I object to advertising in principle. It causes people to become more consumerist. It exists to generate a desire to purchase stuff, usually by promoting feelings that one is missing out otherwise.
Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". There's even bigger reasons to oppose them than mere convenience, though.
For one, it messes with buyer's rationale, the greatest aspect of markets, so that you cannot be sure that a product winning in the marketplace is doing so out of quality or out of better advertising. The possibility to make up for deficiencies in quality with proper advertisement encourages a company to spend money into selling product instead of improving product.
And if one person is impervious to advertising and getting some content "for free", that still means that some other poor sap who is less educated, more vulnerable to advertising, is buying enough extra to make up for the content the first got for free. An exploitative arrangement to be sure. It's basically simulated peer-pressure.
It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.
> It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.
What if I'm getting paid in gratification of having a kebab for lunch instead of some sort of currency? I'm selfish and I want a kebab, similar to me being selfish and wanting a job.
I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say, and I will offer that this TED talk gives a very interesting perspective on advertising you should try giving a few minutes to: Rory Sutherland: Life lessons from an ad man
While I respect your line of thinking, I believe that advertising does improve a product substantially. It improves how you are perceived using it, it can change your experience with the product, and it can reduce the amount of time you need and give you better information about products -- especially when there are no obvious benchmarks for the industry. (E.g. clothing)
Part of advertising is educating customers on what features your product has, and doing so in an easy to understand way.
Imagine a world with no advertising. You want to buy a coat, so you search Google. There are no ads, so you just click the first link (which has done no SEO). What do you see? A picture of a coat? A list of coat 'specs'? A description of the coat?
All of these could be considered advertising (People "wasting" money on putting coats on models of different body sizes, creating different standards for clothing 'specs', and copywriting product descriptions) yet they also provide value to the customer.
So I would say that advertising has to be considered part of the product that can enhance its value.
I do so regularly. You wouldn't have to rely on what you saw on a billboard or a website, where the products by the company that payed the most are displayed. Instead you would consult an independant source dedicated to comparing the type of products you are looking for. Or you'd ask friends what they would recommend. You know, sources with the priority of actually pointing you at the best solution, not getting you to give them money over someone else.
With ad blockers having made a lot of people conscious about ads and their ethics, I feel like we are closer to an ad free world than ever. Personally, I can't wait.
Plenty of people try to sell the idea that ads let us have content "for free", and that all we have to tolerate is "a little annoyance". There's even bigger reasons to oppose them than mere convenience, though.
For one, it messes with buyer's rationale, the greatest aspect of markets, so that you cannot be sure that a product winning in the marketplace is doing so out of quality or out of better advertising. The possibility to make up for deficiencies in quality with proper advertisement encourages a company to spend money into selling product instead of improving product.
And if one person is impervious to advertising and getting some content "for free", that still means that some other poor sap who is less educated, more vulnerable to advertising, is buying enough extra to make up for the content the first got for free. An exploitative arrangement to be sure. It's basically simulated peer-pressure.
It exists on a spectrum with free speech, but all your examples have an easy answer: It's unethical for you to suggest someone have kebab for lunch if you are getting paid for it and not disclosing it.