Ask HN: Why are today's consumers not discerning what is ad and what is not?
64 comments
I think there are 2 different, yet related, ideas in your question:
1) People are attached to brands
2) People consume advertisements interchangeably with content.
For both of these, I believe they are consequences from "too many choices". This article [1] from the American Psychological Association covers it well, "In fact, some researchers find that too much choice can actually lead people to take less positive risks in making selections and to use simplifying strategies in lieu of more considered choices."
I view "brands" as a pretty reliable way to take a mental shortcut to minimize risk. Instead of making a choice "I want to buy a product in X category, let me compare and contrast each individual item to see which one is the best", you can say "I want to buy a product in X category, let me see if there's a brand I trust which sells it". Note: You can replace "buy a product" with "choose a movie" for your Marvel example and the result is pretty much the same.
With respect to the blurring of content and advertisement, there are entire teams of people working hard to make that distinction not only blurry, but also irrelevant from the consumers perspective. I really enjoyed Johann Hari's book "Stolen Focus" [2], where he explains the point of a medium (books vs TV vs twitter vs instagram) is actually more important in how the content is shaped and how your brain process it, than the actual content being pushed over that medium. Warning: it's extremely possible I am absolutely butchering this point, so if you completely disagree with it, take that more as "tom is bad at explaining it" instead of "Hari is peddling garbage ideas". :)
1: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/toomany
2: https://stolenfocusbook.com/
1) People are attached to brands
2) People consume advertisements interchangeably with content.
For both of these, I believe they are consequences from "too many choices". This article [1] from the American Psychological Association covers it well, "In fact, some researchers find that too much choice can actually lead people to take less positive risks in making selections and to use simplifying strategies in lieu of more considered choices."
I view "brands" as a pretty reliable way to take a mental shortcut to minimize risk. Instead of making a choice "I want to buy a product in X category, let me compare and contrast each individual item to see which one is the best", you can say "I want to buy a product in X category, let me see if there's a brand I trust which sells it". Note: You can replace "buy a product" with "choose a movie" for your Marvel example and the result is pretty much the same.
With respect to the blurring of content and advertisement, there are entire teams of people working hard to make that distinction not only blurry, but also irrelevant from the consumers perspective. I really enjoyed Johann Hari's book "Stolen Focus" [2], where he explains the point of a medium (books vs TV vs twitter vs instagram) is actually more important in how the content is shaped and how your brain process it, than the actual content being pushed over that medium. Warning: it's extremely possible I am absolutely butchering this point, so if you completely disagree with it, take that more as "tom is bad at explaining it" instead of "Hari is peddling garbage ideas". :)
1: https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/toomany
2: https://stolenfocusbook.com/
I suspect there's some element of obedience or group belonging at play in ad consumption. Ads are so tightly-woven into the fabric of our world that any rejection of them elicits a feeling of rejection/separation/alienation from society itself.
I'd describe myself as allergic to advertisement. During ad breaks, I turn off the radio or TV. When I do that around other people, the reactions I've gotten are fascinating.
Some people seem uncomfortable like I've done something illegal. I've had people tell me I'm cheating the system or somehow stealing. Others appear genuinely hurt, like I'd just yelled at them or something. Almost universally, it's regarded as taboo, and I don't know exactly what to make of it.
I'd describe myself as allergic to advertisement. During ad breaks, I turn off the radio or TV. When I do that around other people, the reactions I've gotten are fascinating.
Some people seem uncomfortable like I've done something illegal. I've had people tell me I'm cheating the system or somehow stealing. Others appear genuinely hurt, like I'd just yelled at them or something. Almost universally, it's regarded as taboo, and I don't know exactly what to make of it.
Brands help consumers make reliable purchasing decisions. Amazon fucks this up all the time by trying to homogenize products and force you to discriminate on ad placement and price. Look at any category of consumer packaged goods on Amazon. If I search for “stroller rain cover” I get back 1000 identical products with identical fake ratings. Making a choice is hard, and if I make the wrong one my baby gets lead poisoning.
Branding lets me use my past experiences to make that decision process easier. I don’t want to have to look at technical specs and try to SAT solve for the optimal choice in my head or play secret hitler and read 1000s of ratings.
Branding lets me use my past experiences to make that decision process easier. I don’t want to have to look at technical specs and try to SAT solve for the optimal choice in my head or play secret hitler and read 1000s of ratings.
It's true. I was trying to buy a light box to take product photos with. Amazon seems to only list the crappy light boxes from China. I had to go to B&H's website to find brand name products.
Maybe the Chinese light boxes work just fine, but I'd rather spend an extra $10 on a brand name knowing I'm not going to get something that'll break or work poorly. Brands equate to reputation.
Maybe the Chinese light boxes work just fine, but I'd rather spend an extra $10 on a brand name knowing I'm not going to get something that'll break or work poorly. Brands equate to reputation.
Except when Amazon allows third party sellers, located on a fake address, to sell counterfeit products and does nothing when you report them.
Unfortunately, with the advent of things like Badge Engineering, brand has now become a prisoner's dilemma problem. Eventually, the brand will sell out and people will fall victim to the switch. There are obviously exceptions, but it happens frequently enough these days that trusting a brand anymore is unreliable.
> We watch Marvel movie after Marvel movie where each one is advertising for the next movie.
This is an absurd statement - the movies in of themselves are entertainment and not solely an advertisement.
This is an absurd statement - the movies in of themselves are entertainment and not solely an advertisement.
Seriously? They're all just vehicles to produce cash. Disney is a power house at this. Obviously they are entertaining, but Disney isn't out to make movies just for the sake of making good entertainment.
Yes because in the good ole days, entertainment use to be done for altruistic reasons.
See also, every other company that produce goods and services for profit by getting people to spend money on something they desire.
See also, every other company that produce goods and services for profit by getting people to spend money on something they desire.
To be fair, Marvel movies are handled like their comics, where you had to buy X-Men, Fantastic Four, Avengers, Hulk, Spiderman etc. to have the whole story of a saga. It was a pretty blatant attempt at selling comics.
> They're all just vehicles to produce cash.
This is literally any entertainment product
This is literally any entertainment product
Sure, so where do you draw the line between ad vs no ad? It's all the same, it doesn't matter.
An ad doesn’t itself provide (significant) entertainment value, and exists primarily to get you to consume something else later.
All entertainment wants to get you ‘hooked’ but that’s mostly a good thing since it makes it enjoyable. Even Homer wrote a sequel!
All entertainment wants to get you ‘hooked’ but that’s mostly a good thing since it makes it enjoyable. Even Homer wrote a sequel!
Furthermore a lot of ads seem quite obviously designed to annoy and harass, not to entertain, just so they get their hooks in deeper. But I'll also agree with the counterpoint - it's all a matter of perspective and what's entertaining for some can be annoying or harassing for others.
What is the difference between an "ad" and content designed to get you "hooked" ???
Both are designed influence behavior and retain your attention. They are for all intents and purposes the same thing. Virtually everything is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Both are designed influence behavior and retain your attention. They are for all intents and purposes the same thing. Virtually everything is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Or all other goods and services, for that matter, in a market economy.
[deleted]
Why not both? The only reason any movie exists, excluding amateur films, is to make money.
The only reason any product exists is to make money.
Something being made with money in mind doesn’t exclude its other properties. Apple makes iPhones to make money, but they make phone calls. Disney makes movies to make money, but they provide entertainment.
The only reason any product exists is to make money.
Something being made with money in mind doesn’t exclude its other properties. Apple makes iPhones to make money, but they make phone calls. Disney makes movies to make money, but they provide entertainment.
An amateur film student making an artistic film to tell a story is a lot different than Disney making $1.5 billion dollars on a single Avengers movie. Everything in the latter case is calculated. The parks will get new areas and rides, new merch will get created, video game partnerships, action figures and comic books, etc. That shifts the narrative from entertainment for the sake of entertainment towards revenue for the sake of revenue. I am not saying this is good or bad, but it is important to be able to see the distinction. Intention is important.
> An amateur film student making an artistic film to tell a story
And consequently these movies are mostly irrelevant because they only appeal to a tiny fraction of people.
And consequently these movies are mostly irrelevant because they only appeal to a tiny fraction of people.
They are about as irrelevant as someone writing a unix tool in Rust, pushing it to github, and linking to it in an email to a hiring manager.
Right, do people actually do that? Like to get a job? I’ve never looked at side project portfolios when hiring. Like unless that hypothetical rust tool was completely salient to the role and it was seeing critical adoption it’s basically not signal.
I doubt people make indie films specifically targeted at getting a job either.
I don't really understand your point then, I think both are equally irrelevant. If you thought that was going to be a gotcha because I place programming on a pedestal or something you misjudged critically.
> I think both are equally irrelevant
That is my point. They are analagous and equally relevant: no more. No less.
That is my point. They are analagous and equally relevant: no more. No less.
[deleted]
So you think the “artistic film student” isn’t trying to get into the industry “with the intention” of getting noticed by the industry to make money?
I don't. I think there are people who get pleasure out of expressing themselves through motion picture. I get it out of writing code. Conveniently, making movies and writing code are both things that society will pay you to do.
Look at who the major contributors are to Linux.
They aren’t doing it to make the world a better a place. They are doing it for the same reason that most people go to work - to exchange labor for money to suooort their addiction to food and shelter.
They aren’t doing it to make the world a better a place. They are doing it for the same reason that most people go to work - to exchange labor for money to suooort their addiction to food and shelter.
You'd be correct if you hadn't put the word 'only' in your explanation. Money is a motivation, but it's not the only one.
Even Hollywood masterpieces with high critical acclaim are trying to make money. I don't think you're actually saying anything. I don't have super highbrow movie tastes so independent artsy films bore me. I like action movies, run and gun. Things like Snatch or Bullet Train and only companies like Disney and Sony are making those.
That's the same with pretty much any art produced, certainly anything popular. Do you consider Philosophers Stone an advert for Chamber of Secrets?
You could say this about anything. My shampoo bottle is an advertisement to buy the next bottle. My car is an advertisement for other people to buy the same car.
> We watch Marvel movie after Marvel movie where each one is advertising for the next movie.
Hey speak for yourself! Avoiding ads is difficult, but skipping mainstream movies goes a long way.
Hey speak for yourself! Avoiding ads is difficult, but skipping mainstream movies goes a long way.
This kind of advertising is really old. I have a 1930s Hardy Boys novel that references an earlier book in the story, and contains mail order offer in the footer ("Send your order plus 20¢ to ____ to get your copy of ____. Allow 10 weeks for delivery" - definitely not Amazon).
I think audiences are largely the same, but brands have gotten really good at marketing. Advertising is so pervasive in every aspect of society. It is nearly impossible, both physically & digitally, to escape the near-constant onslaught of marketing, ads, promotions, etc.
It's science-backed psychological warfare. Look up the nephew of Sigmund Freud for where it started.
https://www.npr.org/2005/04/22/4612464/freuds-nephew-and-the...
https://www.npr.org/2005/04/22/4612464/freuds-nephew-and-the...
Silly question but what else are we going to do?
Once you make well more than you need for pure survival, buying and consuming is the next step? Consuming is entertainment.
I don’t work my job to survive, I work it for the fancy toys. I could survive on a fraction of the hours I’m working, but then I would have a lot more hours I’d need to fill, desirably with some sort of consumption.
Once you make well more than you need for pure survival, buying and consuming is the next step? Consuming is entertainment.
I don’t work my job to survive, I work it for the fancy toys. I could survive on a fraction of the hours I’m working, but then I would have a lot more hours I’d need to fill, desirably with some sort of consumption.
> Silly question but what else are we going to do?
- Learn a new language/instrument/craft
- Hike/bike/run down a new trail
- Work at a soup kitchen
- Raise funds for your charity of choice
- Influence local politics to raise the quality of life for everyone
- Buy nice things, be comfortable with having/maintaining nice things that are a little out-of-date, and put the savings into retirement
- Retire and do more of the stuff listed above
- Learn a new language/instrument/craft
- Hike/bike/run down a new trail
- Work at a soup kitchen
- Raise funds for your charity of choice
- Influence local politics to raise the quality of life for everyone
- Buy nice things, be comfortable with having/maintaining nice things that are a little out-of-date, and put the savings into retirement
- Retire and do more of the stuff listed above
Not even necessarily „new“. Taking same old trail is perfectly fine and in many cases even more rewarding. Same for gettign deeper into instrument/hobby/whatever.
> It's like being trapped in a hamster wheel. Why have we as consumers become to addicted and depended on brands?
Because that is the goal of advertising operations. Hence, it's just working as expected.
Because that is the goal of advertising operations. Hence, it's just working as expected.
[deleted]
I don't think people mind sequels so much and encouraging users to consume more content goes back to simple cliff hangers in comic strips serialised in newspapers back in the early 20th century. I don't think anyone would have classified such techniques as "ads", at the time so I am a little surprised by such classification.
I think product placement is particularly rife and problematic, today in a reasonably new form especially since it bleeds into the culture of social influencers and in many nations is not regulated to enforce disclosure.
However, I think you might struggle to make a case that "today's audiences" are any more susceptible to advertising than any other audience throughout history. I would suggest (and personally believe) that the idea of "ick, ads" is our own personal niche that moves us away from the centre of the bell curve. Many people don't appear to respect the harm adverts do to the mind, or perhaps I am one of the few that overstates their detriment, depending on one's perspective.
I think product placement is particularly rife and problematic, today in a reasonably new form especially since it bleeds into the culture of social influencers and in many nations is not regulated to enforce disclosure.
However, I think you might struggle to make a case that "today's audiences" are any more susceptible to advertising than any other audience throughout history. I would suggest (and personally believe) that the idea of "ick, ads" is our own personal niche that moves us away from the centre of the bell curve. Many people don't appear to respect the harm adverts do to the mind, or perhaps I am one of the few that overstates their detriment, depending on one's perspective.
> I would suggest (and personally believe) that the idea of "ick, ads" is our own personal niche that moves us away from the centre of the bell curve.
I personally believe this too, which is why I think there is a legitimate case for advertisers to give audiences the ability to opt-out of advertising. Some of us hate adverts so much it puts us off the product you are advertising. I know it does for me. It's probably better for your company not to advertise to me, or people like me.
I personally believe this too, which is why I think there is a legitimate case for advertisers to give audiences the ability to opt-out of advertising. Some of us hate adverts so much it puts us off the product you are advertising. I know it does for me. It's probably better for your company not to advertise to me, or people like me.
i have a habit of literally swearing at any advert I experience, to associate it with negative feelings (and thereby undo its intent). This does however have the side-effect of making me appear somewhat deranged at times. :|
Yeah that is kind of deranged. I mean physically out loud swearing at a thing due to magical thinking is slightly deranged. What's this intent you speak of? Can't you just not react but also not consume the ad? I would consider it a more higher ordered thinking thing to acknowledge that a thing exists but have the restraint to allow the thing to exist but also not affect you in any way that makes you react externally but also not react internally at said thing unless said thing was actively pursuing you in some way which an inanimate advertisement cannot.
If I'm on my own its audible, otherwise maybe just a middle finger in the direction of the screen, especially if its a shit ad, especially if its employing basic manipulative tricks (e.g. scarcity).
The intent of any advert is to associate the given brand with some sort of positive experience. Be that visual (pretty people), social (people having fun) or aspirational (expensive looking) or some other positive. By associating the brand with a negative reaction one can invert that intent and thereby give the advertiser the opposite outcome that they intended by catching your attention.
The intent of any advert is to associate the given brand with some sort of positive experience. Be that visual (pretty people), social (people having fun) or aspirational (expensive looking) or some other positive. By associating the brand with a negative reaction one can invert that intent and thereby give the advertiser the opposite outcome that they intended by catching your attention.
> It's like being trapped in a hamster wheel
No!
You just opening world. Approx to 1950, people satisfy only most important physiological needs (in east Europe/USSR/Asia this was longer), but from 1950s, got resources to have more.
If you look on primitive model of Maslou Pyramid, even there are more levels than just physiological.
Century ago, people engaged with religions, but now most (classic religions) considered valueless, and are in deep crisis, so appear huge void, and entrepreneurs see it and try to use it.
And Apple is just play dolls, comparable to others.
For me very mind-shaking was movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founder
Watch it, it's really joy.
I think, md system will appear, even more paradoxical for you, because there are religion for investors, but customers see just pure performance, and central administration of franchise takes care of things.
No!
You just opening world. Approx to 1950, people satisfy only most important physiological needs (in east Europe/USSR/Asia this was longer), but from 1950s, got resources to have more.
If you look on primitive model of Maslou Pyramid, even there are more levels than just physiological.
Century ago, people engaged with religions, but now most (classic religions) considered valueless, and are in deep crisis, so appear huge void, and entrepreneurs see it and try to use it.
And Apple is just play dolls, comparable to others.
For me very mind-shaking was movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Founder
Watch it, it's really joy.
I think, md system will appear, even more paradoxical for you, because there are religion for investors, but customers see just pure performance, and central administration of franchise takes care of things.
> Why have we as consumers become to addicted and depended on brands? Are these companies exploiting something innate in us? A need that needs to be fulfilled?
This can't possibly need explanation? People want/need pacifiers. Cigarettes. Coffee. Alcohol. Twitter. Music. Movies. Taylor Swift. Youtube influencers. TikTok. All of these things are exactly the same.
At a certain scale you can capitalize on this and steer the narrative. You create fear of missing out. You create pop stars. You create addicting doom scroll behaviors in apps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
This can't possibly need explanation? People want/need pacifiers. Cigarettes. Coffee. Alcohol. Twitter. Music. Movies. Taylor Swift. Youtube influencers. TikTok. All of these things are exactly the same.
At a certain scale you can capitalize on this and steer the narrative. You create fear of missing out. You create pop stars. You create addicting doom scroll behaviors in apps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
I think it depends on your tolerance for ads. I hate ads so much I end up closing browser tabs or switching off whatever appliance they're on. My hate for ads is much greater than the love for the content they are attached to.
> Why have we as consumers become to addicted and depended on brands?
Because we are poor and got addicted to getting apps for free.
We used to pay for services like email, messaging, and web hosting. Then advertising companies started giving us that software for “free”. But we didn’t know they were advertising companies then because (1) the companies hadn’t decided that yet and (2) they framed themselves as app companies.
Want ad free radio? Pay for audio books and music. Want ad free video? Pay for YouTube premium or HBO MAX. Want your personal website to be add free? Pay Wordpress. Want an add free smart TV? Pay a little extra and buy one.
Because we are poor and got addicted to getting apps for free.
We used to pay for services like email, messaging, and web hosting. Then advertising companies started giving us that software for “free”. But we didn’t know they were advertising companies then because (1) the companies hadn’t decided that yet and (2) they framed themselves as app companies.
Want ad free radio? Pay for audio books and music. Want ad free video? Pay for YouTube premium or HBO MAX. Want your personal website to be add free? Pay Wordpress. Want an add free smart TV? Pay a little extra and buy one.
[deleted]
Part of the decline in basic competence and critical thinking.
Starting to wonder if the problem is more than just education or social media. Perhaps a combination of the lifestyle illness medications.
Not that the average intelligence has ever been stellar, but lately; wow!
Starting to wonder if the problem is more than just education or social media. Perhaps a combination of the lifestyle illness medications.
Not that the average intelligence has ever been stellar, but lately; wow!
> Part of the decline in basic competence and critical thinking.
Yes because back in the good ole days kids didn’t watch cartoons that were meant to sell characters and Star Wars didn’t make billions selling merchandise.
Disney has been selling and licensing merchandise based on movies since the 50s.
People have been buying Coca Cola based on marketing for a century.
Yes because back in the good ole days kids didn’t watch cartoons that were meant to sell characters and Star Wars didn’t make billions selling merchandise.
Disney has been selling and licensing merchandise based on movies since the 50s.
People have been buying Coca Cola based on marketing for a century.
Is there really evidence to suggest that average competence, critical thinking, or intelligence has decreased?
indeed, every time I open this site I am left speechless by the sheer intelligence on display.
“Today's audiences are attached to brands more than ever.”
Got any actual data to back up that claim, or is that just what it “feels” like to you? Maybe before making broad assertions about what’s ailing consumers, reality check your assumptions first.
Got any actual data to back up that claim, or is that just what it “feels” like to you? Maybe before making broad assertions about what’s ailing consumers, reality check your assumptions first.
> We watch Marvel movie after Marvel movie where each one is advertising for the next movie.
How is a Marvel movie an ad for the next movie any more than a chapter in a book is an ad for the next chapter or an Act in a play is a an ad for the next act?
The entire idea of the MCU is an integrated universe.
And please don’t go off tsk tsking “people today”. What do you think all of the cartoons in the 80s were except for an ad for toys?
And next up the false meme that “cable use to be ad free”…
How is a Marvel movie an ad for the next movie any more than a chapter in a book is an ad for the next chapter or an Act in a play is a an ad for the next act?
The entire idea of the MCU is an integrated universe.
And please don’t go off tsk tsking “people today”. What do you think all of the cartoons in the 80s were except for an ad for toys?
And next up the false meme that “cable use to be ad free”…
Because brands are purposely creating ads that customers can't discern. It's a cat/mouse thing just like IT security - sec people find a new way to secure their tech, hackers find a way around it, sec patch that, hackers find a new exploit etc.
With ads, brands find a new strategy to disguise ads, consumers get used to it and learn to recognize them/be aware of them, brands find a new strategy. The lease discerning X percentage of people will always be unaware of the more sophisticated ads, the most discerning X percentage will always be aware.
I think it's bad for human psychology, almost by definition, to have all these corporations/entities bombarding your senses with content designed to influence you in a specific way that is beneficial to them / not beneficial to the people. Without regulation/disincentives they corporations will be driven by their profit motive to use any means to get you to by their products and the consequences are horrible for the population, especially when it's so many thousands of companies all fighting for pieces of your psyche with no regard to it's wellbeing.
I also really don't regulation in concept, and in practice it's often at largely ineffective(not always though / it's not INHERENTLY that way). This is one of many problems with capitalism / free market that are often waved away by pointing out the problems with the alternatives to capitalism, which are often also fair criticisms. It's an extremely hard problem, finding a system that minimizes the consequences to catastrophic levels(let alone the difficulties of implementing a new system).
Sacrifice of wellbeing in some ways might just be a necessary tradeoff for any system that leads to "progress" - a possibility I've considered but can't really grasp yet(would love anyones input on this). I know I've gotten a bit off topic but I think advertising and it's consequences are a very clear example of this kind of tradeoff which makes it a useful topic for discussing this kind of thing. In theory it's possible to imagine a system that allows for progress but in reality any non-free market system requires concentrated power somewhere to enforce regulations which seems gives the possibility of corruption, and it seems the possibility of corruption at scale always leads to corruption
With ads, brands find a new strategy to disguise ads, consumers get used to it and learn to recognize them/be aware of them, brands find a new strategy. The lease discerning X percentage of people will always be unaware of the more sophisticated ads, the most discerning X percentage will always be aware.
I think it's bad for human psychology, almost by definition, to have all these corporations/entities bombarding your senses with content designed to influence you in a specific way that is beneficial to them / not beneficial to the people. Without regulation/disincentives they corporations will be driven by their profit motive to use any means to get you to by their products and the consequences are horrible for the population, especially when it's so many thousands of companies all fighting for pieces of your psyche with no regard to it's wellbeing.
I also really don't regulation in concept, and in practice it's often at largely ineffective(not always though / it's not INHERENTLY that way). This is one of many problems with capitalism / free market that are often waved away by pointing out the problems with the alternatives to capitalism, which are often also fair criticisms. It's an extremely hard problem, finding a system that minimizes the consequences to catastrophic levels(let alone the difficulties of implementing a new system).
Sacrifice of wellbeing in some ways might just be a necessary tradeoff for any system that leads to "progress" - a possibility I've considered but can't really grasp yet(would love anyones input on this). I know I've gotten a bit off topic but I think advertising and it's consequences are a very clear example of this kind of tradeoff which makes it a useful topic for discussing this kind of thing. In theory it's possible to imagine a system that allows for progress but in reality any non-free market system requires concentrated power somewhere to enforce regulations which seems gives the possibility of corruption, and it seems the possibility of corruption at scale always leads to corruption
apologies for typos, there are too many and I'm too lazy/busy to fix them all
because companies spent years making everything an ad
[deleted]
It's like being trapped in a hamster wheel. Why have we as consumers become to addicted and depended on brands? Are these companies exploiting something innate in us? A need that needs to be fulfilled?