zlacker

Let's talk about the modern world then. You want to get away from the grind of working for someone else and sustain yourself on your own.

Perhaps you could turn into a subsistence farmer making every home product you own on your own or in a small commune, or perhaps you and a group of employees could buy your existing employer.

But the other more realistic method is that you would start your own business so you no longer have to work for someone else.

19% of all American adults are starting or run a business. It's a very common way to make a living.

IMO the idea of removing advertising entirely would essentially entrench the status quo even further. People would only know brands like Coca-Cola, Tide, and Apple, the brands they knew about the day the ads shut off. There would be no chance for other companies to enter markets because they would have no realistic way of spreading the word about their alternatives, not even for small local businesses.

The proposal is not just radical, it's downright moronic if you've ever been in the shoes of owning your own company.

>>dangus+(OP)
> People would only know brands like Coca-Cola, Tide, and Apple, the brands they knew about the day the ads shut off.

I wouldn't be surprised if these brands are so dominant because they can afford to flood the country with ads.

>>sapphi+Xb
I am 50 and I can’t recall more than 3 ads between these three companies. especially apple… ads may get you first X customers but the reason tide/apple/cc are dominant is because they made shit that everyone wants.

coca cola is such a ridiculous product that there isn’t a situation/place/… on the planet where asking for one is odd. you can be in 876 star michelin seven-years-long-wait list restaurant as well as nastiest rats-on-your-should shithole and asking for coke would be the most normal thing

>>dangus+(OP)
But I think part of the article's point is less about banning all forms of spreading the word and more about dismantling the surveillance-driven, hyper-targeted ad economy that's become the default.

>>dangus+(OP)
> IMO the idea of removing advertising entirely would essentially entrench the status quo even further.

This doesn’t seem correct to me.

Products would still be searchable, but the wealthiest companies could no longer pay for placement or pay to have their brand name repeated endlessly so it’s on the tip of your tongue but you don’t know why.

People would still talk in their communities and share recommendations.

Reviews (unpaid) would still be a thing.

Markets (real and virtual) where you can compare competing products and make a decision wouldn’t go away.

>>interl+0v
That is really not what the article says at all. It is working in absolutes.

>>sapphi+Xb
This is true. Big brands that have advertisements all over like Coca-Cola do it precisely because their position is so saturated and dominant.

They need to remind you about them even though you already prefer them and know they exist because they want you to buy more than you would otherwise.

I still think a lack of advertising for smaller competitors really would be devastating. DuckDuckGo and Reddit achieved pretty amazing recent growth aided by major outdoor ad campaigns. These were sites that were not market leaders in their categories and had a lot of catching up to do.

>>barnab+BA
As one example, I think about how DuckDuckGo was able to grow to a decent size against an impossibly entrenched competitor aided by a large outdoor ad campaigns.

Reddit also grew more rapidly in recent years post-IPO for similar reasons. Reddit used to be more niche with fewer people even knowing it existed.

Knowing alternatives exist is half the battle. This fair comparison you hope people will make is just a hope without the ability to advertise. People have to know all possible alternatives exist in order for the market to be perfectly competitive.