Either advertising works or it doesn't. Insofar it works, it's basically coercion
Not even close. An ad can make a decent amount of money if it does one of three things: show me a new place where I can get a need that I have solved, or show me a solution to a problem or need that I know I have that didn't know had a solution or, and this is the most tangential and the one that is most difficult to do - shows me a need or a problem I didn't know I had and a solution to that (this is what people often complain about as superficial, but if I see a sign saying "most people pay more tax than they have to, lets us do your taxes and save" that might get me thinking).
There is no coercion there, the information itself is valuable to me and the advertiser.
The trouble with most ads, and the reason people think they suck in general, is that most of them are for crappy products because crappy products, in general, need more advertising. Great products need advertising too but not so much.
A minor nitpick in an otherwise inspiring article: I feel like the argument about ad efficacy also wants to have it both ways - if advertising sucks, why do we believe that it works? Or in other words, if advertisers are good at advertising themselves, why would they be bad at advertising anything else?
If advertising didn't work, than the companies blowing millions and billions on it would be in a million/billion-dollar sized hole vs. their competition, and they would be promptly outcompeted, or cut off their own spending. That they are not is rather strong evidence that yes, it does work, inasmuch as a dollar in ad spending can bring in substantially more than a dollar in revenue.
(No, it is not a sufficient counter argument to say that they just spend because everyone else does; if advertising really didn't work there would no forces holding it up, and a lot of forces pushing it down. If you flipped a switch and made it not work somehow right now, advertising would be gone within a handful of years, if not faster.)
Ads have a function, but they don't produce anything. They either divert customers from a competing business, or try to convince people to purchase something they so far haven't.
Instances where they provide useful information are comparably rare - with the exception of notifying people of a new business or kind of product, the yellow pages, word of mouth, or a search engine are much better, from a consumer's point of view.
With how information-sparse most ads are, it's hard to see them as anything but a drain on society, economically and socially.
Advertising works extremely well precisely because most people are aware that many brands with something of value are also willing to pay for ads. Look at Apple.
I have no idea whether advertising works or not, but I see this "successful businesses do it, therefore it it works" argument applied to so many different things and it always baffles me. Besides not having much substance beyond an appeal to authority, I don't think I've ever seen an example of a company that doesn't engage in some number of financially wasteful behaviors with dubious or at least unquantifiable value.
My own personal opinion is that most of the time ads don't work.
They're noise that might, at BEST, bias the result of a decision I was already willing to make. (IE: I know I'm going to go somewhere for lunch and MAYBE an ad makes me pick one place over another.)
Really I see ads being useful only in three categories:
* Reminding a prospective customer your store exists
* Reminding a prospective customer what you sell
* Getting a customer to crave something you can provide.
The first two are generally good, however they don't really need to be done all that often. Once someone knows a service exists they'll likely return for more if they liked and need more of that service.
The last one is arguably amoral. Encouraging (needless or extra) consumption and trying to make someone dependent on the ad buyer for happiness. It also sounds a lot like what drug dealers do.
Even that third category, if a product was adding actual value or quality, needn't be done that often to reach effective saturation.
Na I kind of disagree with the author, ads do work, and they work quite well, otherwise the whole internet wouldn't rely on them.
But also ads are always bad, because the only reason they exist is to get my to buy something I don't want. Because everything I want to buy I can (and do) research and find out where to buy without them.
Maybe you're being sarcastic or hyperbolic, but of course ads work. Ask anyone who advertises. It's not a billion dollar industry for nothing.
I'd say at best, they can inform you of something you need but didn't know existed, but even your "best" case is a valid use of advertising. And, yeah, a lot of advertising is noise. That's why advertisers are so interested in targeted advertising.
Every time there's a thread on HN about advertising, there's at least a few comments (there are already some in this thread) that claim, loudly, "Ads don't work on me! I never buy things based on ads!".
The thing is, they're all wrong. Advertising is a trillion-dollar business because it works. The human mind is susceptible to suggestion, and it's been demonstrated over and over again for basically as long as we've had civilization.
What is ALSO true, however, is that ad dollars are exceeeeeedingly inefficiently deployed. Which is why you experience things like weird retargeting on things you've already boight. I experience this too -- there are several brands that for which I'm a happy paying customer and I still see their ads 1-2 times a day.
> Advertising definitely works, though not on everyone.
It works on everyone. In fact, the people who swear "ads don't work on me" are the easiest people to advertise to, because they are hyper aware of advertisements, and even saying to yourself "I won't use X product because Y" is simply enforcing a brand choice based on... advertising.
Not all advertising works. Obviously. That does not mean that advertising does not work or that it is debatable in general. It is debatable for specific scenarii. I think that episode of freaknomics says pretty much that.
What this means, IMHO, is that it is very important to be able to measure results so that you can decide based on data and stop throwing money in the wind if it in fact does not make a difference.
As much as I hate ads, it's just not true that they don't offer any value. They often can and do inform consumers and businesses of products that will be of value to them. They often though advertise things that are also of the opposite (negative value) and play on human weaknesses.
While advertising may not have convinced you to buy anything, which is doubtful that it hasn't has some influence, there are millions of people that are influenced by advertising. This is why it's done.
What is sad is that obvious marketing attempts work so well. One weird trick ads really do work. I was as surprised as anyone when we started running these for a client assuming that they would fail and we could stop. Sales nearly doubled for that ad group.
It's hard to blame the marketers for the dumbed down advertising when it works so well.
Not even close. An ad can make a decent amount of money if it does one of three things: show me a new place where I can get a need that I have solved, or show me a solution to a problem or need that I know I have that didn't know had a solution or, and this is the most tangential and the one that is most difficult to do - shows me a need or a problem I didn't know I had and a solution to that (this is what people often complain about as superficial, but if I see a sign saying "most people pay more tax than they have to, lets us do your taxes and save" that might get me thinking).
There is no coercion there, the information itself is valuable to me and the advertiser.
The trouble with most ads, and the reason people think they suck in general, is that most of them are for crappy products because crappy products, in general, need more advertising. Great products need advertising too but not so much.
reply