Good. Advertising is a terrible zero-sum industry that just distorts market activity. It has little place in capitalism or any other system.
Exceptions:
- New products deserve some advertising. I would handle that like the patent system. Demonstrate your product is sufficiently different, and get access to some attention economy time slice.
Some may say, well what about competition with existing products to bring down cost? Simple, get rid of stupid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition and start selling things in unmarked tubs with a price tag. Cheapest one wins. Of course, there has to be quality control and avoiding regulatory capture with that, but stupid brands are not a good solution to that problem.
What makes you say advertising is zero-sum? This doesn't seem to be the case at all to me.
Take diamonds for example. Prior to the mid 1900s, diamonds weren't nearly as sought after as they are currently. It took the marketing and advertising efforts (among other efforts, like monopolizing the mining process) of De Beers to convince the public that diamonds should be highly coveted. It was advertising that pushed the public to think spending X months' salary on a diamond ring should be normal. De Beers is obviously highly derided, but this a pretty clear cut case that advertising is NOT zero sum. The value of diamonds went up because of advertising, and nothing else depreciated in value as a result.
I won't even touch on your other points about unbranded goods, except to say that consumers definitely show preference for branded items, and I don't really see why that is a problem.
I mean zero-sum in that advertising shifts spending from one area to another. Perhaps all the diamond ring money would have gone into other things.
It's a hard point to prove or disprove, but even if advertising overall deceases the consumer saving rate, sure the vast majority of advertising cancels out. (I'm going to buy tide or downy, but not both.)
> except to say that consumers definitely show preference for branded items
Well these meaningless competing brands convey no information and waste tons of resources. And it's rather an embarrassment to Capitalism for the primary non-price information exchanged by market actors to be bullshit noise, even if it isn't a "real problem" compared to global warming or something.
That is not at all what zero sum means. If you're going to use a widely-used term at the core of an argument, you should be sure you're doing so correctly.
So, advertising created value here by convincing people to give their money for shiny stones? Instead of, you know, investing in health, education or a vacation? Overall, was it a net win? On the one hand, one company makes money, on the other hand, many people waste significant resources for a symbolic gesture.
- I choose the TV channel, website, etc. to visit, but public space I might have to walk through because it's the only option
- In that public space it may be impossible not to see the adds
- sight lines in public spaces are public property
Now, one may ask "what about paying someone to verbally advertise in public space". I think that should remain legal, because that does seem like a slippery slope. I'm willing to risk that society won't collapse so far that that highly inefficient form of advertising became cheap enough with destitute surplus labor.
Exceptions:
- New products deserve some advertising. I would handle that like the patent system. Demonstrate your product is sufficiently different, and get access to some attention economy time slice.
Some may say, well what about competition with existing products to bring down cost? Simple, get rid of stupid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopolistic_competition and start selling things in unmarked tubs with a price tag. Cheapest one wins. Of course, there has to be quality control and avoiding regulatory capture with that, but stupid brands are not a good solution to that problem.