Adverts defile Free Market values

[ralfy]

@Silhouette

As much as I’d love to go around in circles with you, you’re saying very little that’s new here, that I’ve not already responded to.

I’m sorry for confusing you by philosophically critiquing values of “freedom” in reference to the market on a philosophy forum, using the economic term “free market” on the economics subforum.

“Free” in “free market” is not the same as “free” in “free will.” That’s why you cannot use the former to “philosophically [critique]” the latter.

You’re putting your foot down that I should have instead accepted the intended use of the term “free market” and concluded that adverts don’t defile its values. I get that, I got it from the start.
That’s your prerogative, and in kind I am simply arguing that philosophically it’s insufficient to accept the terms you’re given and relate everything back to them. Philosophically it’s deeper to critique the terms you’re given from the ground up: in this case “freedom” in reference to the market. Your insistence on reverting back to these “correct terms” intrinsically commits the “appeal to authority” fallacy - and there is no reasoning with fallacies because they operate outside of the bounds of reason - say, in pathos or ethos instead of logos.
For as long as you remain arguing in this way, nothing constructive is going to come from this thread - we will continue to go around in circles. Is that what you want?

I did not refer to any authority on the matter. Rather, I’m using common sense: “free” in free market refers to less government regulation, if not none at all. It does not refer to the wide range of definitions for “freedom” as discussed in philosophy.

“Freedom ideology” is common in the States, where at least a reputation has sprung up of congratulating one another about how one is so free to live there. It is “ideology” because these people who are participating in spreading and affirming this notion clearly have not philosophically deconstructed the concept of freedom and realised it is just one side of coin, whose other side necessarily tells a different story. I strongly recommend reading the Nietzsche quote I previously linked if you haven’t already - it goes beyond just free will.

The problem isn’t that they “have not philosophy deconstructed the concept of freedom” (if that is even possible) but that they’re not aware that their free market is neither free nor a free market. That is, market pressures is what leads to advertising, and as more wealth and power is concentrated among a few, more advertising.

That’s why advertising doesn’t defile free market values but result from them, and they worsen as fewer competitors emerge. The only way to avoid not just more advertising but even oligopolies is gov’t regulation, but they can’t accept that, either.

You acknowledge certain examples yourself: how businesses in a “free market” are not free from the need to respond to market pressures if they want to stay in businesses, and how customers (surely they’re part of the “free market”, yes?) can barely get away from ads at the best of times. Using the accepted definition of the “free market”, to which you appear to be intellectually bound to, these deficits of freedom surely bring to light a case to reject the term “free market” as referring to a market that defiles certain freedoms - even if it supports others. Yes, “free market” is supposed to refer to a lack of government regulation, in which case the blanket term “free” in reference to “market” is lacking these very specific qualifications of what exactly “free” is supposed to refer to in the context of the “market”, as well as what it is not referring to. Clearly free is not “meant” to refer to all aspects of the market as one could easily be led to believe by the name alone. Yes, it’s just a goddamn name, and names are meant to be short and snappy. This is why I make threads such as this one to clarify how the short and snappy is misleading.

The word “free” is used because it’s a lot shorter than “a market with less government regulations, if not none at all,” but that doesn’t mean that “free” should only be used philosophically!

I’ve kindly asked you twice now to refrain from commiting the formal fallacy of “affirming a disjunct”.

That argument is completely wrong because that means “free” can only be used in the broadest terms!

Just because I am saying adverts defile free market values, doesn’t mean I’m saying a lack of adverts wouldn’t also defile free market values. I’m making my thread about the former, not the latter, even if the latter is just as true.

Are we clear on this one yet?

I’m not referring to the former but the latter, and what I’m saying is that the latter is wrong: ads don’t defile free market values but result from them. Do I have to explain that to you again?

Freedom is more complicated than what “freedom ideology” would have far too many uncritical people believe.

I agree, but you have to understand that your thread isn’t about that.

If I were to merely support only businesses that show the least ads, this relies on the same market forces that drive businesses to maximise advertisement. This cannot solve the problem of adverts defiling free market values - or “freedom in all forms in the context of the market” if you still can’t get around the authority of the “correct” definition to which you so desperately cleave. Therefore, in the interests of freedom, it’s necessary to open up the conversation beyond simply “market forces”.

Your support for businesses showing the least ads relies on market pressures if you experience lower revenues or higher costs by viewing more ads.

Again, ads don’t defile free market values because those values are determined by market pressures, not a blanket definition of “freedom” that you keep insisting upon.

Your last point is wrong because ads are shown as a result of market pressures, as you admitted earlier. That’s why ads don’t defile free market values but result from them.

Your biggest mistake was to admit that ads are shown because of market pressures. That puts to question your claims that I am desperately cleaving to definitions or relying on authority or giving a false exclusionary. Rather, I’m using what you admit against you.

Yes, positive liberty refers to free will and thus to the wider concept of freedom, at least in part - as divided in an exhaustive and binary fashion between “positive” and “negative” liberty i.e. +ve/-ve freedom.
The “free market” does well for “net” freedom - I respect that. But there are still aspects of the market that involve a lack of freedom - including but not limited in particular to customer exposure to advertisement. Freedom in the marketplace is a wider concept - hence this thread.

Do you now see how you’re contradicting your argument? A free market leads to a lack of freedom because it increases customer exposure to ads. That’s why ads don’t defile free market values but result from them. If you want less advertising, then you will not gov’t regulation, and that is what defiles free market values.

What you should have done was explain why free markets lead to more freedom for business owners but less for customers, not to mention workers. But that’s not about free markets but about free market capitalism.

Finally, this also reveals cracks in the so-called “freedom ideology” espoused by U.S. citizens if it turns out that they want more goods and services to choose from (which means less gov’t regulation) but don’t want a lot of ads (which means more gov’t regulation). But they will understand that only if they realize that ads don’t defile free market values but result from market pressures which define those values (in short, the opposite of what you’ve been claiming). With capitalism, what’s added to those values include maximizing profits and ROIs.

[ralfy]

@Karpel Tunnel

There are other ways there could be less advertising. We could learn that most of it is manipulative shit, more or less rude and cynical, and this would make it less appealing as a form of communication. It could shift toward information, rather that symbolic triggering.

FWIW, businesses have been doing that for decades. Hence, “hidden persuaders,” product placement, and connected points, such as planned obsolescence.

Advertising is generally not a means to inform the public, though it does this in part, but not always even in part. At the very least other verbs should be prioritized over ‘inform’ and added. If the function and goal of advertising is to inform, the makers of it and the people who pay them to make the advertising are extremely confused about how to go about this.

Actually, it is. Otherwise, businesses wouldn’t spend on it.

Also, please explain your last sentence, and if possible, cite sources from those who study advertising.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@ralfy

FWIW, businesses have been doing that for decades. Hence, “hidden persuaders,” product placement, and connected points, such as planned obsolescence.

Yes, though I am not sure why you are telling me this.

Advertising is generally not a means to inform the public, though it does this in part, but not always even in part. At the very least other verbs should be prioritized over ‘inform’ and added. If the function and goal of advertising is to inform, the makers of it and the people who pay them to make the advertising are extremely confused about how to go about this.

Actually, it is. Otherwise, businesses wouldn’t spend on it.

The bulk of commercials, for example, is not information, it is symbolic association, lies, implications, manipulation, entertainment to elicit feelings to get one to buy for reasons that have nothing to do with informaiton aobut the products. THIS is why they advertise. Information may be as minimal as the brand name, so you know what to buy after you have been bombarded by the rest.

Also, please explain your last sentence, and if possible, cite sources from those who study advertising.
[/quote]
I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let’s you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

To flatly say that advertising is about information is like saying a politician’s speech is used to relay information.

If that’s what a politician’s speech is.for, it is being used terribly for this purpose. It is doing other things and for successful politicians, doing these things well.

[ralfy]

@Karpel Tunnel

Yes, though I am not sure why you are telling me this.

Because what you believe we “could learn” has been done for decades. The idea of hidden persuaders was raised way back in the late 1950s. Planned obsolescence was observed during the mid-1920s.

The bulk of commercials, for example, is not information, it is symbolic association, lies, implications, manipulation, entertainment to elicit feelings to get one to buy for reasons that have nothing to do with informaiton aobut the products. THIS is why they advertise. Information may be as minimal as the brand name, so you know what to buy after you have been bombarded by the rest.

The information part comes in when you become aware that there is such a product available. They obviously include more so that consumers will notice them.

One can, of course, imagine a business insisting on some principle to provide only information (like a spec sheet) on their product, and on top of that, be as honest as possible about what they’re selling, and then imagine it succeeding such that competitors follow suit.

I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let’s you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

That’s when you go to a store and look at the contents or spec sheets and ask questions. Of course, you can choose not to do that, but that also means you will probably always act on impulse whether or not you are shown ads.

To flatly say that advertising is about information is like saying a politician’s speech is used to relay information.

Don’t confuse less information with no information. You have the brand and the product itself in terms of appearance, just as a politician’s speech refers to a topic. If you want to know more, then investigate.

If that’s what a politician’s speech is.for, it is being used terribly for this purpose. It is doing other things and for successful politicians, doing these things well.

I can’t understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing that speeches should do more than just inform, which implies that advertisements should do the same, or that they don’t inform, which is also what advertisements do?

[Karpel_Tunnel]

@ralfy

Because what you believe we “could learn” has been done for decades. The idea of hidden persuaders was raised way back in the late 1950s. Planned obsolescence was observed during the mid-1920s.

Sure, this I knew. What I meant by…

There are other ways there could be less advertising. We could learn that most of it is manipulative shit, more or less rude and cynical, and this would make it less appealing as a form of communication. It could shift toward information, rather that symbolic triggering.

[emphasis added now]includes the idea of learning first in general - iow most people - and further the idea that it is unacceptable, negative, immoral (for those who think in moral terms. That there becomes a critical mass of distaste for the way advertising is made, it’s purpose, etc. And this affects advertising’s effectiveness. IOW posts like Mowk’s and other communication like this affects attitudes and people do not put up with it. That is, learn all the judgments explicit in my quote above, not the technical skills or just about the technical skills that are used to make advertising effective manipulative shit, but that it is manipulative shit.

The information part comes in when you become aware that there is such a product available.

I bolded part, because you said advertising was information, period. Now you are saying that information is a part. Well, that’s a big step in the direction I have been pushing for. Further I have made it clear that there is some minimal information in advertising and what that needs to be. Your explanation above, what you are telling me, I have already said about the information part.

They obviously include more so that consumers will notice them.

Actually I don’t think so. It is only because we have these companies screaming at us a lot of manipulative shit, that a new company, say, needs to do more than give information. It is in the current context that to be noticed companies tend to need this. Some do manage to get by on word of mouth and influential customers. But given the current state of things, and that, in general, given people’s having given up or not really thought about it, current attitudes present no loss for creating manipulative shit, yes, it is necessary to compete. It need not be like that.

One can, of course, imagine a business insisting on some principle to provide only information (like a spec sheet) on their product, and on top of that, be as honest as possible about what they’re selling, and then imagine it succeeding such that competitors follow suit.

Which would likely require shifts in the attitudes of customers and potential ones.

I just did above. If their goal was simply to inform, the kinds of advertising they create are poorly contructed, unnecessarily complicated and explensive, radically incomplete and so on. There is advertising with almost no information, because information is often not needed to sell products - except that tiny minimum that let’s you know what you have been manipulated to think you need or is good.

That’s when you go to a store and look at the contents or spec sheets and ask questions. Of course, you can choose not to do that, but that also means you will probably always act on impulse whether or not you are shown ads.

There are all sorts of product comparisons out there and our impulses could shift to using these as step one. This would take a more generalized allowing of reactions like Mowk’s to spread, people encouraging his reactions to what advertising is. There would also, likely, have to be political discourse fights against how the corporations react to this in the media they primarily control.

Don’t confuse less information with no information.

But I haven’t. I have said a few times that there is some information in advertising.
I someone says X is B.
and I say that mainly X is not B, though there is a minimal amout of B in X, then I have not said
there is no B in X.

I can’t understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing that speeches should do more than just inform, which implies that advertisements should do the same, or that they don’t inform, which is also what advertisements do?

I am saying that most of what political speeches are is not information and, now I am futher adding, not logical argument. It is manipulative shit. Heck, I might even agree with the goal of the political speech inquestion. But what it nearly always is is mainly, mainly, symbolic triggers, manipulative use of metaphors and other rhetotical devices, emotional framing and so on. Yes, there is information in there, but

if we were to flatly describe political speeches as information.

A political speech’s purpose is to distribute information, period.

Our description is primarily false.

There generally is some information in political speeches, but the bulk is not information, it is manipulative shit. Even if this is for good purposes by whoever is judging.

Advertising uses primarily non-information to sell it’s products. Yes, the companies need you to know which product to buy. So, they give the minimal information so you can find their product. But they, in the main, do not use information in the advertising. Advertising is primarily symbolic and emotional triggers, implicit non-logical or illogical justifications, entertainment, lies, misleading associations or false associations, cognitive manipulative in general. That is the bulk of what advertising is.

The more we tell ourselves this must be what advertising is because the only way to change is to damage free speech or otherwise assume that advertising like this is simply inevitable, a lesser evil, we play into the hands of corporations that view us as meat with credit cards.

[ralfy]

@Karpel Tunnel

[emphasis added now]includes the idea of learning first in general - iow most people - and further the idea that it is unacceptable, negative, immoral (for those who think in moral terms. That there becomes a critical mass of distaste for the way advertising is made, it’s purpose, etc. And this affects advertising’s effectiveness. IOW posts like Mowk’s and other communication like this affects attitudes and people do not put up with it. That is, learn all the judgments explicit in my quote above, not the technical skills or just about the technical skills that are used to make advertising effective manipulative shit, but that it is manipulative shit.

Well, that is the main goal of advertising. Were you expecting otherwise?

I bolded part, because you said advertising was information, period. Now you are saying that information is a part. Well, that’s a big step in the direction I have been pushing for. Further I have made it clear that there is some minimal information in advertising and what that needs to be. Your explanation above, what you are telling me, I have already said about the information part.

I didn’t write “period.” What I wrote is, “Advertising is a means to inform the public about goods and services available and to encourage them to patronize companies whose products are being promoted.” That doesn’t mean that they won’t resort to “manipulative shit.” Rather, they can’t manipulate people into buying something without informing them what’s being sold.

There’s your information. The same goes for a politician who manipulates people into believing in something. The fact that he has to tell them what that something is means that he’s informing them.

In which case, if what you want is information without manipulation, then read product labels and spec sheets. Don’t waste your time implying that advertising should be such.

Actually I don’t think so. It is only because we have these companies screaming at us a lot of manipulative shit, that a new company, say, needs to do more than give information. It is in the current context that to be noticed companies tend to need this. Some do manage to get by on word of mouth and influential customers. But given the current state of things, and that, in general, given people’s having given up or not really thought about it, current attitudes present no loss for creating manipulative shit, yes, it is necessary to compete. It need not be like that.

No, they do that so that ads will be noticed. Look up Packard’s Hidden Persuaders.

Which would likely require shifts in the attitudes of customers and potential ones.

Or cause them to move to competitors.

There are all sorts of product comparisons out there and our impulses could shift to using these as step one. This would take a more generalized allowing of reactions like Mowk’s to spread, people encouraging his reactions to what advertising is. There would also, likely, have to be political discourse fights against how the corporations react to this in the media they primarily control.

Those comparisons are not done using ads. Don’t insist on turning ads into what they should not be, such as product labels and spec sheets.

But I haven’t. I have said a few times that there is some information in advertising.
I someone says X is B.
and I say that mainly X is not B, though there is a minimal amout of B in X, then I have not said
there is no B in X.

Of course, there will always be information in ads, which is what I’ve been telling you. Otherwise, how can businesses manipulate people into buying things without telling them what to buy?

If your concern is manipulation, then you’re wasting your time, because ads are supposed to do that.

I am saying that most of what political speeches are is not information and, now I am futher adding, not logical argument. It is manipulative shit. Heck, I might even agree with the goal of the political speech inquestion. But what it nearly always is is mainly, mainly, symbolic triggers, manipulative use of metaphors and other rhetotical devices, emotional framing and so on. Yes, there is information in there, but

Of course, which is what one should expect from speeches! If you want mostly information, read reports. If you want only information, then go for data sets.

You’re wasting time trying to force advertisers and even those who give speeches not to use rhetorical devices.

if we were to flatly describe political speeches as information.

A political speech’s purpose is to distribute information, period.

Our description is primarily false.

There generally is some information in political speeches, but the bulk is not information, it is manipulative shit. Even if this is for good purposes by whoever is judging.

What are you looking for? Politicians who speak like robots, read from figures, and then let you make your own conclusions. Then stop listening to speeches because they are supposed to do the opposite and go over spreadsheets by yourself.

Advertising uses primarily non-information to sell it’s products. Yes, the companies need you to know which product to buy. So, they give the minimal information so you can find their product. But they, in the main, do not use information in the advertising. Advertising is primarily symbolic and emotional triggers, implicit non-logical or illogical justifications, entertainment, lies, misleading associations or false associations, cognitive manipulative in general. That is the bulk of what advertising is.

Of course! Why are you expecting otherwise? Did you want only performance measures? Read consumer surveys. Contents? Read product labels or schematics. Specifications? Read spec sheets. Whatever you do, don’t insist on making ads what they shouldn’t be.

The more we tell ourselves this must be what advertising is because the only way to change is to damage free speech or otherwise assume that advertising like this is simply inevitable, a lesser evil, we play into the hands of corporations that view us as meat with credit cards.

Must be? You must be kidding.

Damage to free speech? Of course not, unless you have this absurd view that free speech is speech that’s free of any manipulation!