zlacker

I’ve wondered recently if we’re going to see in the next 10 or 20 years a split generation of people who are susceptible to ads. I heard anecdotally someone talking about his kids who weren’t exposed to ads much because they (as a family) buy the ad free experiences - when they did see an ad, it was extremely effective and they were explaining to their father how much they needed this thing.

Alternatively, are the poorer kids going to be the ones inoculated against advertising because they are exposed to it constantly?

>>sircas+(OP)
Do you really think it works that way? People might develop banner blindness, but subconsciously they are being bombarded with messages anyway. They are being trained to consume, to associate the sites they like to visit with certain brands, pushed products by influencers...

If ads didn't work, companies wouldn't be paying billions of dollars per year. The only way to fight it is by being vigilant and block them at the source and become truly allergic to them.

>>sircas+(OP)
Given the way our society is becoming more and more ad-focused, I have started to think that marketing should be taught to more people earlier. My first marketing class was a 300-level elective in my junior year of college, and it was invaluable in understanding the subtle ways advertisement is meant to reel you in, and how nobody is truly unaffected by advertisement, no matter how much they think they are.

>>sircas+(OP)
Perhaps not. my kids are ad-free (8 and 11), and when we visit family with a tv, at first they laugh at the ads and wonder why people fall for them, or what the ad is even for. They just turn the tv off and do something else when the ad interrupts what they were watching at a critical moment (dad, get this show later ok? I can't stand seeing that ad again).

Also, many ads now are like insider jokes, trying to poke a certain market.

I notice people who are used to it can just stare at the tv during the ads, even during a conversation. They go to the bathroom at the recap part of the show. I think TV ads are crafted to create a partial attention.

>>rglull+T1
I do think it kind of works that way. Take a look at who is affected by blatantly fake news. It’s the people that grew up in an era where there were just a few “legitimate” news sources. People who grew up with misinformation just laugh it off.

Not saying fake news has no effect on young people but it’s definitely a huge difference.

>>sircas+(OP)
I know its anecdotal, but I grew up only having air channels (4 in total, all state-owned) that had crazy long ad-spaces, something like 15 minute intervals of _just_ ads, and 10 min of contents (series with 28 minute episodes had an hour of airtime here, half their runtime was ads). I completely filter them out, always have.

When I watch TV (seeing a boxing match, or a movie when at my in-laws' house), and an advertisement space is coming up, the TV magically turns much louder, blasting some jingle and colorful bursts, but I automatically stand up to go to the loo or get drinks or something.

With streaming services, it's something else entirely. I must skip them, I get this discomfort in me, an urge to make the obvious text-to-speech ad that was auto-generated to tick my keywords shut up immediately. I wonder if it is because its targeted to me directly, or if it is because I have the ability to make it shut up, that I get this boiling sensation in my head when they come up.

Still, I'd never pay for something like Spotify Premium or Youtube Premium just to get rid of them. Even if it were just a buck, I wouldn't do it.

>>rglull+T1
In a way, becoming allergic to the ads is the cure -- you need to immediately recognize the toxicity that stems from the emotional (rather than logical) appeals and the manipulative tactics companies use to undermine your own happiness and convince you to buy their products.

At this point I can't even go to a sports bar for a drink because being bombarded by that many ads is a legitimately stressful experience. If I'm visiting a family member who leaves the TV on in their living room, I ask if we can turn it off -- or mute it and leave the room. But I don't view these as problems: I'm recognizing a negative thing in my reality and trying to cut it out. I imagine it like a bug problem: I won't go to a bar where cockroaches are crawling all over the walls, or hang out in a room where a bunch of cockroaches are nesting in the corner. Ads are the same thing, but you have to be much vigilant to keep them out of your life because so many people have gotten used to them.

I hope folks start educating their kids at an early age to loathe ads. Middle schools and high schools ought to dissect ads in a dedicated (health?) class that showcases the manipulation tactics companies use to control viewers. But parents can do the same thing, knowing that school systems take literal centuries to adapt to new technology.

>>sircas+(OP)
Anecdotally... since that's all we have right now anyhow... my kids grew up in a similar situation, where I paid money for things and refused to pay money for ad-laden content, and they're almost oblivious to the ads. So far the only ads that have resulted in me being asked for things are things we would have ended up with anyhow. E.g., they both played and enjoyed Mario vs. Rabbids on the Switch, and they ended up seeing an ad for it and were interested. But I already knew about it and it was going to end up purchased anyhow. (Though I've told them I am likely to wait for it to go on sale.) I have not been bombarded with a laundry list of requests when they go to the grandparents (where they end up watching hours of TV, alas) or something.

(Note I set the bar at "I was asked for something." I'm not claiming they're 100% mathematically immune to ads, anymore than I or anyone else is. Just that it wasn't like a forest fire charging through rich ground for the first time.)

>>yunwal+B3
> People who grew up with misinformation just laugh it off.

It does not make them immune to other types of disinformation or manipulation tactics. To think that you are so smart to be beyond that is just hubris.

>>kimber+y2
Unless they're using uBlock of course.

>>sircas+(OP)
Anecdotal data but I do not watch ads.

When I occasionally see one (usually at restaurants or such), it's.. weird? People in ads don't talk like real people. The timing and intonation and facial expressions are all off.

I think my lack of exposure to ads has made them feel very alien to me.

>>kimber+y2
Anecdotal, but my 17yo is currently taking a marketing class in high school. I don’t not how much media literacy that includes.

>>rglull+R7
> Not saying it has no effect on young people

Please read the comment before replying

>>yunwal+Rm2
Please don't write comments with bold assertions (younger people are less susceptible to ads because they are more familiar with the internet) and then use sneaky caveats to try to back off of those assertions.

>>rglull+aF2
My assertion is that there is a huge difference between how easy it is to manipulate someone who grew up with ubiquitous marketing vs. someone that did not. Enough that it will become a defining part of generational gaps. The only reason you think I’m backing off of my assertion is because you’re putting words in my mouth

>>yunwal+oP9
> huge difference between how easy it is to manipulate someone who grew up with ubiquitous marketing vs. someone that did not.

That is an absurd assertion and you are showing an incredible amount of hubris if you think you are somehow "harder to manipulate because you've grown up with ubiquitous marketing".