No one likes ads. So let’s do something about it(unsplash.com)
unsplash.com
No one likes ads. So let’s do something about it
https://unsplash.com/blog/no-one-likes-ads-so-lets-do-something-about-it/
48 comments
The article started off strong, the classic ad content was pretty interesting and made it clear how much thought, consistency, and refinement was put into those classic ads.
I was expecting a call to go back to the basics, a claim that they're an ad agency that will put the same amount of effort into their campaigns that those classic ad agencies did decades ago.
Instead: We're creating a fancy clip-art gallery for company logos to be used by creators. And if you don't like their content, just force them to delete it via a simple DMCA takedown!
I was expecting a call to go back to the basics, a claim that they're an ad agency that will put the same amount of effort into their campaigns that those classic ad agencies did decades ago.
Instead: We're creating a fancy clip-art gallery for company logos to be used by creators. And if you don't like their content, just force them to delete it via a simple DMCA takedown!
Agreed. Also the mediums of old are what drove classic ads. When you can only fit so many full page, expensive, color ads in a magazine... yes putting more time and money into it makes sense.
The closest remaining "old ways" are Super Bowl ads.
This article-ad also doesn't show how junky newspapers used to look with the 90% of "other" ads. Or how about old magazines like PC Magazine absolutely stuffed with low quality ads (though I kind of miss that).
The closest remaining "old ways" are Super Bowl ads.
This article-ad also doesn't show how junky newspapers used to look with the 90% of "other" ads. Or how about old magazines like PC Magazine absolutely stuffed with low quality ads (though I kind of miss that).
It's not just the ads... it's everything.
Pages used to be: a header, sidebar, a block of text, and a few pictures.
Now, it's a bunch of ads.. usually blocked by an adblock.. and a cookie prompt. Ok/accept all (and delete when you close the browser)... then a "we need donations/subscription"... "conitniue free"... then you slide further, and a popupto subscribe to their newsletter... find the tiny x... and the whole article is ten sentances and 6 stock images.
Pages used to be: a header, sidebar, a block of text, and a few pictures.
Now, it's a bunch of ads.. usually blocked by an adblock.. and a cookie prompt. Ok/accept all (and delete when you close the browser)... then a "we need donations/subscription"... "conitniue free"... then you slide further, and a popupto subscribe to their newsletter... find the tiny x... and the whole article is ten sentances and 6 stock images.
Assuming you're running something like uBlock, turn on one or more "annoyance" filters in the settings. They block exactly what you're describing.
You know what I miss? Ads aimed at the general audience of a magazine/newspaper/show/whatever. Ads that told you something about the sort of person who regularly enjoyed the thing they were in. Ads that were local and carried the unique culture of your town. Ads that were aimed at an audience larger than "exactly you" but at an audience smaller than "the entire country".
Now everything on the internet is a generic slurry of Content shoved through a handful of corporate pipes that do their best to strip any ads off and substitute their own. And the bidding structure means you end up getting the same ads again and again, ad nauseum. You never get that one crazy local mattress salesman doing goofy, awkward skits at 3am, you just get another fucking Grammarly ad or whatever. Or you get some horrible micro-targeted thing aimed at whatever precise demographic you've been sliced into by the immense piles of data all the tracking companies have collected, sold by someone drop-shipping junk from China behind a brand identity they spun up two weeks ago when the previous one was getting too many bad reviews.
I make comics and put 'em online. When the webcomic ad network Project Wonderful died, I just quit running ads on my comics. Patreon had come along not too long before that and made me much more money than ads ever did. I do kind of miss being able to have some ad spaces that earnt enough money to have ads for my comics regularly popping up on other comics, attracting the attention of people who were interested in reading weird indy comics online. Now the space of "comics on the web" is mostly dominated by a couple of corporate Content Pipes that want everything to fit into the Procrustean bed of one panel at a time on a phone screen and might deign to give you a part of the ads they run against your work if you get enough views.
The idea of "stock photos with product placement" sure is not making me excited. Fuck ads, and fuck the modern Internet ad world even more.
Now everything on the internet is a generic slurry of Content shoved through a handful of corporate pipes that do their best to strip any ads off and substitute their own. And the bidding structure means you end up getting the same ads again and again, ad nauseum. You never get that one crazy local mattress salesman doing goofy, awkward skits at 3am, you just get another fucking Grammarly ad or whatever. Or you get some horrible micro-targeted thing aimed at whatever precise demographic you've been sliced into by the immense piles of data all the tracking companies have collected, sold by someone drop-shipping junk from China behind a brand identity they spun up two weeks ago when the previous one was getting too many bad reviews.
I make comics and put 'em online. When the webcomic ad network Project Wonderful died, I just quit running ads on my comics. Patreon had come along not too long before that and made me much more money than ads ever did. I do kind of miss being able to have some ad spaces that earnt enough money to have ads for my comics regularly popping up on other comics, attracting the attention of people who were interested in reading weird indy comics online. Now the space of "comics on the web" is mostly dominated by a couple of corporate Content Pipes that want everything to fit into the Procrustean bed of one panel at a time on a phone screen and might deign to give you a part of the ads they run against your work if you get enough views.
The idea of "stock photos with product placement" sure is not making me excited. Fuck ads, and fuck the modern Internet ad world even more.
Ads have always been hyperfiltered corporate statements. Occasionally we get groundbreaking and thoughtful art pieces from them, but they've always been the exception rather than the rule.
That hasn't changed at all.
That hasn't changed at all.
[deleted]
Would it be safe to say that most of the websites overloaded with advertising/popups are trying to make money? That is why the adverts are there.
I see the proposal offers a value proposition for Unsplash and creators using their images. However I don't see how the the article solves the problem of advertising.
Websites overloaded with advertising/popups will still exist unchanged because they are attempting to convert visitor traffic to a revenue stream by using advertising as their funding mechanism.
I see the proposal offers a value proposition for Unsplash and creators using their images. However I don't see how the the article solves the problem of advertising.
Websites overloaded with advertising/popups will still exist unchanged because they are attempting to convert visitor traffic to a revenue stream by using advertising as their funding mechanism.
You are likely correct but I just don't care about people making money from their websites with ads, and I imagine a lot of other people feel the same. The web was just fine before ads and it would readjust if they were gone.
When I see an ad it immediately devalues the brand being advertised, as well as the content.
In the end, people are free to have ads on their sites, and I am free to block them, and if enough people agree with me the websites dependent on ads will eventually cease to exist.
When I see an ad it immediately devalues the brand being advertised, as well as the content.
In the end, people are free to have ads on their sites, and I am free to block them, and if enough people agree with me the websites dependent on ads will eventually cease to exist.
Absolutely. I wasn't advocating for advertisements, merely pointing out the flaw in the proposal from Unsplash which claims to fix advertising.
> The web was just fine before ads and it would readjust if they were gone.
Ah the halcyon days between 1991 and 1994 ....
Ah the halcyon days between 1991 and 1994 ....
I think it is seriously something you need a lot of minors and hobbyists to maintain. I had a thought about a later era with some ads. The flash games era.
Now if you look at game websites you'll see a lot of old flash developers who went onto "real life" reselling them. This isn't a bad thing, they take out the work of fooling around with web archives and creating a proper flash-jail but it illustrates how the web has gotten older, creators went onto 'real life' and what remains is professionalized.
Of course there is nothing technically stopping you from engaging in the same as the past except other users of free time.
Now if you look at game websites you'll see a lot of old flash developers who went onto "real life" reselling them. This isn't a bad thing, they take out the work of fooling around with web archives and creating a proper flash-jail but it illustrates how the web has gotten older, creators went onto 'real life' and what remains is professionalized.
Of course there is nothing technically stopping you from engaging in the same as the past except other users of free time.
> the websites dependent on ads will eventually cease to exist.
And the free content of the web will also disappear.
But that will never happen... Believing that the content that a person produces should "be free" only shows how pathetic you are and your little experience in software development.
And the free content of the web will also disappear.
But that will never happen... Believing that the content that a person produces should "be free" only shows how pathetic you are and your little experience in software development.
Always happy to strike a nerve
Oh heck this crud:
> Open Source Advertising: the act of promoting a brand by releasing media (especially images) featuring its product(s) to the public to use and distribute free of charge.
First of all, Open Source isn't the correct term when referring to non-software content, you should be using something like Creative Commons or just "permissive."
Open Source is about the... well, source, so you would only use that term if you were doing something like uploading the raw image files and data used to create the ad, and if you were letting people fork it and recompile it and swap out brands or something. Like, you might conceivably call a Blender movie "open source" if it shipped with the Blender files and assets used to build it.
That's not what's going on here, so it's just a misleading term.
Second of all:
> “But will my brand be safe if go this route?” Yes. Here’s why you shouldn’t worry: First, under intellectual property law, you have the ability to issue a takedown notice to remove content that negatively infringes on your brand.
Then it's not a permissive license at all, is it? If you're going to not only use open source, but capitalize it and call it Open Source, then one would think part of the license would be the ability to remix, redistribute, and modify the content regardless of whether or not it makes an advertiser happy.
But this doesn't even link to a license at all, and Unsplash's default license is not compatible with Creative Commons since it doesn't allow aggregation. So what on earth does "negatively infringes on your brand" mean?
It annoys me to no end when businesses try to have their cake and eat it too by using Open Source/Creative Commons terminology to describe their incompatible licenses.
> Open Source Advertising: the act of promoting a brand by releasing media (especially images) featuring its product(s) to the public to use and distribute free of charge.
First of all, Open Source isn't the correct term when referring to non-software content, you should be using something like Creative Commons or just "permissive."
Open Source is about the... well, source, so you would only use that term if you were doing something like uploading the raw image files and data used to create the ad, and if you were letting people fork it and recompile it and swap out brands or something. Like, you might conceivably call a Blender movie "open source" if it shipped with the Blender files and assets used to build it.
That's not what's going on here, so it's just a misleading term.
Second of all:
> “But will my brand be safe if go this route?” Yes. Here’s why you shouldn’t worry: First, under intellectual property law, you have the ability to issue a takedown notice to remove content that negatively infringes on your brand.
Then it's not a permissive license at all, is it? If you're going to not only use open source, but capitalize it and call it Open Source, then one would think part of the license would be the ability to remix, redistribute, and modify the content regardless of whether or not it makes an advertiser happy.
But this doesn't even link to a license at all, and Unsplash's default license is not compatible with Creative Commons since it doesn't allow aggregation. So what on earth does "negatively infringes on your brand" mean?
It annoys me to no end when businesses try to have their cake and eat it too by using Open Source/Creative Commons terminology to describe their incompatible licenses.
This was interesting, and certainly a good description of the problem.
Their solution is product placement in stock photos- I can see the appeal here, but to some extent, doesn't it just push the problem down a level? Unsplash are targeting "creators" with their branded content, who for the most part are only making their "content" to get views and by extension push regular shitty online advertising. So I dont see how this breaks the loop that has made online advertising a cesspool. Now we'll just have blogs using stock pictures with a Windows computer or whatever in them, that still have all the annoying popovers and other ad accessories.
Their solution is product placement in stock photos- I can see the appeal here, but to some extent, doesn't it just push the problem down a level? Unsplash are targeting "creators" with their branded content, who for the most part are only making their "content" to get views and by extension push regular shitty online advertising. So I dont see how this breaks the loop that has made online advertising a cesspool. Now we'll just have blogs using stock pictures with a Windows computer or whatever in them, that still have all the annoying popovers and other ad accessories.
In my opinion, manipulative ads based on challenging your emotions and the fomo they create are worse than the current plastering of graphics.
If someone is interested they will click on it, if not then why manipulate their minds and play with emotions. (Coca-Cola is a primary example)
If someone is interested they will click on it, if not then why manipulate their minds and play with emotions. (Coca-Cola is a primary example)
Also, how will disclosure work? If I use an image in my Youtube video, do I need to declare that it was taken from Unsplash which was sponsored in a way by Square?
> how will disclosure work?
Honestly, I hope it never matters. If we're manipulating consumers, let's do it as obviously as possible. If we're confused about how to tell people we're manipulating them, we've chosen the wrong path.
Honestly, I hope it never matters. If we're manipulating consumers, let's do it as obviously as possible. If we're confused about how to tell people we're manipulating them, we've chosen the wrong path.
Youtube has a really good option for this. Like if the creator checks a box, then when the video starts in top left, a small popup comes that its a paid endorsement. Just the user knowing before they watch or read the entire thing is probably enough and what that matters.
Also, lots of TV shows do not need to disclose that but on internet everyone has to which IMO is better.
Also, lots of TV shows do not need to disclose that but on internet everyone has to which IMO is better.
idk though, I'm going to take the anarchist approach here and say we shouldn't need regulation to make this ethical. The fact that some of us benefit off of manipulation and nondisclosure feels like a result of an unjust power structure, specifically corporations over the individual (the anarchist interpretation), and more largely the economy over humanity (the communist interpretation). I think the only way to not have ethical problems with advertisement is to make advertisements unnecessary, and to start valuing the effects of people over the effects of products. Regulation here is good, but its necessity is a symptom of a problem solved only at the individual level.
paraphrasing one point in the article: "Back in the good old days ads were great".
Probably the legions of garbage ads have simply been forgotten about, and we only remember the greats. In the same way that the average quality of golden-oldie radio stations is better than new-stuff stations.
Probably the legions of garbage ads have simply been forgotten about, and we only remember the greats. In the same way that the average quality of golden-oldie radio stations is better than new-stuff stations.
That's probably a fair point but...how many internet ad "campaigns" do you remember? Ever? Even if there was tons of garbage we forgot, the fact that we distinctly remember so many means they at least TRIED to be good, and sometimes succeeded. Nowadays its never about being memorable, it's just about getting that 1 single click from you.
punch the monkey!
For me its not about the ads themselves, but the mega-corps that invade your privacy to shove them down your throat.
I know there are lots of Googler's on this forum, and its just incredibly sad to see so much talent devoted to such a vile cause.
I know there are lots of Googler's on this forum, and its just incredibly sad to see so much talent devoted to such a vile cause.
It's been so long since I delved into this I can't remember what I used to call it - but people should have the ability to opt out of types of ads and opt in to other types with fine grain control.. this would make the ads delivered more valuable too.
give people the option to turn off moving ads, turn off ads for alcohol, gambling.. opt in to 'cat ads' or opt in to getting amazon ads on pages - or something -
this way there are options and control and no longer have to say 'no one likes ads'.
I've written longer and more detail with similar in the past.
give people the option to turn off moving ads, turn off ads for alcohol, gambling.. opt in to 'cat ads' or opt in to getting amazon ads on pages - or something -
this way there are options and control and no longer have to say 'no one likes ads'.
I've written longer and more detail with similar in the past.
It's not the ads, it's the site that places them in awkward places. Or worse, the site plays several video ads at once.
Sites can control this.
Sites can control this.
Doesn’t this assume that consumers of unsplash images will non-ironically want to insert a photo featuring a product/logo in their blog post, presentation, or webpage?
I find this a stretch. I can’t imagine writing a Medium post, then inserting an unsplash photo containing a Coke bottle placed discreetly in the corner…unless I’m writing about soda.
I find this a stretch. I can’t imagine writing a Medium post, then inserting an unsplash photo containing a Coke bottle placed discreetly in the corner…unless I’m writing about soda.
They probably would like to. Using stock photos of apple products on desks seems to be a trend for years and nobody seems to care. What of it if the adjacent indispensable coffee cup has the logo of a big coffee chain on it? Makes it so much more authentic!
Why not webmonetization.org ? I dont want different ads I rather want to pay for the content I use and be paid for the content I provide. The third party in between need to be cut out.
I had an idea about making an advertising not-for-profit company... Ads aren't going anywhere so why not using it to save the planet or make people lives better... Drop the tracking, drop the click counts, perhaps targeting local news websites, display ads relevant to content they are reading base off referrer url content is probably a good start, promote somethingnlike #greenads mmovement on twitter, tiktok , get companies to advertise on the platform, more local news site to adopt it, transparency about profit + open about salary for staffs and shove the rest of money into charitable causes...
I'm sure there are plenty of flaws here but perhaps having Ads for good causes will at least make it more pleasant to the eyes than the current state...
I'm sure there are plenty of flaws here but perhaps having Ads for good causes will at least make it more pleasant to the eyes than the current state...
You don't fight against ads with an ad-blocker but with not consuming ad-supported content. If that's what you want to achieve, otherwise it's a mouse and cat game.
Ok, let's do something with ads ! From now I will, as much as possible, DO NOT BUY ANYTHING that ad I saw. Simple :) Until "rogue ads" will be created...
#seedontbuy #WAYSDNBI
#seedontbuy #WAYSDNBI
I have a product I want to sell to you.
Accurate digital catalogue of all goods, digital and physical available in the world, with in-depth descriptions, search, lists, professional written reviews, actual product photos and no advertising. I mean, zero links or addresses to where you could buy them. How much would you pay for that?
Accurate digital catalogue of all goods, digital and physical available in the world, with in-depth descriptions, search, lists, professional written reviews, actual product photos and no advertising. I mean, zero links or addresses to where you could buy them. How much would you pay for that?
This would actually be quite valuable if the reviews were really unbiased. Finding something after you know that you want to buy it is not hard.
Many ads work at the subconscious level. You might just get a favourable impression if a certain thing rather than a memory that the thing was advertised to you.
To boycott stuff that has been advertised requires a list which is always consulted before any purchase.
To boycott stuff that has been advertised requires a list which is always consulted before any purchase.
That's why I prefer non-targeted ads: makes it easier to ignore them.
Nah, this won't work, because too many people just don't care.
The whole situation we are in right now is a arms race between the ad industry and users. Ads are going more and more sophisticated and intrusive (fingerprinting, tracking, autoplay for video/sound, etc.) which causes the ad blockers to get more complex and block the new techniques from the ad makers. This leads to even more shitty tech in ads and so on.
I really don't mind to have some (non intrusive) ad banners on a website if they just show me some stuff I could buy. But no, they can't play nice and try to change my position from potential customer to a product which they can sell and this is not ok.
The only defense right now are ad blockers and GDPR complaints. You see some sketchy tracking stuff? Send the website owner a GDPR complaint. Bind their workforce to respond to the complaints more and more (they are obligated to answer, even if your claim is BS) and after countless hours and $$$ they maybe get the idea. I've done it with a few websites and the ad load and amount of trackers decreased. Was it legal? Yes. Was it nice? Nope. Will I do it again? Oh yeah, I will do it until these people start to be good citizens on the network and stop fucking around with my data.
The whole situation we are in right now is a arms race between the ad industry and users. Ads are going more and more sophisticated and intrusive (fingerprinting, tracking, autoplay for video/sound, etc.) which causes the ad blockers to get more complex and block the new techniques from the ad makers. This leads to even more shitty tech in ads and so on.
I really don't mind to have some (non intrusive) ad banners on a website if they just show me some stuff I could buy. But no, they can't play nice and try to change my position from potential customer to a product which they can sell and this is not ok.
The only defense right now are ad blockers and GDPR complaints. You see some sketchy tracking stuff? Send the website owner a GDPR complaint. Bind their workforce to respond to the complaints more and more (they are obligated to answer, even if your claim is BS) and after countless hours and $$$ they maybe get the idea. I've done it with a few websites and the ad load and amount of trackers decreased. Was it legal? Yes. Was it nice? Nope. Will I do it again? Oh yeah, I will do it until these people start to be good citizens on the network and stop fucking around with my data.
Can you explained how to make a GDPR complaint?
I've never heard of this before.
I've never heard of this before.
You need to be a EU citizen or live in a EU country. Then it's pretty easy, just write a email stating that you want to have all data they collected about you including what they shared with which company. Alternatively you can claim, that they violate some paragraph from GDPR and they need to check the claim and give you an answer.
In both cases they have a legal requirement to answer in a few weeks (it's regulated in the GDPR itself).
A different option is to complain directly to your countries data protection office, this puts more pressure on the company, but it's mostly slower.
The European Union and the European Commission have a lot of resources about this topic:
https://gdpr.eu/compliance/
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
In both cases they have a legal requirement to answer in a few weeks (it's regulated in the GDPR itself).
A different option is to complain directly to your countries data protection office, this puts more pressure on the company, but it's mostly slower.
The European Union and the European Commission have a lot of resources about this topic:
https://gdpr.eu/compliance/
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
I do do something about it. I block them.
Lol just install unlock origin or AdGuard on iOS. That’s what I’m doing about it.
I have many issues with this. First:
> Think of the classic campaigns from Apple, Volkswagen, Absolut, and Nike.
Is this not the definition of selection bias? If you only think about the classics, everything seems better than it was. It also rests on the point that those classic ads were 'good', and that's something I disagree with - I don't think there's any moral form of advertising, which is my second problem with this article.
> Ads aimed to be compelling.
Ads aimed to redirect your attention without your knowledge and artificially create an urge to consume. I interpret the author's use of the word "compelling" as an admission that ads are story-telling, and give a narrative that does not need to be beneficial. The classics of Absolut apparently (I don't know for sure - I'm just looking at the images on the website) are about Vodka, and encourage consumption of alcohol unilaterally, despite and because that's not a choice consumers would make unguided and without external influence. Alcohol kills people, and that's not something ads are going to mention.
Apple is of course into their slave labor and suicide net model of production, and VW lied about their car's energy efficiency. It's a cliche to say this, but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Please, for the love of all that is good, let's stop acting like there is.
> It wanted people to feel something.
Yes, that's called emotional manipulation, and it's both bad and not gone.
> Sadly, we’ve lost those great, Ogilvy-esque, creative campaigns and replaced them with the digital equivalents of windshield flyers, direct mail campaigns, and door tags. What a snooze.
Why exactly do we want the fine-wine equivalent of emotional manipulation? This does not feel like an art form, much less an ethical art form.
> 96% of consumers don’t trust ads. (source)
Thank fuck? Why on earth do you want people to trust ads? What good to society does that do?
> I’m a creator and I need an image so I can make something I care about.
If this is what was encouraged by economic dynamics, I'd be all for it. But no matter who runs the ad, individual or multi-million dollar corporation, it'll still be pushed towards an image encouraging consumption to an excess. *That is how capitalism works*. This article is the advertisement equivalent of addressing climate change by consuming more products. It completely fails to address the root problems and favors a near straw-man argument to substantial change and effect. Honestly, this feels like a parody of neoliberal ideology meant to poke fun. I really hope I'm not missing a joke.
> Think of the classic campaigns from Apple, Volkswagen, Absolut, and Nike.
Is this not the definition of selection bias? If you only think about the classics, everything seems better than it was. It also rests on the point that those classic ads were 'good', and that's something I disagree with - I don't think there's any moral form of advertising, which is my second problem with this article.
> Ads aimed to be compelling.
Ads aimed to redirect your attention without your knowledge and artificially create an urge to consume. I interpret the author's use of the word "compelling" as an admission that ads are story-telling, and give a narrative that does not need to be beneficial. The classics of Absolut apparently (I don't know for sure - I'm just looking at the images on the website) are about Vodka, and encourage consumption of alcohol unilaterally, despite and because that's not a choice consumers would make unguided and without external influence. Alcohol kills people, and that's not something ads are going to mention.
Apple is of course into their slave labor and suicide net model of production, and VW lied about their car's energy efficiency. It's a cliche to say this, but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Please, for the love of all that is good, let's stop acting like there is.
> It wanted people to feel something.
Yes, that's called emotional manipulation, and it's both bad and not gone.
> Sadly, we’ve lost those great, Ogilvy-esque, creative campaigns and replaced them with the digital equivalents of windshield flyers, direct mail campaigns, and door tags. What a snooze.
Why exactly do we want the fine-wine equivalent of emotional manipulation? This does not feel like an art form, much less an ethical art form.
> 96% of consumers don’t trust ads. (source)
Thank fuck? Why on earth do you want people to trust ads? What good to society does that do?
> I’m a creator and I need an image so I can make something I care about.
If this is what was encouraged by economic dynamics, I'd be all for it. But no matter who runs the ad, individual or multi-million dollar corporation, it'll still be pushed towards an image encouraging consumption to an excess. *That is how capitalism works*. This article is the advertisement equivalent of addressing climate change by consuming more products. It completely fails to address the root problems and favors a near straw-man argument to substantial change and effect. Honestly, this feels like a parody of neoliberal ideology meant to poke fun. I really hope I'm not missing a joke.
I noticed that the ads the article portrayed as great appeard to be full-page magazine ads. So you flip through a magazine, read an article, turn a page and there's a full-page ad on the facing page of your article. You glance at it, read the article some more, then go back to the ad at your leisure when your eyes are tired or whatnot. Or you flip through the magazine, something interesting catches your eye, and it's one of those ads so you check it out.
That mode doesn't exist on web pages that I know of. We don't flip a page and see an ad that is out of the way until we want to look at it. There are plugins that do this but really who's going to install one of those?
I think ads can be compelling without artificially creating an urge to consume but I don't think it happens much anymore. The VW and Absolut ads are good examples. The VW ads build awareness of the cars' quirkiness and set a relationship up in your mind. Not until you decide you need a car does the personality kick in. Maybe the same with Absolut.
These days though I agree. I work for an advertising company and one of the purposes of campaigns can be "awareness." But it's not used much. Most times it's like you say: trying to get somebody to buy a thing that previously they didn't want to buy.
That mode doesn't exist on web pages that I know of. We don't flip a page and see an ad that is out of the way until we want to look at it. There are plugins that do this but really who's going to install one of those?
I think ads can be compelling without artificially creating an urge to consume but I don't think it happens much anymore. The VW and Absolut ads are good examples. The VW ads build awareness of the cars' quirkiness and set a relationship up in your mind. Not until you decide you need a car does the personality kick in. Maybe the same with Absolut.
These days though I agree. I work for an advertising company and one of the purposes of campaigns can be "awareness." But it's not used much. Most times it's like you say: trying to get somebody to buy a thing that previously they didn't want to buy.
>> It wanted people to feel something.
>Yes, that's called emotional manipulation, and it's both bad and not gone.
For example this is probably my favorite ad of all time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49fDwqwK5E
I enjoy the ad the same I would I good movie - good story, good cast, good music and it made me feel something significant.
It is yet highy unlikely I will be a user of SEB pension at any time. That does not dimish the craftsmenship of the ad itself.
>> 96% of consumers don’t trust ads. (source)
>Thank fuck? Why on earth do you want people to trust ads? What good to society does that do?
As for the content, it's another great example of "The old web is dead" trope.
There's tons of fantastic advertising designs - more in volume than ever before! [1]
But there's also 10000x more crappy ads than there were before. Previous years crappy ads were all just walls of text
I'd bet the ratio of good design to bad/no design in advertising is probably about the same as always.
[1]https://www.designrush.com/trends/magazine-ad-design
[2]https://www.thoughtmedia.com/print-advertising-in-2019/