Advertisers Save the World

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Without advertising, Apolyton would not exist. For that reason, advertising rocks

No, for that reason advertising is a necessary evil, since 'Poly is a necessity.

But a necessary evil is still evil.

[Berzerker]

They do go hand in hand...

Capitalism is the religion
Media is the Church
Advertising is the Bible

It's really as simple as that.

First advertiser: "Hey Joe, I made a few too many spears for fishing, how about I give you them in exchange for some fish"?

Joe: "Sounds good to me"

A religion is born?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
No, for that reason advertising is a necessary evil, since 'Poly is a necessity.

But a necessary evil is still evil.

No it isn't . It's just a way for people to think they are cool by saying it is evil, but if it is necessary, then it isn't an evil, because you have to allow it, even in the most moral government.

[DaShi]

Bah, I was cool before advertising was evil.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


First advertiser: "Hey Joe, I made a few too many spears for fishing, how about I give you them in exchange for some fish"?

Joe: "Sounds good to me"

A religion is born?

That's not advertising. Advertising is:

First advertiser: "Hey Joe, I made a few too many spears for fishing, how about I give you them in exchange for some fish"?

Joe: "Nah, I already have a spear"

First advertiser: "But my spear will make you more attractive to women, and make the whole activity of spearing fish so exciting that you'll never stop orgasming. Plus, my spear allows you to catch fish that will give you eternal youth when eaten. And my spear, even though I'm offering it to anyone who comes along, is so perfectly suited to you in particular that your manhood and very identity will be incomplete without it."

Yeah, a religion is born -- and like voodoo, it's based on a belief in magic.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I watched Thomas Friedman on the Discovery/Times channel doing a piece on India and outsourcing.

Friedman's a moron.

[Spiffor]

I have a question to our free-marketeers here:

Do you support the very idea of modern advertisement? ("Modern advertisement" defined as: not only making your product known, as was the case of the advertisement of old, but trying to give the impression that your product is superior through mere communication, regardless of the actual quality of the product).

I mean, a perfect free market is one where the consumers are very conscious of the utility of the products they buy, and of the price they're willing to pay for it. Free marketeers are supposed to consider price as the One Good mechanism of wealth repartition.

Modern advertisement tweaks the whole thing, as it artificially inflates the utility of some products (through any legal means, as it's heavy on psychological manipulation), which means it creates a disturbance in the utility-price mechanism.

Besides, marketing costs are a hindrance to any new actor trying to seize the market. Again, it flies in the face of the perfect free market.

[Sandman]

Advertising surely means that any libertarian regime will quickly implode. That makes it a little bit ok.

[Spiffor]

[Berzerker]

First advertiser: "But my spear will make you more attractive to women, and make the whole activity of spearing fish so exciting that you'll never stop orgasming. Plus, my spear allows you to catch fish that will give you eternal youth when eaten. And my spear, even though I'm offering it to anyone who comes along, is so perfectly suited to you in particular that your manhood and very identity will be incomplete without it."

Yeah, a religion is born -- and like voodoo, it's based on a belief in magic.

His spear is called Viagra

You've confused two issues - I'm talking about advertising, not false advertising.

Do you support the very idea of modern advertisement? ("Modern advertisement" defined as: not only making your product known, as was the case of the advertisement of old, but trying to give the impression that your product is superior through mere communication, regardless of the actual quality of the product).

A thin line separates fraud and embellishment, but as a free marketeer, I'm opposed to false advertising, but our culture (every culture) understands advertising and that embellishment plays a role. We know when Burger King shows a burger on TV, that ain't the burger we're getting when we show up. But if we're satisfied anyway, we'll come back...

I mean, a perfect free market is one where the consumers are very conscious of the utility of the products they buy, and of the price they're willing to pay for it. Free marketeers are supposed to consider price as the One Good mechanism of wealth repartition.

A perfect free market is where you and I can exchange stuff.

Modern advertisement tweaks the whole thing, as it artificially inflates the utility of some products (through any legal means, as it's heavy on psychological manipulation), which means it creates a disturbance in the utility-price mechanism.

So advertise your product. A free market does not guarantee everyone will be happy with the results of every exchange they make, just they be allowed to make the exchange.

Besides, marketing costs are a hindrance to any new actor trying to seize the market. Again, it flies in the face of the perfect free market.

Sorry, I support a free market based on morality, not utility or your definition of perfection.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
A perfect free market is where you and I can exchange stuff.

In Soviet Russia, we could have exchanged stuff too (people owned their consumer products, and I could have exchanged my clothes/food/whatever for yours if we had wished). Unless you consider Soviet Russia to be a perfect free market, I'm afraid your definition is lacking

Sorry, I support a free market based on morality, not utility or your definition of perfection.

"My" definition of perfection actually belongs to the liberal economic theory. The "Pure and Perfect Competition" (or at least, that's the French name for it) relies on 5 theoretical criteria:
1. many actors in the market (plenty of suppliers offering a similar product, plenty of demanders)
2. identical or equivalent quality between products
3. Free entrance on the market (anybody can become a supplier without undue hassle)
4. perfectly reliable info on the market, known by all actors (suppliers and demanders)
5. Mobility of labour and capital.

These criteria don't exist in real life, but free-marketeers strive to create them. The modern stock exchange is actually very close from being a "perfect" free market.

The "perfect" free market relies on an assumption though: the actors are rational, and they know what's best for them. They know what they want ("utility"), and they know what price they're ready to pay for it. An economist would be disgusted at the idea that his beloved free-market would favour con-men and manipulators. A free-market economist is supposed to enjoy competition about price, quality, no bull****.
This is why most free-marketeers support institutional intervention against those who distort info btw: for example, most stock exchange authorities (even private ones) have strong mechanisms to punish the companies who lie about their profits, or who use secret info to their benefit.


Advertisement, since it is about artificially inflating the satisfaction you get from a product, goes against the "perfect information" principle. While legal advertisement is not an outright lie, it's another form of psychological manipulation in order to make the customer believe that the product is worth more than it really is. It goes against the very mechanism (price-quality) that makes the market a really free one.

I'm surprised that an idealist like you can settle with such a disruptive activity.

[Berzerker]

In Soviet Russia, we could have exchanged stuff too (people owned their consumer products, and I could have exchanged my clothes/food/whatever for yours if we had wished). Unless you consider Soviet Russia to be a perfect free market, I'm afraid your definition is lacking

They needed permission from a 3rd party - the Communist Party (or whatever). It aint a free market when a 3rd party who doesn't own the stuff being exchanged can deny the exchange. And that 3rd party limited what could be exchanged, so claiming a free market existed because a 3rd party let you trade your pants for food is ridiculous. I said stuff, not clothes and food. Stuff is what you own, not 1 or 2 items.

"My" definition of perfection actually belongs to the liberal economic theory.

Thats nice...

I'm surprised that an idealist like you can settle with such a disruptive activity.

Life is a disruptive activity... Losing a job making horse whips for buggies because people are buying cars is disruptive too. Apparently I'll have to repeat this since you didn't respond even after quoting it, I support a free market based on morality, not utility or your definition of perfection.

[Berzerker]

Free Market - An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.

"Perfection" is a requirement?

[Spiffor]

Well, then, if you don't care about the economic mechanisms of the free market and only support the abstract moral principle, the question wasn't adressed at you.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Advertisement, since it is about artificially inflating the satisfaction you get from a product, goes against the "perfect information" principle. While legal advertisement is not an outright lie, it's another form of psychological manipulation in order to make the customer believe that the product is worth more than it really is. It goes against the very mechanism (price-quality) that makes the market a really free one.

I'm surprised that an idealist like you can settle with such a disruptive activity.

Yes, there are "some" advertisements that stretch the facts... but you also must remember that we can not LIE in advertising. If you make a product claim, it MUST be supported by appropriate facts to back them up.
(granted, some local ads fly beneith the radar of the governing bodies)

Many ads are informational... providing real product facts and reasons to buy. You're claim that it makes the customers believe that it is worth more than it really is a incorrect. Research has shown that ads that mislead the consumer about the value of the product are not very effective and don't help sell any more product.

You may laugh and whine about how some ads sell sex appeal... whether it's whiter teeth, deoderant, sharp clothes... but guess what... if you smell better, look better, have a better smile, you actually do have a better chance with the women...

And advertising plays hand in hand with the "free market"... It gives new comers a chance to break into a market. It allows the little guy a chance to compete against the big companies.

The first real ads were signs in front of establishments, telling people what kind of business the place was. It was informational... and that tradition continues today.

Yes, as in ALL things, there are bad or deceptive ads... but you seem to thing that that's the norm... it isn't.
Advertising is a key tool of the free market system. When done right, it is a plus to the consumer. And the good new is... when it's done wrong, the advertiser usually suffers for it.