SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Advertising is a cancer on society
I know it's a blog post, but you're not going to get this kind of thing in a news article. Hopefully SoylentNews' many advertisers won't be offended.
[...] Advertising as currently practiced shares these characteristics. It's a malignant mutation of an idea that efficient markets need a way to connect goods and services with people wanting to buy them. Limited to honestly informing people about what's available on the market, it can serve a crucial function in enabling trade. In the real world however, it's moved way past that role.
Real world advertising is not about informing, it's about convincing. Over time, it became increasingly manipulative and dishonest. It also became more effective. In the process, it grew to consume a significant amount of resources of every company on the planet. It infected every communication medium in existence, both digital and analog. It shapes every product and service you touch, and it affects your interactions with everyone who isn't your close friend or family member. Through all that, it actively destroys trust in people and institutions alike, and corrupts the decision-making process in any market transaction. It became a legitimized form of industrial-scale psychological abuse, and there's no way you can resist its impact.
The growth of advertising is fueled by the enormous waste it creates. In any somewhat saturated market - which, today, is most of them - any effort you spent on advertising serves primarily to counteract the combined advertising efforts of your competitors. The same results could be achieved if every market player limited themselves to just informing customers about their goods and services. This, unfortunately, is impossible for humanity, and so we end up with a zero-sum game instead (or really negative-sum, if you count the externalities). If you have competitors, you can't not participate.
The blog/article goes on to describe Robocalls, telemarketing, Spam, Leaflets, snail mail spam, SEO, and much, much more, all for the same low price! (Now how much would you pay?)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 01 2019, @07:18AM (12 children)
At least here in the U.S., false advertising is technically illegal, but the courts bend over backwards to find a kernel of truth that magically makes the advertisement not a lie.
True story, auto manufacturer once claimed their car was 700% quieter. When challenged, they specified to regulators that the passenger compartment was 700% quieter than the engine compartment at full acceleration. They allowed it.
Consider all the ISPs offering UNLIMITED* bandwidth even while having a cap.
And that's before we get to the zillions of commercials that imply things so strongly, no honest person in their right mind could believe they weren't making a claim, but they get a pass since they didn't technically make an actual claim.
We routinely let food advertisers showcase 'food' that's so carefully crafted for appearance that it's not even edible anymore (if it's even actual food). Of course, the mutant horror you actually get bears no resemblance to the food depicted in the ads.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @09:22AM (1 child)
that reminds me of this story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:32PM
I remember that case. Ridiculous that Pepsi couldn't be successfully sued for fraud for that ad. Was the ad obviously silly? Sure. But they put an actual value on acquiring the jet and listed it in the commercial, which was an ad clearly promoting collecting such points to "get stuff." Under any reasonable legal system, Pepsi should have to stand by such a specific claim in their ad. It may not constitute a legal contract where they'd have to deliver the jet, but they should still be liable for fraud and false advertising.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 01 2019, @09:24AM (3 children)
We have some fairly good truth in advertising laws over here in Eastpondia, but they don't go far enough.
Stuff I'd like to see legislated:
- If you are going to use a word like "more" or "less" in your advertising (for example, "more flavour!", "Less calories!") then you should HAVE to specify exactly what it is "more" or "less" than.
- People in adverts should only be allowed to dress like doctors, chemists, dentists etc if they actually are.
- Any celebrity endorsements should presented alongside text that clearly informs the viewer / reader exactly how much the celebrity received in compensation for selling out.
- Meaningless feel-good words like "luxury", "premium", "natural" should be given definitions, and advertisers made to stick to them. As new words are invented to circumvent this, define them too.
- Do something about the word "Diet". For example "Diet Pepsi". Really? You think if you swill that shit you're going to lose weight? Please.
- Weasel words like "could be" and "linked to" need to fuck off. I got sick of all those shitty Nestle cereal ads telling how "eating whole grains COULD BE good for your heart. Correlation =/= causation, so legislate it.
- Inventing bullshit molecules for the sake of shampoo. Just fuck off already, like it isn't just the exact same sodium laureth sulfate + perfume they use in the supermarket brand.
- Retractions. Fines as a deterrent are OK, but if a newspaper prints something inaccurate, they can be made to print a correction. There should be a system whereby a company can be forced to spend advertising money "correcting" any claims that were found to breach the rules. You might be watching an ad break on TV when suddenly an "unadvertisement" pops up, telling you that red bull doesn't actually "give you wings", it gives you ADHD and a migraine.
Most importantly, add a module to every school curriculum on how to recognise and counter these bullshit attempts at mental manipulation. Show kids these tricks, how they work, what they are trying to do. Teach them how statistics work and how they can be manipulated.
THAT would be a good start.
(Score: 1) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday August 01 2019, @11:58AM
Yes, free speech does not mean freedom to plaster bullshit everywhere.
There has to be a systemic societal function for upvoting things that are healthy and social for society and de-amplifying those things that are degenerate and asocial.
Right now this function is reversed and this is to the benefit of the worst people in every possible way.
I like adbuster's black circle campaign also, pass that on please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:51PM
I'd like to add that the retraction must match the scope and audience of the inaccurate ad. Your ad was lying during the Superbowl? Your retraction MUST hit the same audience, even though it's a lot of different ads across many different networks, days, and sporting events to do so. The big problem I have with retractions is that "X is guilty of crime! ..allegedly.." happens front-page mostly in 65 pt font and "X has been cleared of the allegations" happens in 8 pt font in the least read area.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 01 2019, @05:03PM
Agreed. "Natural" is particularly pernicious in the U.S. I have several relatives and close friends who seem happy to pay double or more for some product stamped "natural" when it has no legal definition. Along with this, we need laws to stop misleading legal terms that don't mean what common people think. In the U.S., a chicken that is labeled "natural, cage-free, free-range, humanely raised, antibiotic-free, no growth-promoting antibiotics, raised without hormones" is basically 100% BS.
"Natural" is a meaningless term with no legal definition.
"Cage-free" just means chickens aren't in cages. They can still be stuffed in a ridiculously overcrowded henhouse in horrific conditions.
"Free-range" just means chickens have outdoor "access" with a minimum square footage of outdoor area. "Access" could mean a tiny door at the end of the horrifically crowded henhouse that the farmers sincerely hope no chickens ever go out of, and which leads to a vacant dirt area, not a green field where chickens are happily hopping about.
"Humanely raised" has no legal definition. Anyone can claim it.
"Antibiotic-free" is required for all meat sold in the U.S., so this is not a useful statement on a package... putting it there implies that there's something exceptional about the chicken in the package, when it's just abiding by the law. (Note this is different from "raised without antibiotics" -- a more useful label -- since antibiotics can be used to treat disease, but producers must allow sufficient time for the animal to be "clear" of antibiotics in its system before selling it, so all meat should be "antibiotic-free.")
"No growth-promoting antibiotics" is again something legally required, even though some poultry producers list it anyway.
"Raised without hormones" is again a legal requirement for poultry, so it's meaningless on a label.
Some of these terms have close synonyms that ARE legally meaningful. I brought up "raised without antibiotics." In some case, third-party certification agencies are coming up with terminology to combat the crap of the U.S. government's legal terms. For example, "pasture raised" when certified by some third-party agencies means chickens are actually pretty much what most people think "free-range, cage-free" chickens should be.
Again, I have many relatively smart relatives who are taken in by the BS, though. They proudly bring home a package labeled with these BS terms after being suckered out of three times as much money for effectively the same cheap product they could have had without the labels, and they think they're giving their kids and family better options. It's deplorable. One shouldn't have to go to the grocery store with a dictionary of legal terminology to be able to know what you are buying.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @04:39PM (5 children)
That one seems like it could be fixed.
Just require that the Quick Fast Burger look like the one on the menu. No need to even reference the TV or billboard ads.
Or rather, do it the other way. Require that the images used on the menu and ads be a random product from a randomly selected retail location. With a third party providing the random factor, such as drawing one from a hat, etc to prevent manipulation.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 01 2019, @05:46PM (4 children)
There are many potential solutions. What's missing is the political will to actually implement one or more of the solutions. Or for that matter, any sort of actual consumer protection.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @06:37PM (3 children)
Some politicians are in favor of consumer protections. But then others yell about government regulation!
Some politicians start stripping away all kinds of protections as soon as they take office. Including environmental, air and water quality, not just consumer protections.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 01 2019, @07:10PM (2 children)
Exactly.
Interestingly, a significant percentage of the latter group seem to be all for strict enforcement of terms adverse to the consumer.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday August 01 2019, @08:49PM (1 child)
One political party hates consumers as a matter of ideology.
The other party is anti consumer if the right palms are greased.
So there's not necessarily any winning tragedy here.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 01 2019, @09:40PM
Sadly true.