

Ask HN: Why do you hate advertising as a business so much? - martinshen

With the Twitter IPO, the conversation about paid advertising as a &quot;necessary evil&quot; has come up again. I simply don&#x27;t understand what people have against online advertising.<p>Online advertising is a tremendous step forward that does help &quot;the little guy&quot;. Maybe not your average mom and pop store but thanks to Adwords, Facebook Ads and Sponsored Tweets.. SMBs can now cost-effectively advertise, test products etc. On the other side of that, consumers are exposed to solutions that fit their needs. I&#x27;ve found tens of products and services through Facebook ads that I would not have found otherwise.<p>So there are certainly organic&#x2F;free ways to gain new customers but nothing scales as nicely or as quickly as online ads. I see many people more excited to see companies like Pebble or Nest but a lot of the reason why these companies exist is because of advertising. SMBs like Pebble or Nest use small budgets to reach a wider audience and build their businesses. It&#x27;s possible that they&#x27;d exist without digital advertising but unlikely.<p>I think mass media and shady ad practices have painted a terrible image of the advertising business model. Advertisements that prey on human weakness, pop ups, auto-play etc... but that doesn&#x27;t mean that the advertising model is completely broken.<p>Anyway, I&#x27;m THANKFUL to this new age of advertising which allows my business to run and introduces me to apps, services and products I want to use.<p>Why do you guys hate ads?
======
unimpressive
1\. I can name exactly one time that an ad was actually something I might be
interested in.

2\. Conflict of interest. An advertiser's job is to get me to buy/view/etc
something, often with misleading statements. Whether me doing that is actually
in my best interest isn't factored into the equation.

3\. Annoying. 'Shady' ad practices do and will continue to exist. In any case
they take up screen real estate.

4\. Advertisers are compiling huge databases that they intend to fill with all
sorts of intimate information about me. What I like to read ( _what_ I read),
who I talk with, what I talk about, etc. These databases are ripe for all
sorts of abuse, both outside and within the domain they're being compiled for.
(Great example: [http://blog.echonest.com/post/27047918145/musical-taste-
poli...](http://blog.echonest.com/post/27047918145/musical-taste-politics))

5\. Another conflict of interest is between me and the service itself. When
the service is mainly powered by ad revenue it means that anything that's good
for ads is in the interests of the service, even if it's bad for me. (Eg.
Taking up more and more screen real estate, sandwiching ads in between the
'legitimate' content.)

For a start.

~~~
nfailor
1\. we do the best we can to target. you get blanketed by irrelevant ads for a
myriad of reasons not limited to: -lazy clients who don't understand their
userbase -ads for things you might be interested in being choked out by higher
paying spots.

2\. that's actually not an advertiser's job--although some of those elements
may be part of a campaign. we live in an era where clients demand an ROI, they
want a conversion stat, and that's what they base an ad buy on--we agree this
is detrimental in the industry. we'd much rather present you with a product
over a span of time. we'd much rather show a product to likely consumers.

I'd give you a treatise on the industry, but ogilvy did that:

[http://www.commissionedwriting.com/CONFESSIONS%20OF%20AN%20A...](http://www.commissionedwriting.com/CONFESSIONS%20OF%20AN%20ADVERTISING%20MAN%20-%20OGILVY.pdf)

3\. that's also a client generated evil.

4\. we've been making that sort of connection our entire history. content
producers check too, they call it 'knowing your audience.' we're actually in
the midst of a massive democratization. instead of five or six market research
companies (or one TV research company, or one radio company) we're opening up.
you can actually opt-out--that's never happened before.

5\. so pay for the service.

not enough users are interested in baring the true cost of a service--hence
the dependence on ad revenue.

------
DanBC
I hate advertisers because:

1) The sense of entitlement they feel - "I should have a right to telephone
you at any time, or to mail you junk, or to interrupt your viewing, or to
scrape your email address from somewhere and email you garbage, or to use
obnoxious loud music or other weird techniques."

2) The destruction of the WWW as a useful source of information, moving
instead to really foul pointless content farms or link farms or other weird
useless broken sites. Or to sites that are just massive collections of
everything, but with no concept of curation. I don't want (eg) every different
spectacles case ever made anywhere in the world available from one website -
because most of them really are pretty similar. I want a nicely chosen list of
twenty different cases.

3) The fear of most sites to let go of advertisers and to just let me pay for
the content.

~~~
nfailor
1) those are not advertisers, those are direct mailing etc., outfits. I think
they're annoying too. I don't use them. If a client suggests using them, I
suggest they find a new agency. I suggest you write a note to the CEO and
discontinue your association with the brand. they pay attention to that.

2) might I suggest 'site:.edu'

3) it's not a fear, a critical mass of users won't pay for content.

~~~
marssaxman
We didn't have to pay for content before the ads came along. Why should we
have to pay for content now?

~~~
dragonwriter
The content that is advertising supported largely didn't exist before the ads
came along, or was provided by entities that were burning through initial
capital while seeking a revenue model.

Much of the kind of content that was sustainable before all the ads came along
is largely still available without ads after the ads came along to support
other kinds of content.

------
lutusp
> Why do you hate advertising as a business so much?

Because _advertisers are in the business of lying_. The measure of success in
advertising is the persuasiveness of one's lies.

> I think mass media and shady ad practices have painted a terrible image of
> the advertising business model. Advertisements that prey on human weakness,
> pop ups, auto-play etc... but that doesn't mean that the advertising model
> is completely broken.

This reminds me of the child molester's defense: "So? Who's perfect?"

> Anyway, I'm THANKFUL to this new age of advertising which allows my business
> to run and introduces me to apps, services and products I want to use.

It's always nice to see someone ask an question on HN who doesn't already have
his mind made up, and who doesn't post simply to express a slanted editorial
view of the topic.

~~~
RogerL
So, today, when I searched for a notary public in my area, expecting to have
to trawl through yelp or angie list type crap to just find a local place, and
instead I was pleasantly surprised with an ad for a place very close to me
that offered everything I needed (I needed more than the notary service), they
were _lying to me_? Odd, it sure seemed legit.

I know what you mean, you are talking about the 'soapX cleans brighter!" which
of course is a contentless sentence intended to deceive, and I am with you
there. But I think what is awesome about things like Adwords is it gives the
small local business the ability to reach the people that are looking for
them. Instead of dealing with some horrible chain I ended up at a tiny mom-
and-pop shop, found out they had other services I've been looking for
unsuccessfully, and now they have a guaranteed customer in me. I think that is
great for me, and great for them, because they only paid a tiny amount for my
click, and got a customer from it.

It's not perfect; I've just done several searches just to see what will turn
up, things like 'kayak rental half moon bay' and such, and am not getting very
good ad results. But sometimes they are spot on, more spot on than the google
search results.

~~~
nfailor
which is a client-centric failure. convincing a small business (such as a
kayak rental outfit) why that they ought to invest in targeted search [which
would have a favorable effect] gets a lot harder when they're only pitched for
the scammier side of things.

------
lazyant
While I agree with the general sentiment posted here, here's an anecdote from
a famous publicist. He got in a taxi cab and in the conversation he told the
driver what his profession was.

"oh well, that advertising thing never works for me" the driver said.

"what brand of cereal do you buy" \- "Kellogs"

"what toothpaste do you use" \- "Colgate"

"what's your favorite drink" \- "Coca-Cola"

~~~
unimpressive
The effectiveness of advertising isn't to make you buy a specific product at a
specific time. It's to increase the mind share of a specific product so that
when you're in the market for it that's what you'll buy. (Or at the very least
you'll see it as a viable option.)

This is of course, unmeasurable.

~~~
jfoster
Isn't it possible that there might be different types of advertising each with
its own goals? Billboards are probably about mindshare, but what about when I
search Google for a model of TV and there's all these retailers trying to sell
me that model?

~~~
nfailor
that's actually still about mindshare though--that's why radio ads still
exist. they catch you on the way to the store.

~~~
jfoster
For some of them (say, Best Buy) it definitely would be, but others (say,
Bob's Local TV Shop) don't seem to advertise on the scale that would give them
any chance of gaining mindshare. I acknowledge that the advertisers are trying
to gain mindshare are at a significant advantage when advertising, since they
can afford to bid up to the lifetime value of the customer rather than bidding
up to the margin of a one-off sale.

------
shawnreilly
When it comes down to it, I don't hate Ad's. But I can openly admit that I
despise the Ad Experience. You are basically forced to view/hear the Ad. The
consumer has no choice. I find it to be a flawed User Experience. I fault the
Advertising Industry for failing to innovate the Advertising Experience.
Technology has evolved, providing the potential for an increased User
Experience. But the Advertising Industry remains the same, and the User
Experience sucks. I find that Today's Advertising Experience essentially
utilizes the same approach / method (or what I call the model) that was
developed decades ago (born out of Radio, Print, and TV). Take the Banner Ad;
Same approach used in print, just modified and served over the Web/Mobile.
Consumer attempts to consume content, interrupted by the Ad. Take the Video
Ad; Same approach used in Television, just modified and served over the
Web/Mobile. Consumer attempts to consume content, interrupted by the Ad. It's
the same thing over and over, just repackaged and delivered in a new format.
And the underlying User Experience is the same.

I think that the Advertising Industry is ripe for innovation. I'm no fan of
Buzzwords, but the new concept of 'Native Advertising' represents (IMO) the
biggest innovation in the Advertising Industry in the last 3-4 decades. I
think it's time for the Industry to realize that they don't have to interrupt
people and force things upon people to successfully Advertise something. I see
a correct implementation of Native Advertising creating a much more positive
User Experience that actually helps people and gives them the information they
want, when they want it. I'm working on a Project in this space, and I'm
excited to test and hopefully validate my hypothesis.

------
Casseres
I hate ads because they usually involve tracking.

I hate Facebook ads because a lot of them are for games, scams, BS products,
or companies/politicians where the ad says "click like if you think/agree..."
and the statement has almost nothing to do with that company/politician and
are just using it to gain likes for the company/politician's Facebook page.

Before I started blocking ads and JavaScript, I've clicked on exactly four
ads:

1 Google text ad in their search results - no sale

2 Facebook ads - I bought the products of both ads

1 ad on a blog (not using a third party ad service) - no sale

~~~
timmm
Right, it blows my mind to think how many Google Adsense ads I've been exposed
to over the life of my Google use. And subsequently to think how many I've
clicked on... exactly zero.

------
timmm
Because now content providers know consumers hate ads, so they offer "Ad Free"
options (for a price) which is effectively legal extortion.

Ads basically convert 3% of those exposed at the expense of annoying the other
97%, at the very least it's wildly inefficient.

------
venomsnake
Because the service provider loyalty lies with the advertiser and not me.

------
fredsanford
Smells like a shill

------
logjam
Oh for gods sake. We must live in alternate universes. I have never clicked an
online ad. Ever. I have never met someone who said that they were grateful for
ads on a web page, or found them helpful. Ever.

The "advertising business model" is to just push vapid, gratuitous shit. The
fact that it is gratuitous shit is what requires it to be advertised.

And for most of us there is the dawning revelation that a life of consumption
is...a life of gratuitous shit.

~~~
mansigandhi
I click on Facebook ads all the time. So obviously we do live in alternative
universes. And I don't mind them because sometimes it turns out to be a good
way to find stuff.

~~~
bediger4000
I click on facebook ads for fake saliva, fake tears, gout remedies, "vitality
supplements" and other old fart ailments. I'm trying to build up a facebook
persona of a crotchety, ailing, "got off my lawn!" type of elderly nutjob.

