Ignoring political implications here and just on a personal level I wish political ads were banned. Quite possibly my least favorite type of ad to see and I've never felt meaningfully informed by them (generally quite the opposite).
I don't think the political ads are like in the US.
Not at all.
Also the scale is no where near.
TV2 in Denmark just ran an article saying that the 24 politicians and parties buying the most ads bought a total of 250k ads ahead of this policy coming into effect.
Note that same month last year the spend was ~1/3.
I know Denmark is small, ~5-6M, but that's doesn't seem like a lot of money.
The amount of money in US politics and elections in particular is staggering when you think about it. In 15 weeks Kamala Harris' campaign spent $1.5 billion. That's just insane. Especially when you find out that a lot of that spend goes through "media consultancies" and PR firms...run by former DNC staffers. And the same is true for the RNC. The two parties are basically a giant revolving door and network of jobs with access to this enormous slush fund.
Here in France the presidential candidates who make it to the second round are limited to spending €22.5 million over the course of the entire campaign (first and second rounds). About half gets reimbursed from public funds, so you 'only' need to raise about €10-12 million. Hard limits on campaign donations (about €4K) mean big money impacts the race less, and limits on advertising means you don't have to spend it on TV ads or direct mail.
Spending $1.5 billion on a campaign (and still losing) is near unfathomable.
It does seem like a lot of money, but distributed across all Americans it's not that insane. Americans spend approximately the same on election ads as on chewing gum.
The first thing an American politician does after winning an election is start fundraising for their next election. Governing would be an afterthought were it not so helpful in raising money.
Your post sounds conspiratorial but there are basic economic reasons why those revolving doors seem to exist.
Every campaign is going to need largely the same set of skill sets in their campaign staff. Spinning up these groups and also going through the startup time of any new team learning to work together costs a lot of time and money.
So several of these standard skill sets, like data science, marketing, etc have been spun out into companies or consulting firms that are treated like a pool of available resources by campaigns based on their party.
It’s not treated as a slush fund and there’s usually a handful of competitors in your parties pool but you do end up working with a lot of the same faces at different clients/campaigns if you work at one of the servicing companies.
I worked at one of them once and I recall realizing that fact when I asked why a coworkers email had numeral in his name when he had a relatively uncommon first and last name
Heavily depends on the country: Hungary. The government routinely the largest spender in Europe for online advertisement.
Btw, they just started categorise their online ads as non political through proxy companies. And they just jump to a new company when one becomes blocked.
Clearly, they educate us into why they think their opponent is bad. /s
Reform should state that campaign ads can only discuss what the candidate's positions are, and not be able to say anything about their opponent. If you can't tell me what your plans are and all you can do is say why the other position is wrong, then you're not showing me you'd be an effective person to hold office.
However, that's what your website is for. Stop interrupting my whatever I was doing.
They think their opponent is bad because their opponent is not themself. That's not what the ads typically say though. Instead, they try to mislead uninformed voters into thinking the opponent is bad in the quickest way possible instead of explaining why the opponent is actually bad, which doesn't fit in a banner.
The advertising industry keeps repeatedly finding that no matter how much you think an ad turned you off a product, you're still more likely to buy that product after seeing the ad, and the more times you see the ad, the more likely you are to buy it. No matter how the ad made you feel.
If your definition is: an ad that explicitly involves a party/politician, why?
It seems like they're going to happen regardless, the difference is the subtly. For example, there's a lot of accounts purposefully pushing ideologies, and focusing on specific events for a political purpose on social media.
Arguably, these are much more dangerous than explicit political ads.
Yeah, political ads are so toxic but worse its just lazy money. I am really tired of super PACs buying my politicians with this garbage. I would rather my politicians come down to the district here and hold rallies or town halls where they can lie to us in person.
Yes, I am fully aware the next problem in all this is how does the politician then notify the district of the place and time of the next meeting. It would be great if congress, as a body, had a mechanism in place to handle this so that it is equally applied for any registered candidate regardless of party affiliation or primary favoritism.
Seriously, if politicians want cheap media coverage then they should do something worthy of coverage. There is one politician I can think of right now, far outside my local district, that is on one edge of the political spectrum and simultaneously performing the miracle of picking up tremendous popularity from the opposite edge of the political spectrum. They finally learned to tune their messaging from party political theater to rapidly changing opinions on current events in ways other politicians cannot. I am hearing way more about people like that than the person from my district, who isn't doing anything worth of media attention.
Super PACs are the dumbest of dumb money, and I'm surprised this forum isn't solely about extracting money from them
They have no shareholders or fudiciary duties, they are formed as non profits 501(c)4's with no purpose except their stated political position (for a policy / candidate, or against a policy / candidate) and this comes with no limitation on what they can own and do with the money
and this is all based on the flawed theory that spending equals votes
it's the dumbest reality that I thought would have been solved by constitutional amendment after Citizen's United but nope! how are you not taking advantage of this stupidity! the spending has only grown from all sides
That'd be great. But how would you define what's advertising and what's not?
I've built a relatively successful professional photography side hussle without "advertising" as in, I've never paid for an ad on any of the social platforms or google ads. Most of my business comes from word of mouth, or hits on my website.
But, is the SEO I do advertising? What about when I share my work to my socials, is that advertising? Post a reel of behind the scenes footage of me photographing a wedding so potential clients can see my process, is that advertising?
I do all of those things with the goal to drum up business, but they fall outside of the traditional meaning of the word. Likewise with product placement in films, influencer marketing, etc.
How do we even begin to draw the line at what is an advertisement and whats not?
We've successfully banned cigarette ads from TV and radio. We haven't banned them from the wall at gas stations. They're also not banned on the internet, legally.
Do you want to ban advertising, or ban TV and radio advertising?
Every time I’m back in the UK I’m a bit shocked at how many people seem to smoke and vape compared to other countries. Including many of my friends. There’s still a long way to go!
Sure, but in reality those reuglations either aren't equally enforced, or companies have always found ways around it. I could even argue that SEO should be considered a form of advertising as the intent of SEO is at the end of the day consumer manipulation.
Even with the tobacco advertising ban, tobacco use in movies is still a problem and even if not one specific product, it still encourages smoking and has a real world effect (and this applies to vaping now as well).
Hell, even product placement and merchandising in stores could be advertising. It does influence consumer behavior afterall.
I'm all for getting rid of ads but it the regulation has to have teeth, and be very well defined.
Also things like Superbowl advertising that some people actually want to see.
But to enumerate some things distinguishing those from more offensive ads:
* You put effort into making that content engaging and interesting for the audience
* The advertising is at least vaguely relevant to the content around it.
* Someone can opt out of seeing your social media posts, or watching an influencer, or watching the Superbowl. People are annoyed when this is violated, e.g. by coordinated campaigns across many influencers.
* These ads aren't as violently intrusive, with massive volume and color changes or full screen popups.
* These ads are (perceived as) more privacy-respecting than say, Google ads.
* These ads don't displace better content like a billboard does.
In short, they're a more respectful transaction that people have control over.
IMO a bad idea, ads help with discoverability and is one of the most effective mechanism for growth. This includes for small and big businesses.
I think it makes more sense to target what kind of ads should be banned (e.g. politics, alcohol, cigarets, religion, etc.) and what ads format should be banned (e.g. loud ads, ads in the subway, etc.)
I get that you're upset at ads in general, because they're on your face all the time, but banning them out right doesn't seem right. I mean this is what keeps a lot of very useful services free.
You are conflating slapping ads in people's faces with making your business listed on the white/yellow/whatever pages and allowing people to find you without being a jerk.
But we don't need paper these days. What I meant is to switch from being shown somewhat relevant ads while you try to do something else, to searching for relevant stuff whenever you truly need it.
2. If a “directory” is the only advertising mechanism allowed it benefits the incumbents because incumbents are the only ones who have existing brand recognition. I don’t need a directory to know about Coca-Cola or Google Maps. You would have had to ban advertising at the dawn of time for this to work.
1. It makes sense that the business are the ones paying to get listed and vetted. We are now starting to need those blue checkmarks for a reason, some verification process is necessary, and then serving costs.
2. Why? You wouldn't search by business name, but by need. What about "nearby bakeries" or "pop soda" only benefits the better known brands? Indexing by name isn't the only way.
1. No, it puts people in control of when they query the index instead of spamming everywhere eyesight could possibly stare at.
2. That's fine, you want something new or something you don't know where to get? Query an index. You want the good ol' experience? Go for what you already know well.
If you worry about the people who would never discover anything new, then it's like they don't talk to anybody or have no desire of changing anything, but that's their decision.
What if the “good old experience” is Microsoft in the late 1990s with a nearly 100% marketshare? You don’t know anyone who uses another system and you assume that all other options either don’t exist or can’t possibly be as good. There’s almost zero word of mouth and you haven’t bothered to consult a directory since you’re 100% confident that the only operating system in the world is Windows [1]
Do you not recognize how this scenario can work to preserve monopolies?
How does Apple come back from the brink of bankruptcy without their iconic iMac and iPod marketing campaigns?
And how do you flip the switch to making advertising illegal when incumbent companies have already enjoyed the benefit of legal advertising for hundreds of years? We ban advertising, and I start my new soft drink company, but Coca-Cola got to advertise for 100+ years already. The cat has been out of the bag for thousands of years.
Yeah, but serving that doesn't cost that much and dropping the advertisement platform would drop it further (and let engineers fix search instead of shaving milliseconds from ad bidding)
There could be an index where you list your product/service, so people can find your stuff when they need it. But yeah will be harder to manipulate people to buy your miracle supplement or other garbage that is 99% of the current ads I see.
I do not watch Tv, use ad blockers so after years of not watching TV I watched a bit recently and most ads are supplements/"naturists medicine" and for some reasons on youtube without the ad blocker they always show me the same ad over and over again(it is funny Google is trying to sell me the product from the company I work for, and somehow showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in)
> showing me same ad each day would convince someone to eventually try something they are not interested in
* not interested in right now.
Showing the same ad to the same person (or cohort of people) works. Eventually, someone in the cohort may be interested in that product/service at some point in their lfie and they are more likely to pick a brand they are familiar with. They are now familiar with that brand after having seen it everywhere all over their internet browsing, sometimes for months or years at a time.
Yeah. Don't want that. Of course it works, but so does drugging people. Doesn't mean it needs to be allowed.
When I want it, ill initiate a fresh search and find whatever I find, at that time. Don't want things leeching into my subconscious just because you want it to be your brand that I use later.
What’s your stance on signage on physical brick and mortar businesses? Logos on products? Where should we be drawing this line? And who benefits most from that line being drawn?
If it's their shop, it is fine. If it's their product, it is fine. Anywhere else, not fine. Even then, it should only be visible as I come close to the place, none of the obnoxiously massive billboards.
It's the same online, you can fill your own website, or your slot on the "yellow/white pages equivalent" alluded to by GP, with whatever crap you want.
> Where should we be drawing the line
Anything without explicit initiation from the user is not allowed. If I walk in front of your shop, cool, show me your ad. If I am 500m away, don't put up a fucking 5x5m billboard 40ft in the air. If I open your website, or scroll past your slot on an aggregator, cool, show me your logo, otherwise, nope. If I s/scroll/stroll past your s/slot/shelf in the s/aggregator/groceryshop then show me your logo, otherwise, nope. There are maaaaybe a few exceptions to the rule, like on highways I'd be fine with seeing $restaurant 8km away, or whatever, but those are rare situations where you benefit from knowing ahead of time, and even this is not necessary with google maps.
And how do are people informed about new products they may need or changes to existing products that they now may need? What about reminding people about things they needed, but they forgot about? There needs to be someway for companies to reach consumers that isn't initiated by the consumer.
This leads to inefficiency in the market. Again you don't know when you want "it", when you don't know that "it" even exists. This gives an advantage to incumbents in the market since you already know of them.
Please don't shill someone's blog here. This kind of "native advertising" is not appreciated. If you have a point, make it. Don't just use it as an opportunity to astroturf a blog.
Sure you did. And the link at the top of the page was just a coincidental "banner ad" that you had nothing to do with. If you simply wanted to share that content without the link, it's just plain HTML. Trivial to do.
It's not ethical for you to be doing this kind of submarine advertising on HN without disclosure. Please just admit what you're doing rather than pretending.
Are you doing some kind of bit here? It's easier to share HTML than... a link?
If this is supposed to be an analogy to how people will argue over what's an ad so a rule is infeasible, it's a bad analogy. If it's literal then you're not making sense.
Commercial ads are also designed to manipulate you emotionally or otherwise present you with information that induces a desire to buy what you otherwise didn't need.
