The idea feels like sci-fi because you’re so used to it, imagining ads gone feels like asking to outlaw gravity. But humanity had been free of current forms of advertising for 99.9% of its existence. Word-of-mouth and community networks worked just fine. First-party websites and online communities would now improve on that.
The traditional argument pro-advertising—that it provides consumers with necessary information—hasn’t been valid for decades.
The idea that advertising is a new invention is nonsense.
Yes, it had different forms but it was there.
Eg: What are the priests if not sales people and what are the Sunday bells if not calls to action, and what are the icons and statues if not aspirational advertising and fomo?
What are shop windows? What are branding marks?
Here is advertising in Ancient Rome
I have nothing against pull advertising so that if I need something I go somewhere and pull some advertisement to get information about a product I need or want. Window shopping, going to church seem like that.
But shoving ads down my throat, no thanks.
My point is that the premise of the article is untrue - harking to a past that never was.
Don’t church bells shove advertising down your ears? How about if I open a competing church with louder bells? What if I open a donut shop and I ring bells to notify you that a fresh batch is ready?
“No more bells then”, cool.
How about mosques? No bells, just a guy screaming from a tall balcony. And another and another.
Even in communist Russia you had propaganda ads everywhere.
There are plenty of ways currently of blocking most ads out of online media anyway - though underhanded means like product placement etc still sip through.
The word “new” is a relative term. Humans evolved around 300,000 BCE, and ancient Rome (founded in 753 BCE) is pretty “new” by that metric. You’re not wrong that people found ways to “advertise” to each other throughout recorded history, but when it comes to prehistory (or as the article states, “99.9% of [humanity’s] existence”), life was very different. There can’t have been much to advertise before people developed tradable goods.
With that said, I’m intrigued by your comprehensive interpretation of “advertising.” Now I’m wondering about things that would not have been written down/recorded, like things a town crier might have been incentivized to add to their announcements.
“Hear ye, hear ye! A joust is to be held tomorrow evening in the royal courtyard, in the King’s honor. Sir and Lady Abbington announce the birth of their new son, to be baptized at the Lord’s church this Saturday. In celebration, Mavis the Fishmonger is offering a buy-one-get-one deal on all flounder! Come on down to the market square for fantastic deals on all your seafood goods - just look for the stall with the yellow awning. Get your catch of the day at Mavis’s!”
Haha! New is a relative term but really? 300k BCE? Reverting to pre organised society to avoid advertising?
Maybe we should go to pre human times, oh wait, walk through a forest and all you see is flowers advertising themselves to insects and birds advertising their singing abilities to each other.
So long as there’s competition for resources and attention plays a role in that distribution something will find a way to attract that attention.
I didn’t reach to find that era - it was referenced from the article, even the snippet at the top of this very page:
Then you provided examples that occured within the most recent .1% sliver of humanity’s existence. Anything more recent than ~30,000 BCE is within that .1% time frame. Ergo, Ancient Rome doesn’t count.
This is why it’s important to define terms before beginning debates. The advertising people are referencing here is the modern kind targeted at humans in order to manipulate them. To compare that to the symbiotic relationships between flowers and their pollinators, or to animals seeking a mate, (both scenarios that benefit all parties mutually) is a false equivalence.
Anyway, I tried to keep things light-hearted in that last post, to show that I’m not looking to attack anyone. I gave you credit for providing a novel viewpoint, in an effort to build conversation. But I’m getting the impression that you’re not arguing in good faith. If you’d like have a real discussion, cool, I’m in. But if you’re looking for an argument, I recommend you look elsewhere.
Sorry, it was not my intent to offend, I’m never looking for an argument - just look at my post history.
I got that you gave credit for what you found novel, and cracked a couple of jokes which were quite amusing, even though I wasn’t sure if you were actually considering them as possibilities or just having fun but even without that part it I would just have answered on the merits of your position without argument.
I don’t usually share laughs with people I argue with and I started my reply with a laugh to show that I’m sharing your willingness to argue in good faith. Maybe it came across mean spirited.
I’m really confused about what part of my reply was confrontational. I get that most of the conversation’s content is usually non verbal so perhaps you read it in a confrontational tone that was not intended - it was more ribbing or amused incredulousness in the spirited discussion intent and not at all “how dare you” or yelling.
Now on to the merits of the discussion:
Look, pulling Ancient Rome and churches and flowers and birds as an examples has a common thread, and that is to argue my conclusion in the last comment. That in any environment of competition for resources were attention plays a role in their distribution you’ll find advertising.
If the examples from recorded human history are to be cast aside as too soon then what about pre human examples from nature.
That was the crux.
Now you find the floral and animal examples as irrelevant because you make a claim that they are symbiotic so they benefit both parties - but I don’t find that convincing as there are not just two parties, or only those examples and also that was not the point.
The point is the competition for resources where attention plays a role in the distribution and how advertising emerges between competitors and the audience that will provide them with the desired resource or the means for it.
Whether it is to the benefit or the detriment of the receiver or an unsuccessful advertiser that is not very relevant. After all not all human advertising is detrimental, most is symbiotic. Buying this pack of chewing gums vs another or none, or this mouse trap or spending your time listening to one genre of music vs another doesn’t necessarily hurt you and might even benefit you in some way.
But a more apt comparison if you want the yard stick to be non beneficial advertising are the million ways that advertising in nature has ill intent - leading one of the parties to their demise: from Venus flowers, to angler fish, to camouflage, to fake mating calls, to fake food and hundreds of other examples.
Current forms yes for sure, as most of our current communication methods are new.
But advertising in general? That simply cannot be true. Yes the earliest examples we can find are from early human civilisations a fraction of the estimated age of humanity (however you want to define it, but let’s say Homo sapiens) but if you want to argue that…
…Modern brained humans were not trying to manipulate other humans in non mutually beneficial ways, either with whatever form of communication was available or with other traps when nature does it at its most basic forms and when I see little kids do it to each other from a very young age then the onus of the argument requires to either explain in detail how are humans not a part of a nature where this naturally emerges or what a society without advertising actually looks like.
It’s a bit late over here so let’s hope my rumbling is somewhat coherent.