Is Advertising Morally Justifiable? The Importance of Protecting Our Attention

theodp writes: With Is Advertising Morally Justifiable?, philosopher Thomas Wells is out to change the way you think about Google and its ilk. Wells says: "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. Expensively trained human attention is the fuel of twenty-first century capitalism. We are allowing a single industry to slash and burn vast amounts of this productive resource in search of a quick buck."

Comments

Absolutely

[maz2331]

It is pretty much the only way to fund "free" services of all kinds that have large reach but no direct income. Radio, TV, and most websites would not exist but for it, and it is a meritocracy as well - if the advertized product sucks, or the ad sucks, the advertiser loses their money with no reward. The opposite holds as well - a good product and a good ad can be very beneficial to customers and the advertiser.

Someone needs to cut back on the weed and spend some time in the world of reality here to even bring up the question.

Re:Absolutely

[musmax]

"3. Counter-counter arguments: How economists defend advertising and why it isn't enough The existence of the advertising industry poses something of a challenge to the ideology of free market economics since it seems to go against the principles of consumer sovereignty and consumer welfare (efficiency). Two justifications are prominent in the defence of advertising. First, that it is directly valuable for consumers because it communicates valuable information. Second, that it funds universal access to "club goods" (like television shows and internet services) whose production is socially valued but would otherwise not be financially viable. There is some merit to both of these, but I think they are far from sufficient."

Someone needs to rtfa.

Re:Absolutely

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously "advertising" in this story is just a proxy for what the author and Slashdotters think is the deeper-rooted immorality: capitalism. For some reason, even these days in America, communists/socialists/whatever are afraid to be direct, so they nibble along the edges of what they're really going after, so as not to raise suspicions (in those who are not really paying attention).

So they would say you're overlooking the vastly more moral way of funding services: Via collective money, instead of individual time and attention (or money).

It is a waste of human effort

[drinkypoo]

The best thing you can say about Advertising is that it is a waste of human effort. The highest form of advertising is when you get to be completely misleading without breaking any laws. When your noblest goal is to deceive, you are probably morally bankrupt. Advertising is simply another disgusting artifact of our culture of greed, by which I mean capitalism.

Re:It is a waste of human effort

[deKernel]

I am not sure if you are trolling or not, but I guess I will bite so here goes. I believe you have "highest" and "lowest" confused. The highest form of advertising is when you connect a buyer and a seller to which both strike a deal (purchase) that both feel satisfied. The lowest (your highest) is basically fraud where a seller completely misleads the buyer as to what they are going to purchase....and there are laws against such deals. If you truly feel that advertising is a "...disgusting artifact of our culture of greed..." then I can tell you have never been involved in actually starting/running/growing a business because without some form of advertising, typically it just won't happen. Now, you slam on capitalism is quite funny since there is a considerable amount of advertising in non-capitalistic countries...or haven't you been out much.

Re: It is a waste of human effort

[Anonymous Coward]

"The highest form of advertising is when you connect a buyer and a seller to which both strike a deal (purchase) that both feel satisfied."

Man, they've got you snookered real good. Advertising's entire purpose is to remove money from your wallet. If they could get you to give them all your money without you ever getting anything in return they would. It just happens that it's hard to do that, so advertisers are forced to "strike a deal that both feel satisfied with". Advertisers don't want to feel satisfied, they want to feel rich.

Re:It is a waste of human effort

[roman_mir]

Do everybody a favour, Google USSR advertising, look at the examples and then stop talking. We had advertising coming out of wazo and it was all completely state sponsored advertising. It was advertising for some products, events, moral ideology etc. The state was also using propaganda to keep people inline. Our newspaper s, such as 'pravda', 'trud' etc., were all propaganda - false advertising by the state to brainwash the entire population of the country. Alternatives were illegal like any other private endeavour. Go ahead, tell me that governments should be in charge of the economies. I am not going to pretend to listen, but will prove you wrong every time.

What Marketing is vs. What it should be.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Marketing is by the College Textbook definition, the act of communicating that you provide something that meets someone's wants and needs and provide utility. Government Agencies, Schools, Non-Profit institutions, also engage in Marketing. But Marketing has a few stipulations to it. One is that Marketed ideas have to be factual. Or "True". And that our society of markets, consumers are supposed to know everything about the products they buy. They don't. And Advertisers are a huge part of the problem.

Advertisers in todays world are not only misleading people, they in some cases use malicious code to deceive and steal from people by any means necessary. They are effectively burglars who attempt to break into your computer and steal any information possible by using security vulnerabilities to do that.

Re:Meh

[Hadlock]

Yes to #1, take your TV, throw it out the window. Tune your radio to NPR, install Ad Block, Flash Block, uBlock, Ghostery, etc. on your web browser. You will be shocked - SHOCKED - to find out from your friends when the latest summer blockbuster movies are coming out.
 
When I moved out of the house at 19 I did not take a TV with me, and I did not miss it. Only at 29 did I buy a TV, and only then so I could watch Netflix on a larger screen, in my living room.

Some advertising is OK

[sjames]

Some advertising is OK. The type that tells you what it is, where to get it, and what it costs is OK. Naturally, they think theirs is the best.

Then there's the obnoxious commercials. The ones that throw in gratuitous doorbells and filter the audio until it sounds like you're delirious so they can push the volume up while technically (just barely) staying within guidelines.

Beyond that, there's the constant attempt to transfer your feelings for everything good to their product. They actually want to intrude on cherished childhood memories for their benefit. Make no mistake, it's no accident, they hire a bunch of psychologists to help them.

The worst is advertising to kids. A committee of grown-ups with doctorates ganging up on a child to give them the wrong impression without saying anything legally actionable in order to get them to pester their parents.

As for brands, they've got to be kidding. It's been a very long time since brands were anything but a well known name stuck on some Chinese no-name product bought from a random manufacturer.

Bill Hicks said it best

[foreverdisillusioned]

Kill yourselves.

Seriously, no, this isn't a joke. If you aren't advertising a truly new product or service (this is maybe 0.1% of advertising), you are filling the world with bile and garbage.

Nice that we get "free" ad-supported stuff in the meantime, but holy fuck do we (as a society) pay for it.

Seems Like Everything is Fair Game

[theodp]

To paraphrase Bobby Hill, "What was YouTube supposed to do? NOT monetize the hospitalized baby?"

Re: No it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't pay any attention to advertising at all unless I am proactively seeking a product in a store"

That's just the thing. You think you aren't, but you are, you're just not aware of it at a conscious level. And that is advertising's ultimate goal -- subconscious suggestion. It's an art form really. You've probably made thousands of decisions that have been very subtly manipulated by corporations, without you ever even knowing. IMO that is the reason why advertising is morally reprehensible. It's manipulative mass mind control.

Re: No it is not

[Ramadog]

Unfortunately I am inclined to agree with this. Like the post you are responding to I try to ignore the ads and block a lot when I can. I still find sometimes when I want something and think of a brand to later realise it is a brand I saw from advertising. Same with product placement in stores.

Re:No it is not

[PopeRatzo]

I don't pay any attention to advertising at all unless I am proactively seeking a product in a store, virtual or otherwise, and then only to specific instances that are relevant.

I don't watch broadcast television, I don't read billboards, I completely ignore banners and side-column ads

Modern marketing techniques are designed for people like you. They're specifically made for people who don't pay attention to ads.

Nobody who lives in any community more dense than the human population of Kobuk Valley National Park is immune from the impact of modern marketing techniques. And I find it's the people who believe they are immune from advertising who are least prepared to defend themselves from its effects.

The only way they'll actually get my attention is with a sexy lady, and as the industry's kowtowing to political correctness has caused them to divest themselves of that particular tool

Wow, is that really what you think?

https://www.google.com/search?...

I don't watch broadcast television, I don't read billboards, I completely ignore banners and side-column ads, I don't open mail that isn't from a lawyer, a utility or some faction of the government, and I neither care what people want to put in ads nor am I affected by said content.

Then how the fuck would you know about the "industry's kowtowing to political correctness" causing them to divest themselves of sexy women in ads? Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Did you even know that Ridged Tools still publishes it's calendar of sexy ladies every year? Sports Illustrated still makes with the camel toe every February. I just watched a few minutes of the British Open on CBS and there was an ad for Mercedes with an entire line of supermodels in skimpy outfits.

Friend, instead of imagining what the "PC Police" are doing to your eye-candy, you might want to take some time out to evaluate your strategy for "ignoring" advertising, because the people who are involved with modern advertising techniques are smarter than you and me and Neil Degrasse Tyson when it comes to getting people who "don't watch broadcast TV" to respond to their campaigns. They know what they're doing and they know that it works.

You'd be better off accepting the effect that advertising is having on you, being aware of it, and actively subverting it. Adbusters is a good place to start. Otherwise, you'll still be reaching for the brand name and not knowing why.

Re: No it is not

[Bing Tsher E]

I tend to go out of my way to make brand choices while shopping that I don't think I have seen advertising for.

Re:No it is not

[PopeRatzo]

How exactly do the advertisers manage to design ads that will get through to GP who "doesn't watch broadcast television"? If GP doesn't see as many ads, he'll be less influenced by them, no?

Advertising is ubiquitous and advertisers figured out a long time ago that you don't need someone's full attention to influence behavior.

Forget websites. Forget television. You are affected by ads when you drive down the street or watching your kids playing a sporting event.

I'm telling you, if you scratch the surface of someone who claims to be completely unaffected by advertising, you're going to find someone who's making a lot more subconscious purchasing decisions than you would expect.

Re: No it is not

[rtb61]

Ads are not designed to inform they are specifically designed to psychologically manipulate the individual and work best with repetition. So the question boils down to whether or no people or company can use any platform to actively psychological manipulate them against their own interest and would should be the legal liability when they manipulation causes psychological harm, especially when targeted at minors. So ads should be restricted to the claim they make, they should only inform the public about the product or service with no embellishment, sort of like plain packaging.

Next up the idea of disingenuous advertisements, where all sorts of false claims and ideas are presented about products with regard to value (whether it is good value or you are being ripped off with inflated profit margins), quality of product (the quality is as claimed or implied), serviceability (whether it is as useful as claimed), durability and reliability (whether it will last well beyond the end of warranty of fail shortly there in after), fit for purpose (whether if can do what it claims it can do). Beyond that the whole marketing chain should be liable for false claims, those who pay for the advertisements, those who show the advertisements and those who produce the advertisements. Special note and penalties should apply to those who show the advertisements for profit, they are promoting the product for profit, hence they should be financially liable for falsities included in those advertisements.

Re: No it is not

[PatientZero]

Still, you only buy something if you believe it is worth the money. No ad holds a gun to your head and forces you to make a purchase. They only suggest that something is worth purchasing or that their brand is better than the competition... you ultimately make the decision what to buy, and most importantly, whether to buy it in the first place.

Modern advertising and PR learned quite a bit from the propaganda on both sides during WW2. It chooses music and images to elicit specific emotions such as feeling that something is missing in your life, or you're too fat, or that with this product people will like you. Have you noticed the recent uptick in television advertisements featuring veterans that have absolutely nothing to do with veterans?

"Oh thank God! She made it home in one piece, and her dog missed her so much. Now go buy whatever-the-fuck dogfood we're selling or you don't support our troops!"

Sure, there's no gun to your head. But the industry wouldn't spend billions of dollars doing it if it didn't increase sales. And every year they research new techniques to tug on your heartstrings or make you feel inadequate, and then they show you the product that will fill that void. Your mind is being programmed at every opportunity, and I believe you should have to opt in to it only if you want.