6 ms·

Here is an important difference. A century ago, the predator (seller) and the prey (buyer) were on equal evolutionary terms. Each generation of humans on eith

Here is an important difference. A century ago, the predator (seller) and the prey (buyer) were on equal evolutionary terms. Each generation of humans on either side of the transaction came into the world, learned to convince, learned to resist, then passed, and some balance was maintained. In this century, corporations and algorithms don't die, but the targets do. This means that the non-human seller is continuously, even immortally, learning, adapting and perfecting how to manipulate. The target, be it adult, adolescent, or child, is, and will be ever increasingly, at a severe disadvantage.

jayd16 7mo ago
What if I told you younger sales people were trained by more experienced sales people and its not a new thing.
SR2Z 7mo ago
Right, because we know that parents never pass down useful skills or life tips to their children, like skepticism of propaganda and advertising, and instead send their children into the world like sheep into a lion's den. There might come a day when advertising is too flawless for a human mind to resist it, but we're not there yet.
- somenameforme 7mo ago
  Most of everybody thinks their behaviors and decisions are not meaningfully influenced by advertising. Companies spend literally trillions of dollars running ads. One side is right, one side is wrong. And advertising largely relies on this ignorance of its effects, or otherwise most of everybody would go to much greater lengths to limit their exposures to such, and governments would be more inclined to regulate the ad industry as a goal in and of itself.
  - cm2012 7mo ago
    Advertising is just companies saying "This is what you can purchase from me - it's awesome - please consider purchasing it". I have managed hundreds of millions in ad spend for major brands. None of them rely on weird ad magic to persuade people secretly - just showing off different aspects of the product or service.
    - anonymars 7mo ago
      Um, off the top of my head: "You'll be happier if you purchase this thing" "You're not good enough as you are now, but you will be if you purchase this thing" "Other people you admire or respect have purchased this thing, and if you do too you'll be more like them" "Other people will like you more if you purchase this thing" "You'll be more attractive if you purchase this thing" "This thing will be worth more in the future so if you purchase this thing it will make you money" "This is your only chance to purchase this thing, so if you don't it now you'll miss out on this price" I don't think any of them has to do with how awesome "the thing" itself is. Obviously there's more to, say, an expensive watch, than its ability to tell time
      - cm2012 7mo ago
        The only products that sell this in advertising actually provide those brand features. Essentially people pay money to increase their perceived status. Like, if you sell a luxury handbag. When people buy it, they know 70% of the value comes from the advertising saying "this is a high value product" as a status signal. I think that's really dumb, but that's what people want. It also existed a long time before ads itself did.
        Dylan16807 7mo ago
        So you've never seen like, a beer ad that promises status and attractiveness?
        cm2012 7mo ago
        Beer/liquor is in the same category of status good. People pay a lot to show the brand.
        Dylan16807 7mo ago
        Some liquor brands are like that. 95% or more of beer ads that imply status are just lying to you.
  - SR2Z 7mo ago
    No, this take is crazy. If ads were able to brainwash people Coca-Cola would still be the most popular drink in America. The problem with "meaningfully influenced" is that a 1% bump in sales is massive for a company, but normally only represents a very minor shift in customer behavior. US spending on advertising is, in total, about $1200/person-year. If you believe that advertisers are rapacious capitalists who will take as much as they possibly can, then they only believe that they can capture about that much extra per person by advertising to them. That's not nothing, but it's not very much either. Ads are extremely overblown as a threat to society; you only need to look as far as eye-tracking studies of web browsers and the prevalence of ad blockers to see pretty good proof that people do just ignore them most of the time.
    - vladvasiliu 7mo ago
      I'm firmly in the camp of "I'm not influenced by ads (or so I think)" / "not convinced that ads are actually a net positive". But even so, I don't fully agree with your take. I think that it's very possible to think we aren't influenced, yet still be. My reasoning is that basically no one admits to being influenced. Yet you can definitely see the effects of ads on people: whenever there's a strong campaign for something, little after you'll see everyone buying it. Maybe they just try to "follow trends" or whatever, but that's just a form of advertising, isn't it? I only very rarely watch TV and have ad blockers everywhere, yet I can still detect when all of a sudden everybody has the same bag or same jacket or whatever. My bags last years and years. I doubt it's simply a coincidence and they all needed new bags right at the same time. > Ads are extremely overblown as a threat to society; you only need to look as far as eye-tracking studies of web browsers and the prevalence of ad blockers to see pretty good proof that people do just ignore them most of the time. I think that many people don't know about ad-blockers and try to ignore the ads while reading a website or scrolling some app. But that doesn't imply they aren't influenced. In my case, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not influenced by my instagram's feed's ads, since they try to sell me pregnant women's garments, of which I have 0 use as a single, childless male. But there can be other factors of which I don't have conscience, like seeing people use the same brand camera or whatever. Call it advertising-by-proxy. However, take a look at people's screens when taking the metro or whatever. Many do watch the ads instead of just scrolling past. This is what I actually have a hard time understanding: people would spend a comparable amount of time on what looks like ads and what looks like their friends' stuff, as if it was the same thing. Which, granted, isn't a very long time. In my case, I only follow photographers and would spend a fair amount of time on people's pictures but scroll right through anything that looks like an ad (text or video of any kind).
- coryrc 7mo ago
  USA here: our schools brainwash children to remove that skepticism. It makes them easier to control and order is very important to the kind of person who becomes a teacher. Seattle area, they're brainwashing my children to celebrate the "seahawks" team. They came home yesterday being excited that team won the superbowl. I ask "why do you care? You don't like to watch football, none of your friends like to play it". Hard to influence when the kid is there 6.5 hours every day.
  - irishcoffee 7mo ago
    My dad was a lot like you. He would shit on things I was excited about that he didn’t like. We haven’t talked in years.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - coryrc 7mo ago
      Ah, don't worry. He'd forgotten ten minutes later and I later took him rock climbing, which he actually loves and I support him doing despite me being terrified of heights.
      - irishcoffee 7mo ago
        I bullshitted my dad a lot too because I wanted to try and make him happy.
  - linkregister 7mo ago
    My child's San Francisco Bay Area school has taught media literacy / skepticism every year since 3rd grade. Curricula are determined by the teacher, but N=1 is sufficient for a counterexample for a broad country-wide generalization. Celebrating a local sports win is about as apolitical and low-harm as possible when it comes to promoting a shared cultural bond for a community.
    - 7mo ago
thrwaway55 7mo ago
Ah yes because trade secrets were never a thing at any of these companies. The companies always shut down when it's founding members died wiping out all the knowledge it had built up. That is to say organizations have always had this edge on individuals.

jayd16 7mo ago

What if I told you younger sales people were trained by more experienced sales people and its not a new thing.

SR2Z 7mo ago

Right, because we know that parents never pass down useful skills or life tips to their children, like skepticism of propaganda and advertising, and instead send their children into the world like sheep into a lion's den. There might come a day when advertising is too flawless for a human mind to resist it, but we're not there yet.

somenameforme 7mo ago
Most of everybody thinks their behaviors and decisions are not meaningfully influenced by advertising. Companies spend literally trillions of dollars running ads. One side is right, one side is wrong. And advertising largely relies on this ignorance of its effects, or otherwise most of everybody would go to much greater lengths to limit their exposures to such, and governments would be more inclined to regulate the ad industry as a goal in and of itself.
- cm2012 7mo ago
  Advertising is just companies saying "This is what you can purchase from me - it's awesome - please consider purchasing it". I have managed hundreds of millions in ad spend for major brands. None of them rely on weird ad magic to persuade people secretly - just showing off different aspects of the product or service.
  - anonymars 7mo ago
    Um, off the top of my head: "You'll be happier if you purchase this thing" "You're not good enough as you are now, but you will be if you purchase this thing" "Other people you admire or respect have purchased this thing, and if you do too you'll be more like them" "Other people will like you more if you purchase this thing" "You'll be more attractive if you purchase this thing" "This thing will be worth more in the future so if you purchase this thing it will make you money" "This is your only chance to purchase this thing, so if you don't it now you'll miss out on this price" I don't think any of them has to do with how awesome "the thing" itself is. Obviously there's more to, say, an expensive watch, than its ability to tell time
    - cm2012 7mo ago
      The only products that sell this in advertising actually provide those brand features. Essentially people pay money to increase their perceived status. Like, if you sell a luxury handbag. When people buy it, they know 70% of the value comes from the advertising saying "this is a high value product" as a status signal. I think that's really dumb, but that's what people want. It also existed a long time before ads itself did.
      - Dylan16807 7mo ago
        So you've never seen like, a beer ad that promises status and attractiveness?
        cm2012 7mo ago
        Beer/liquor is in the same category of status good. People pay a lot to show the brand.
        Dylan16807 7mo ago
        Some liquor brands are like that. 95% or more of beer ads that imply status are just lying to you.
- SR2Z 7mo ago
  No, this take is crazy. If ads were able to brainwash people Coca-Cola would still be the most popular drink in America. The problem with "meaningfully influenced" is that a 1% bump in sales is massive for a company, but normally only represents a very minor shift in customer behavior. US spending on advertising is, in total, about $1200/person-year. If you believe that advertisers are rapacious capitalists who will take as much as they possibly can, then they only believe that they can capture about that much extra per person by advertising to them. That's not nothing, but it's not very much either. Ads are extremely overblown as a threat to society; you only need to look as far as eye-tracking studies of web browsers and the prevalence of ad blockers to see pretty good proof that people do just ignore them most of the time.
  - vladvasiliu 7mo ago
    I'm firmly in the camp of "I'm not influenced by ads (or so I think)" / "not convinced that ads are actually a net positive". But even so, I don't fully agree with your take. I think that it's very possible to think we aren't influenced, yet still be. My reasoning is that basically no one admits to being influenced. Yet you can definitely see the effects of ads on people: whenever there's a strong campaign for something, little after you'll see everyone buying it. Maybe they just try to "follow trends" or whatever, but that's just a form of advertising, isn't it? I only very rarely watch TV and have ad blockers everywhere, yet I can still detect when all of a sudden everybody has the same bag or same jacket or whatever. My bags last years and years. I doubt it's simply a coincidence and they all needed new bags right at the same time. > Ads are extremely overblown as a threat to society; you only need to look as far as eye-tracking studies of web browsers and the prevalence of ad blockers to see pretty good proof that people do just ignore them most of the time. I think that many people don't know about ad-blockers and try to ignore the ads while reading a website or scrolling some app. But that doesn't imply they aren't influenced. In my case, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not influenced by my instagram's feed's ads, since they try to sell me pregnant women's garments, of which I have 0 use as a single, childless male. But there can be other factors of which I don't have conscience, like seeing people use the same brand camera or whatever. Call it advertising-by-proxy. However, take a look at people's screens when taking the metro or whatever. Many do watch the ads instead of just scrolling past. This is what I actually have a hard time understanding: people would spend a comparable amount of time on what looks like ads and what looks like their friends' stuff, as if it was the same thing. Which, granted, isn't a very long time. In my case, I only follow photographers and would spend a fair amount of time on people's pictures but scroll right through anything that looks like an ad (text or video of any kind).
coryrc 7mo ago
USA here: our schools brainwash children to remove that skepticism. It makes them easier to control and order is very important to the kind of person who becomes a teacher. Seattle area, they're brainwashing my children to celebrate the "seahawks" team. They came home yesterday being excited that team won the superbowl. I ask "why do you care? You don't like to watch football, none of your friends like to play it". Hard to influence when the kid is there 6.5 hours every day.
- irishcoffee 7mo ago
  My dad was a lot like you. He would shit on things I was excited about that he didn’t like. We haven’t talked in years.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - coryrc 7mo ago
    Ah, don't worry. He'd forgotten ten minutes later and I later took him rock climbing, which he actually loves and I support him doing despite me being terrified of heights.
    - irishcoffee 7mo ago
      I bullshitted my dad a lot too because I wanted to try and make him happy.
- linkregister 7mo ago
  My child's San Francisco Bay Area school has taught media literacy / skepticism every year since 3rd grade. Curricula are determined by the teacher, but N=1 is sufficient for a counterexample for a broad country-wide generalization. Celebrating a local sports win is about as apolitical and low-harm as possible when it comes to promoting a shared cultural bond for a community.
  - 7mo ago

thrwaway55 7mo ago

Ah yes because trade secrets were never a thing at any of these companies. The companies always shut down when it's founding members died wiping out all the knowledge it had built up. That is to say organizations have always had this edge on individuals.