SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Australian Broadcasting Corporation carries a piece of analysis/commentary on the societal ethics of advertising. I found it fascinating by the depth of arguments (true, there is a bias, but it's likely that most of us soylents share it); do take your time to read it in full, my attempts to summarize it below is bound to fail:
Advertising is a natural resource extraction industry, like a fishery. Its business is the harvest and sale of human attention. We are the fish and we are not consulted.
Two problems result from this. The solution to both requires legal recognition of the property rights of human beings over our attention.
First, advertising imposes costs on individuals without permission or compensation. It extracts our precious attention and emits toxic by-products, such as the sale of our personal information to dodgy third parties.
Second, you may have noticed that the world's fisheries are not in great shape. They are a standard example for explaining the theoretical concept of a tragedy of the commons, where rational maximising behaviour by individual harvesters leads to the unsustainable overexploitation of a resource.
A classic market failure
The advertising industry consists of the buying and selling of your attention between third parties without your consent. That means that the cost of producing the good — access to your attention — doesn't reflect its full social cost.
...Since advertisers pay less to access your attention than your attention is worth to you, an excessive (inefficient) amount of advertising is produced.
...It's a classic case of market failure. The problem has the same basic structure as the overfishing of the seas or global warming. In economics language, people's attention is a common good.
Why now?
First, as we have become more wealthy our consumption decisions have become more valuable...
Second, a shift in social norms has made it more acceptable to sell other people's attention.... Anyone in a position to access our attention, like the managers of pubs or hockey arenas, will be approached by multiple companies offering to pay a fee to install their advertising screens, banners, or cookies...
Thirdly, technology has made advertising even more intrusive. Not only is it now possible to print advertisements on grocery store eggs and to put digital displays above pub urinals.... Every moment we spend on the internet or with our smart phones is being captured, repackaged and sold to advertisers multiple times...
Counter-counter arguments: How economists defend advertising and why it isn't enough
- The direct value of advertising First is that advertising gives consumers valuable information about the sellers and prices of products they want to buy. The favoured example here is the classified ads section in newspapers.... Perhaps it was the case in 1961 that consumers struggled to find such information for themselves. But it is hard to see how this can still be the case in the internet age...
Advertising can be used to reduce competition: high spending by rich established players drowns out information from smaller newer competitors and thus creates an entry barrier, converting markets to oligopolies...
Second is the counter-intuitive claim that brands communicate their trustworthiness by their conspicuous expenditure on advertising not by what it actually says....[but]Companies wanting to demonstrate their confidence in their products don't have to waste so much of our time to do so. There are all sorts of more constructive ways of spending money conspicuously.
Third, is the social status that advertising can confer on a product and its consumption. What's the point of buying a Rolex or Mercedes unless the people around you know that it is expensive and are able to appreciate how rich and successful you must be? The business logic here is sound, but not the moral logic.
- Financing public goodsAdvertising is the financial model for many pure public goods like terrestrial television and radio, as well as club goods like newspapers, Google's search/email and Facebook... Advertising provides an alternative revenue source that makes it possible to profitably provide such services universally at the marginal cost of production — that is, zero.
There are alternatives. If these things are so valuable to society there is a case for supporting them from with taxes — grants, license fees (many national broadcasters) or payments for ratings. This is a well-established system for funding public and club goods...
Alternative models, like that of Wikipedia, are sometimes possible and are more socially — that is, economically — efficient. Wikipedia's value to consumers is in the hundreds of billions of dollars while its annual operating costs are only $25 million...
Obviously Wikipedia's operating costs are so low, like Mozilla's, because of its volunteer labour force. But that fact just makes one wonder why we couldn't have a "democratic" Facebook too, and whether that would not be superior from a social welfare perspective to the current "farming model" of extracting maximum value from its members-cum-livestock.
The right to preserve our attention
Advertising is a valuable commercial opportunity for businesses with access to consumers' attention, or their personal information. For the companies that buy and sell our attention it is — as all voluntary transactions must be — a win-win. But advertising lacks the free market efficiency that is claimed for it. Advertising is made artificially cheap, like the output of a coal burning power station, because the price at which it is sold doesn't reflect its negative effects on third parties — us.
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Insightful) by prospectacle on Monday July 20 2015, @01:42AM
1 - You can reduce exposure. Ad-blockers for your browser, mute the tv during breaks. Also, while it's not always voluntary when a billboard catches your eye, you have control over how long you look at and think about it.
2 - You can wash your hands after exposure. Just a few moments of considering what basic need the ad is trying to appeal to, what your existing plans were for meeting that need, and how the suggested product or service compares to alternatives, is enough to neutralise most of the effect.
3 - You can be innoculated. Learning the basic techniques and motivations behind advertising is enough to make most of them backfire. Every slippery argument, weasel word, and undertone that "this will make a big difference to your quality of life, trust us, we only have your best interests at heart" will make you a bit more averse to ever giving money to the company behind that message.
4 - You can build up a natural tolerance. Through low dose and low risk exposure with enough time to recover, you develop immunity. Eventually you've seen similar things before and have developed psychological anti-bodies that quickly adapt to any new strains.
The biggest obstacle is realising that you're not born immune, and that they don't have your best interests at heart. Once you accept those, then like germs or viruses, it's easy to greatly reduce the harm.
However you will need to take care of the innoculation for yourself and those you care about. Most governing parties depend too heavily on either ads working directly, or on money from people who advertise a lot, so this stuff is unlikely to be taught in public schools any time soon.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @03:12AM
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Monday July 20 2015, @03:24AM
You're right, complete sterility is not desirable (or possible), in either case. The answer is innoculation against known diseases, moderation of exposure, and good habits to minimise the risk of serious infection.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @01:07PM
One thing that actually can be fun is to intentionally misinterpret slogans negatively.
For example, take the slogan "Intel inside." This can be easily interpreted as a warning message: "Stay away from this; it has Intel inside."
Well, you could also notice that "intel" is often used as abbreviation of "intelligence" in the sense of "gathering information". So "Intel inside" could also interpreted as "it's spying on you." Well, actually that also fits the warning message interpretation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gidds on Monday July 20 2015, @01:18PM
I fear it's worse than that; much worse.
Yes, you can analyse an ad, see how it works, and rationally rebut it.
But by then, you've spent a while exposing yourself to the brand and its message. Which is exactly what the advertisers want, as your unconscious mind will have absorbed it all.
In a few weeks, you'll have forgotten the ad, and why you should ignore its message. But you'll remember the brand, and the subtle associations it had. So next time you have to make a choice between the brand that's familiar and has the right associations, and one that you've never heard of, you're more likely to choose the former. The advertising has worked.
And that's just one of the ways that adverts can sneak under your mental filters.
If you asked 100 random people, I bet nearly all of them would claim that advertising didn't work on them; that they were too smart to be affected by it. But if that were the case, why would advertising be so valuable?
Advertising works even on people who think they're too smart for it. (In fact, I've read claims that advertising works better on people who think they're too smart for it.) That's why it's so insidious, and so dangerous.
The only safe way not to be swayed by advertising is not to see it. (And not to have any dealings with anyone who has.)
Or, as Joshua put it:
A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:02AM
You misunderstand me. I'm not too smart for advertising and sometimes it works on me.
If you think you're just too smart for (bad) ads or they just don't work on you then you're likely to be complacent and take no measures to protect yourself. That may be why they work better on people who think they're naturally, effortlessly immune.
However if you think you're powerless to counter their effects then you're going to be paranoid and excessive in your measures to avoid it.
My point was how to deal with it effectively, as one deals with viruses (which I'm also not too smart for and which sometimes work on me). It's about avoiding some, actively countering others, and developing a strong immunity through conditioning.
It's not about being too smart any more than not catching flu is about being too healthy. You don't avoid catching the flu because you're a healthy person, you avoid catching it because you're either immune (from previous exposure or innoculation) and fight it off before it takes hold, or you're not exposed (enough) to it in the first place.
You're right that simply seeing through an ad once, with great effort, won't stop it working subtly over time, and indeed it means spending a bit more time thinking about it than you otherwise would have.
But that's once, or twice, or occasionally. When you've built up a strong habit of seeing through ads on purpose, after repetaedly taking time to consider thier motivations, techniques, so-called arguments and evidence, then there are two important effects that occur:
1 - It becomes very quick to recognise the weakness and dishonesty in any new ad. It's like developing antibodies
2 - Many ads start to backfire, giving you a negative emotional impression of the product, because you start to see and remember their dirty tricks more easily and more prominently than any features of the products themselves.
Intelligence is not the issue, it's conditioning.
Also I mentioned several ways to reduce the amount of advertising you see or hear, which is also an important measure.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Monday July 20 2015, @01:31PM
I think that the point is that these are man-made viruses, and maybe we should stop doing that.
Yes, how is another, possibly more complicated question, but we have to agree on this one first.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:10AM
We can ban some techniques like outright lying, being too loud, being too big, being in certain places, but I don't think we can ban advertising, or that many people would really want to.
It would mean:
No signs outside shops.
No logos on products that might be seen in public.
No (visible) sponsorship of events.
No signs visible from the road, on private property.
The only free to air media is government owned.
No posters in shop windows.
And probably worst of all, none of those free city maps with all the ads for local attractions when you arrive at the train station.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:28AM
The only kind of "advertising" that is actually needed would be some sort of central repository list of businesses, basically like the phone book. If you want to know about their products, go to their store or phone them. If it is a mail-order business, order a catalogue. And today, sure have a website, complete with online store if you want. But aside from a phone/fax number, address, and web address, the only thing that should be posted about said companies are consumer reviews (not sure yet how to get around paid shills though), or BBB type reports.
Yeah I know it's not going to happen, unless we become a lot more socialist, but anything else is a waste. And yes, unethical, because it's manipulative, and a waste.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:06AM
It's not just about what is needed, it's also about what it's fair and reasonable to ban.
Look through that list again and tell me which ones it would be ok to punish people for. Start with this simple example: you put a poster in your own shop window advertising one of the new products you have on the shelf (made by another company). The poster was made by that company.
You also have a poster advertising your friend's band.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:23AM
Punishing people? It's punishment to not allow unethical behaviour?
In either of your examples, when I see such a poster, my brain has to make a decision: Do I want this thing, or not? The choice is not between this thing and all others in its category. Either I buy that product or I don't. Either I go to that concert or I don't. How is that fair to all the other people having a concert out there the same night that I didn't see ads for? Perhaps there are others I'd like more. And what if I decide to plan to buy a ticket to that concert, but then I see a huge wowy commercial on TV for a different concert that looks totally awesome, so I decide to go to that instead. You're poor friend in local band loses out because he couldn't spend a million dollars on advertising like this other band could. But I might have liked them better. I wouldn't know unless I checked out their music somehow in a more fair and balanced way.
So why can't it be like going to movies (not counting movie posters and commericals), where a person decides "Gee, I'd like to go to the movies tonight." They then check the paper, or some theatre website to see what's playing. They see a list of names and times. If they don't know anything about these movies, they can check online reviews, Wikipedia articles, whatever, maybe even online trailers. That's all fine and good, because it's about opt-in not opt-out. I went to them. I decided I wanted to watch a movie, or go to a concert, or whatever. I am comparing them side-by-side in a manner that isn't trying to steal my attention towards one and away from others, likely using advanced psychological techniques that if a human used them on you, would be arrested for being a con-man, but when companies do it, it's ok for some reason because we're conditioned to it.
So yes, putting up a little poster in a window or whatever may seem harmless, but it isn't, and while not a big deal, it opens up the door to much greater abuses.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @03:28AM
Ok let's say you ban people putting posters in their own shop windows:
Let's play a fun game called where does the ban kick in. Pick a number:
1 - I assume people can still have a sign with the name of their shop, in their own shop window?
2 - Can they include a nice logo on that sign?
3 - What if they include a basic description of their services as part of the sign?
4 - What if it's a favourable description?
5 - What about a menu in the window, with meals and prices? It's useful for those considering eating there, saves them time, but it's also promotional.
6 - Maybe that's ok, but what if the menu has descriptions that make the items sound really nice, on purpose?
7 - What if the menu has pictures?
8 - What if they're quite nice pictures?
9 - What if some pictures are bigger than others, or have more positive descriptions?
10 - Can I put actual items I have for sale in the shop window, inside my own shop?
The extreme case, of course, is that shops have no windows at all, and simply a name on the door, but with no description of what's inside. I'm guessing you're not really advocating for this extreme. Even then the location and size of the shop determines how likely people are to notice it and wonder what's inside.
So where's the line, and once you've drawn the line, how would you punish those crossed it?
If you want to ban something you need to know what you're banning, and how you enforce it. Otherwise you might do more harm than good.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 21 2015, @03:55AM
I know that you're probably going to laugh at me for being a kook but my answer is 0. This very conversation made me think about the issue more deeply, and the logical conclusion to the argument I presented to you before is that there is no reason to have anything other than the company's address outside their store, that is sufficient for anyone trying to actively locate the store. Anything else diverts attention in the manner I already described. E.g. A person walks by and sees "Jazz City". They think "I like jazz, I wonder what's in there?" They go inside and it sells instruments, or is a jazz cafe, or whatever. "Neat!" They think, "I'll have to go there again!" Completely unfair to all the other music stores/jazz cafes in the city. The only thing those other companies could do to try to get that person's attention (so that they could even try to make a comparison) is to make even more noise, become even more noticeable, and so the escalation of competitive advertising begins to the ridiculous proportions it's at today, and still growing.
As to how to enforce it? As I said before, we'd have to be a lot more socialist. I'm for free-market nothing. Actually I think even having stores around is still not going far enough, but that has nothing to do with the issue of advertising. There's already plenty of laws saying what businesses can do and can't do (a staggering amount actually), adding in these wouldn't be difficult from a purely paperwork perspective. The only thing stopping us is our pro-free market politics. So yes I realize how difficult it would be to actually put such changes into effect from a political standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's not an ideal that we can work towards as a society.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:59AM
I won't call you a kook, but I will say two things about taking things that far, and having promotion-free shops:
1 - I would personally hate to live somewhere like that.
2 - People would still advertise.
Regarding 1:
- We could have no open air markets.
- We couldn't browse and compare restaurants and their menus when looking for somewhere to eat.
- It will take much more time and effort to learn of what products are services are even available (it's often slower to browse and search some neutral directory than just look around you).
Regarding 2:
- People will be paid to go into certain shops frequently (maybe in different disguises throughout the day), so others see them doing it and think "Well that place looks popular, I'll check it out".
- Shops will employ staff who pretend to be customers so you see and hear what products they're buying, and maybe you overhear them saying how much they like it.
- People will be paid to "innocently" discuss products they like with their "friends" while in public, in earshot of others.
So now we'd have to ban visibly entering a shop or audibly discussing anything in public that might involve a product or service.
What next?
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Tuesday July 21 2015, @11:39AM
"1 - I would personally hate to live somewhere like that."
Yeah, no one trying to manipulate you and take advantage of you. Or waste billions of dollars on things that add no benefit to society. That would suck something awful. Or is that it is not what you are used to, and do not yet see the benefits of such changes?
"We could have no open air markets."
Aside from some sentimental attachments, would there be any practical benefit lost? And either way is what you think you're gaining worth the cost of all we put up with today? There a million other ways to entertain yourself.
"We couldn't browse and compare restaurants and their menus when looking for somewhere to eat."
No, the opposite is true. When you're sitting in a restaurant, you can only compare its menu to others you've seen, and remember. With a central directory, you could compare side-by-side, along with pictures, prices, consumer reviews, perhaps even recipes, of *every other restaurant*.
"It will take much more time and effort to learn of what products are services are even available (it's often slower to browse and search some neutral directory than just look around you)."
You're forgetting one important factor: travel times. Sure it might seem like a long time comparing every example of one type of business all at once in a directory, but it sure beats driving all around town to each and every one of them. Not to mention a lot cheaper too.
"People will be paid to go into certain shops frequently (maybe in different disguises throughout the day), so others see them doing it and think "Well that place looks popular, I'll check it out"."
I really can't imagine anyone doing that. It could easily be a popular sex shop, or geek hobby store, or imagine any place you'd rather not just randomly walk into. And for the few people that do decide to do that, I don't think that hiring people to try and make a place look popular would be cost-effective.
"- Shops will employ staff who pretend to be customers so you see and hear what products they're buying, and maybe you overhear them saying how much they like it.
- People will be paid to "innocently" discuss products they like with their "friends" while in public, in earshot of others."
They already do this today. Sad but true. Yes, given all these restrictions companies would still be highly motivated to find ways around them, just like they are with any restrictions. The only thing restrictions on bad behaviour can hope to accomplish in any system that employs money is to limit them, because you will seldom get rid of them. The only way to do that is to change the rules of the game so that they are no longer rewarded for successfully accomplishing bad behaviour, but that would require even more changes that might seem too extreme.
So the argument that these measures aren't worth it because they are not 100% effective doesn't work. Any amount is worth it unless there is some other cost, and then it's just a matter of comparing the two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @11:34PM
"We could have no open air markets."
Aside from some sentimental attachments, would there be any practical benefit lost?
Yes there is a massive practical benefit lost. Being able to browse a variety of real-life products (not just text or photos in a directory which may be out of date, incomplete or not detailed) from variety of different sources in the one place. It would be much faster and more accurate to see what's available. Open air markets go back thousands of years and are a great place to find things and meet people.
Similarly for browsing restaurants, you can't tell from an online directory what the real food and atmosphere looks like just from text and carefully prepared photos.
You also couldn't sit in a cafe with a view of the street or in the street itself and meet your friend passing by, because that would risk exposing passers by to a view of what kind of business it is, their menu, etc.
There would be virtually no street life of any description. If people took their food out to the park to eat, everyone would see what shops they were bringing the food from, and what the food looked like, how many people went there, and how much they seemed to enjoy it. Pretty soon it would be obvious who sold what kinds of food and how popular they were. Then shops would start astroturfing in this manner.
And either way is what you think you're gaining worth the cost of all we put up with today? There a million other ways to entertain yourself.
Between "All we put up with today" and "No posters or even windows in shops, and no open-air stalls", there's a lot of middle ground. It's not all or nothing.
You're forgetting one important factor: travel times. Sure it might seem like a long time comparing every example of one type of business all at once in a directory, but it sure beats driving all around town to each and every one of them. Not to mention a lot cheaper too.
In cases where this is true (where the various sources for what you want are all spread around) it's already easy to look things up, but people don't always do this and for good reason. When you need a variety of things, and go to a shopping distict with lots of shops down the same street, it's often easier to just look around to see what's available, and faster, and gives more detailed information. You can look things up as well, as you go. Without getting a sense at least, of what's available, you may not know what some good options are that meet your needs. Lots of things are invented or released or refined every day and often you learn about them by seeing one in a shop passing by.
"- Shops will employ staff who pretend to be customers so you see and hear what products they're buying, and maybe you overhear them saying how much they like it.
- People will be paid to "innocently" discuss products they like with their "friends" while in public, in earshot of others."
They already do this today. Sad but true. Yes, given all these restrictions companies would still be highly motivated to find ways around them, just like they are with any restrictions. The only thing restrictions on bad behaviour can hope to accomplish in any system that employs money is to limit them, because you will seldom get rid of them. The only way to do that is to change the rules of the game so that they are no longer rewarded for successfully accomplishing bad behaviour, but that would require even more changes that might seem too extreme.
So the argument that these measures aren't worth it because they are not 100% effective doesn't work. Any amount is worth it unless there is some other cost, and then it's just a matter of comparing the two.
If these were the only options available, they would be done a lot more. You would have a great increase in people audibly proclaiming (in a private discussion mind you, none of your business) how great some product or service is, especially when you were walking towards a competitors shop. Right now there are lots of far less intrusive options for advertising.
(Score: 2) by prospectacle on Tuesday July 21 2015, @11:42PM
Sorry forgot to sign in. See response above.
If a plan isn't flexible it isn't realistic
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Wednesday July 22 2015, @05:09AM
Being able to browse a variety of... products...from variety of different sources in the one place
Like I already pointed out, you can become aware of far more products from far more sources with a directory than you can IRL. Also, such markets seldom have competing vendors. And even if they did, you are still not comparing any of them to any of the others available to you elsewhere, including other such markets! So again, it's not fair to the other sellers, and not wise for you. A market in one area may be inflating their prices because of being next to a wealthier neighborhood for example.
real-life products...not just text or photos in a directory
Only useful in small set of products, since most of what we buy comes in boxes or other packaging anyway. And that is where the consumer and other reviews can come in.
which may be out of date, incomplete or not detailed
Strawman. May happen occasionally today because retailers generally prefer in-person visits, but if this were the primary method of "advertising" they'd be a lot more invested keeping things up to date and accurate.
Similarly for browsing restaurants, you can't tell from an online directory what the real food and atmosphere looks like just from text and carefully prepared photos.
No more than you can be just passing it by. You'd have to go in to see it to get that, and you'd only have a set of restaurants to choose from based on your walking habits, which would be a much smaller set than a directory would contain. I'd much rather check that out first, make a list of all the ones I'd like to check out, then visit them. It'd be by choice rather than by random chance. You'll be far more likely to find what you like with this combination of actions than relying on luck.
...from text and carefully prepared photos.
You're forgetting the customer and other reviews as well.
You also couldn't sit in a cafe with a view of the street or in the street itself and meet your friend passing by
Now you're really reaching. How often does that happen, really? It's never happened to me. And you could still have outdoor locations that were separated from the streets. Personally I'd find that preferable to all the noise and smell of traffic. For those few who would still prefer it that way, well, I'll have to call that a minor loss compared to what happens otherwise.
There would be virtually no street life of any description.
What is "street life" anyway? What makes it so special? Sure I like going "window shopping" with my friends in my city's artsy district where all the cool stores are, getting an ice cream and/or cheese smoky while enjoying the outdoors at the same time, if that's what you're talking about. But I only go to the stores I like anyway, and pass the others by. There's no reason I couldn't find out where those stores are (and the food vendors) from the directory first and do the same thing. The only difference is that I wouldn't be bothered by all the places I'm not interested in.
If people took their food out to the park to eat, everyone would see what shops they were bringing the food from, and what the food looked like, how many people went there, and how much they seemed to enjoy it. Pretty soon it would be obvious who sold what kinds of food and how popular they were. Then shops would start astroturfing in this manner.
There's no reason to have any business names on the packaging. The reason they do that today is precisely for what you describe, advertising! So yeah, that wouldn't be allowed either. People would have to ask what it was you were eating. And that is no different than word of mouth anyway, which is itself not a deliberate action on the part of the businesses. As for astroturfing I've already addressed that.
Between "All we put up with today" and "No posters or even windows in shops, and no open-air stalls", there's a lot of middle ground. It's not all or nothing.
No, but anything else would be arbitrary, and thus people (especially the businesses) would be arguing over where to draw that line. No one would agree, and even if/when an official decision was made, there would be constant lobbying to push it back (look at copyright terms today). 'All or nothing' is the only practical measure.
And if we're going on the premise that it is still unethical, then compare it to something else that is, like violence, or stealing. Should we say it's ok to slap or punch someone if it doesn't put them in the hospital? Or it's ok to steal up to what, $10? $50? Where do you draw the line?
In cases where this is true (where the various sources for what you want are all spread around) it's already easy to look things up, but people don't always do this and for good reason.
Yes, because they are not comparison shopping, or they have already been convinced by advertising to buy from a certain business instead of another that may very well be better for them. If people want to be that lazy in the system I'm describing, they can just pick something at random from the directory and go there, assuming they already don't know the location of anything, which is unlikely. They could just go to wherever their friends and/or family go.
it's often easier to just look around to see what's available,
Exactly, like I said, they are not comparison shopping. They just see what's available and buy it regardless of whether there is a better deal or product somewhere else.
a shopping distict with lots of shops down the same street... it's often easier... and faster
Really, walking down the street and going into several shops really takes less time than browsing a web page with search functions? I don't think so.
and gives more detailed information.
Like I said before, only in a minority of circumstances because most things come packaged. But even that is irrelevant in this case because you are only getting information on one product or from one business, not all the others that you could find out about, unless you spend a lot of time driving around town. So you are either fast, or informed, you can't be both by shopping in person.
And this isn't even getting into salespeople, who are there specifically to make money, so many, if not most of them are there to mislead you, not help you. This makes you far less informed than if you were to do your own research online, comparing products and services, with links to reviews and even technical introductions to new technologies or product types. E.g. if you didn't know whether to buy a plasma-screen TV or an LCD, a properly maintained directory would have unbiased, accurate information you could use, as opposed to a salesperson who wants to make a commission, or clear out last year's product. Sure, they are not all like that, but how easily can you tell? And why should you even have to try?
You can look things up as well, as you go.
Same under my suggestion, so how would that change anything?
Without getting a sense at least, of what's available, you may not know what some good options are that meet your needs.
Sure, and you can find out a lot more online than you can in person, even today. In a purely directoried system, it'd be even better. Thinking of buying a new computer? Just type in "latest computers" or "newest computers" or fastest, etc. and get a side-by-side comparison from every manufacturer and retailer, with results filtered however you like, by price, distance, OS, color, etc. That instead of just what's available in one store.
Lots of things are invented or released or refined every day and often you learn about them by seeing one in a shop passing by.
Maybe for you. I learn most of the time about new stuff online, from the stores' websites themselves, or product related websites (like say a "car" website that reviews new cars). This would be a trivial loss that people would quickly adjust to. Really, if you are relying on street advertising to tell you what's new and exciting, you're sure not getting all the information you really want.
If these were the only options available, they would be done a lot more. You would have a great increase in people audibly proclaiming (in a private discussion mind you, none of your business) how great some product or service is, especially when you were walking towards a competitors shop. Right now there are lots of far less intrusive options for advertising.
Entirely possible. Hey, maybe it'd would become obtrusive enough that people would notice and start ignoring these people, even shaming them for being corporate shills. Either way, as I already said, this method can't stop 100% of this bad behaviour, no law can. All you can do is try to minimize it. And if you do want to eliminate it, well there are options for that too if you're willing to change economic systems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @07:16AM
I think this is the crux of the matter:
What is "street life" anyway? What makes it so special? Sure I like going "window shopping" with my friends in my city's artsy district where all the cool stores are, getting an ice cream and/or cheese smoky while enjoying the outdoors at the same time, if that's what you're talking about. But I only go to the stores I like anyway, and pass the others by. There's no reason I couldn't find out where those stores are (and the food vendors) from the directory first and do the same thing. The only difference is that I wouldn't be bothered by all the places I'm not interested in.
So walking down a street or pedestrian strip that may be full of shops, I would see a series of blank-walled buildings with their addresses printed on them, with no windows showing their contents, no artwork on their signs, no outwards facing kiosks, no tables out the front, no menus at the door, no open stalls, etc. If I went into a cafe I'd have no view of outside, even if this street was next to the ocean or on top of a mountain.
In my opinion this removes one of the most pleasant, social, interesting and useful aspect of many commercial districts: Exploring and browsing actual things and actual stores - not a catalogue of them - as you walk around outside.
Any benefits to be had from taking away attention-grabbing posters are in my opinion tiny, even irrelevant by comparison.