Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You don't need to look at a billboard at the time that you want to buy something related for it to work.

The mere-exposure effect (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect>) is all that is needed.

If ads were "completely fucking irrelevant" then companies wouldn't be spending the large amounts of money that they do on it. I agree that ads are a nuisance, but they're not going to be easy to simply get rid of, as long as money is involved. And considering how tightly coupled finance is with policy nowadays, I find it highly unlikely legislators would pass bills banning public advertisements. Especially when sometimes the government itself is the one getting paid to promote goods and services.

Finally, the issue is also defining what constitutes an advertisement. How do you draw the line between advertisement and free speech? If, theoretically, a very passionate citizen, enjoyed a product so much that they simply wanted to publicly express their satisfaction with it, posted a sign of that expression, does that constitute an advertisement?

If it does, and gets removed, then I'm afraid that's no different than some dystopian form of censorship.

If it doesn't, then it would be trivial for companies to continue advertising, because then every ad could just be re-framed to be the personal expression of an individual.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: