertisements. Sure, some awareness comes via word-of-mouth... but the people passing that info to you -- got their awareness from ads. Or maybe a trade show demonstration (which is also a form of advertisement.)

Of course, I've gotten bad and unnecessary tools because of ads. But I also got some genuinely useful and time-saving tools too.

Even though a few ads helped make my life better, I will admit that 99% of ads are not relevant to me and just obnoxious noise. I just saw a Wood Whisperer video on Youtube yesterday and the pre-roll ad was "Estee Lauder cosmetics for women". Given that 95% of the demographic watching woodworking channels are men, it seems like Google/Youtube is wasting Estee Lauder's ad spending -- all while irritating viewers like me. A lose-lose situation.

Every ad needs to be sold to a pair of eyes and those relevant, novel, and interesting prdocuts that would actually be useful to you have a much smaller budget and just are not that common. And so you get to watch liberty mutual and geico commercials, for the 55th time instead.

Not all consumers are aware of what is out there, nor do they actively make an effort to learn what is out there.

>What does this even mean? Typo?

yes

>Are you suggesting that the company with the biggest ad budget also makes the best products by definition, somehow?

No, I am suggesting that a company that makes a purely superior product can always outbid their competitors in advertising.

Ah, that's how we know that Oracle is better than Postgres!

Do you seriously believe this to be true? I'm willing to have my mind blown, if you can explain this point adequately.

Stores are limited by the amount of shelf space they have and employees will lead you towards certain products they have an incentive to sell.

1) keep you coming back 2) navigate highly localized politics

If they are already the company with the highest revenue, why would they need to advertise...

If these are the arguments in favor of ads then they really must be that bad.

Because their potential customers may not be familiar with them. If a competitor makes themselves known they may just go with the competitor despite a better option, that they don't know about existing.

The only good ad experience is contextual. There does not exist an experience that is enhanced by ads unrelated to the content being viewed.

If I want to search for a product and an adtech company wants to show me related products, great. If I want to watch a music video, but first have to watch a political ad or an ad for any product, get lost.