> It doesn't have to be that way though. You physically don't have time to research every thing that exists, or even to hear about every possible product in passing. Supposing some of those would improve your life on average, is word-of-mouth really the most efficient way we can come up with to tell you about the things you do actually want to spend your money on?
Word-of-mouth vs. paid advertisements is a false dichotomy.
Also, a friction isn't a bad thing. You don't have to "research every thing that exists, or even to hear about every possible product in passing." It's fine to pick a good enough thing from a smaller set.
> In theory, this is a great business -- customers want to spend money, companies want to sell things, and the information/discoverability asymmetry means that companies are inclined to get word of their products out there with customers _also_ wanting to hear about those products (if they're sufficiently personalized). If "advertising" were good enough, I'd pay money for it.
Advertising not a great business in theory, because it's corrupted by a fundamental conflict of interest. Without draconian regulation, it's never going to be aligned to your interests as a consumer.
A better business would be some kind of product review magazine, where they research products and write articles about them.
Personally, I favor draconian regulation. Nationalize the ad agencies. Companies submit a request to the government ad agency for an add, they write a neutral ad with a couple of photos descriptive photos of the product, its name, and a brief outline of features, and that's what gets run.
> Word-of-mouth vs. paid advertisements is a false dichotomy.
I think a lot of people confuse paid advertisements by influencers as word-of-mouth. For whatever reasoning, the concept of hired spokesperson seems to have been lost with social media influencers.
I have a mouse problem. have had it for years (like most people). If you make a better mousetrap today I want it - but I'm not researching this every year.
Word-of-mouth vs. paid advertisements is a false dichotomy.
Also, a friction isn't a bad thing. You don't have to "research every thing that exists, or even to hear about every possible product in passing." It's fine to pick a good enough thing from a smaller set.
> In theory, this is a great business -- customers want to spend money, companies want to sell things, and the information/discoverability asymmetry means that companies are inclined to get word of their products out there with customers _also_ wanting to hear about those products (if they're sufficiently personalized). If "advertising" were good enough, I'd pay money for it.
Advertising not a great business in theory, because it's corrupted by a fundamental conflict of interest. Without draconian regulation, it's never going to be aligned to your interests as a consumer.
A better business would be some kind of product review magazine, where they research products and write articles about them.
Personally, I favor draconian regulation. Nationalize the ad agencies. Companies submit a request to the government ad agency for an add, they write a neutral ad with a couple of photos descriptive photos of the product, its name, and a brief outline of features, and that's what gets run.