Slashdot Mirror
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."
"The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen."
- Crispin Glover: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm000...
#
"You do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll call forever. End of story, OK? You're another corporate shill, you're another whore at the capitalist gang bang."
- ("Artistic Roll Call," Bill Hicks Rant in E-Minor (1997)).
#
Memorable quotes for
Looker (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
#
"John Reston: Television can control public opinion more effectively than armies of secret police, because television is entirely voluntary. The American government forces our children to attend school, but nobody forces them to watch T.V. Americans of all ages *submit* to television. Television is the American ideal. Persuasion without coercion. Nobody makes us watch. Who could have predicted that a *free* people would voluntarily spend one fifth of their lives sitting in front of a *box* with pictures? Fifteen years sitting in prison is punishment. But 15 years sitting in front of a television set is entertainment. And the average American now spends more than one and a half years of his life just watching television commercials. Fifty minutes, every day of his life, watching commercials. Now, that's power."
#
"It's only logical to assume that conspiracies are everywhere, because that's what people do. They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man." - Mel Gibson (from an interview)
#
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director
#
"The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA's euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing - for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy - so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president - every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as "plausible denial." The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so."
- Victor Marchetti, Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History
#
George Carlin:
"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choic
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can't remember ever encountering a Slashdot summary that had me literally shouting in agreement.
The thing is, though, we are being compensated for our attention, with exactly the thing most people are looking for, whether they'd admit to it or not -- novelty and stimulation. It's unfortunate, I think, that this "extraction process" is diverting our attention from more productive outlets. But when has it ever been different? When have the masses, the majority, ever voluntarily directed their attention to productive outlets, instead of directing it to escapism or religious ritual on the rare occasions when it's not consumed by the fight for basic survival?
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.
Television in the U.S. gives us strong evidence that advertisers are "over-fishing" their audience.
Many years ago, shows on TV would be longer; and commercial breaks would be fewer and shorter. Some shows had only one sponsor: the "Colgate Comedy Hour", the "U.S. Steel Hour" (drama), "Milton Berl" (comedy sponsored by Texaco), "Armstrong Theater" (drama sponsored by Armstrong Floors and Carpets), "The Voice of Firestone" (both popular and classical vocal music sponsored by Firestone Tires), and "I Love Lucy" (comedy sponsored by Phillip Morris Tobacco).
Today, TV shows are shorter so that commercial breaks can be longer and more frequent. Furthermore, more commercials are packed into each break. I have counted advertisements for four different automobile manufacturers in a single break. I also notice the constant selling of health-care products -- both over-the-counter and prescription -- one right after another. And then there are the same commercials repeated during a single break. We are so saturated with TV advertising that few commercials create any lasting impression on consumers.
If I were the CEO of an automobile or pharmaceutical manufacturer, I would order my marketing department to insist that any TV commercial from my company must not appear during the same commercial break as a product from a competing company. Nor would I allow my commercials to appear within 15 minutes of another commercial break advertising products from a competing company. Yes, such restrictions would cost my company more than the current saturation placement of commercials; but the lasting impression of isolating my advertisements from my competitors would be worth the cost.
"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.
Exactly. The "we" discussed in TFS, and presumably in whatever it is summarizing, is not me, and therefore as far as I am concerned, resolve to a "them", as in, the person(s) who wrote it.
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, 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.
The only effect web ads have on me, at least until the IP shows up in my hosts list, is to slow pages down. Once it gets into the hosts list, it turns into an error message instead of an ad, and I ignore those too, while my browsing speeds back up (if you're not using your hosts file to nuke advertisers and their cookie-mining minions, you're foregoing a great tool, presuming you don't actually want to see ads, which I suppose is not a given.)
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, the advertisers, "they get nothing."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Wow, is that really what you think?
https://www.google.com/search?...
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
He's just saying what I've been thinking (and saying, but since I'm not a reknown philosopher, few listen) for many years.
If you know anything at all about the mind and the brain, you understand that attention isn't free.
Ditto. One other thing that bugs me is those "charity muggers" on every street corner trying to get your credit card details. One thing I've noticed since they were invented, is now I no longer talk to strangers. There was a time when someone came up to ask you the time, or directions or for a light, and I'd oblige, maybe kick off a conversation and generally exchange good will with a another human. Now all that goodwill has been stolen by charity muggers. The goodwill people used to have toward strangers has been stolen by their behavior. This was a real resource that now no longer exists, yet how do you measure the true cost?
Certainly. But that doesn't mean our actions cannot be influenced by others, especially when those influences are subtle or act on the subconscious.
Were you replying to someone else? I wasn't calling for state action or regulation.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Without looking at it, how can you figure out it is an advertisement or a caution / direction sign / legal announcement / public service announcement? You cannot.
Once you do look at it and it turns out to be an advertisement, you can continue your earlier thought process but your attention has been stolen from you, however little you value it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
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.
Very few consumers are rational. Pet rocks were an actual thing. People buy stuff because they think it's worth the money, or because they think everyone else has one, or because they're bored.
Have you ever seen a kid when ice cream truck music starts playing? Those kids don't want a popsicle from the freezer - they want the exact same popsicle from the ice cream truck at three times the price. Adults get a little better at suppressing that kind of irrational act, but we're still susceptible to it. Even people who believe they make purchases only after coldly tabulating the marginal enjoyment of one more M&M against the penny it costs.