zlacker

Rallies aren't advertisements, now.

Well, I suppose that's one loophole.

It isn't as if companies can't hold rallies.

It isn't as if flash mobs don't exist.

And "spreading your message"... what do you think going viral is, exactly?

What is "viral marketing" to you?

>>msla+(OP)
"What _I_ do isn't advertising, because _I_ have the public and society's interest at heart!"

>>msla+(OP)
This is all very simple to dostinguish: did you pay or have any other kind of contract with the person talking about you/your product? Then it's an ad, and could be made illegal. Are you just talking to people and hoping you'll convince them to talk to others in turn? Free speech, perfectly fine.

>>tsimio+Nc
I mean… that means you can’t hire people to get signatures for petitions for the very thing you’re trying to get passed. I think their point is pretty fair.

>>msla+(OP)
Companies holding rallies is fine, as long as people outside the rally, in a public space, are not unwillingly confronted with ads. Organizing flash mobs as a way to do marketing should indeed be illegal if ads themselves are illegal.

>>snowe2+hf
Correct, you can't hire them or offer an award. You can ask for volunteers, relying on a smaller group of supporters built by word of mouth.

>>tsimio+Nc
If I'm in green tech can I set up a charity whose goal is to raise awareness of the problems of climate change and what we can do to fight it? I'll claim that I really care about it and that's why I'm in the solar business in the first place.

>>msla+(OP)
Note: the proposal being discussed is to ban advertising, not marketing.

>>verve_+pp
How are those different in your opinion?

>>idle_z+qi
That'd be the supersized network-effect, making it close to impossible to challenge incumbents.

Except by tricks "well, you provided free coffee to your volunteers, that's a form of payment, you're all going to jail".

>>singpo+Nz
Not the OP, but one way to look at it is:

All Advertising is Marketing, but not all Marketing is Advertising.

I think the distinction should be thought of as Marketing (not Advertising) is to inform customers that opt-in to the information. Usually, marketing (excluding the Advertising arm) is for the benefit of a willing participant, where-as Advertising is for the benefit of both the willing participant and also the Advertiser (& advertising media) against an unwitting participant/user.

An example could be a product, company, political candidate's website that has a calendar for upcoming events, information pages about the product, etc. This can include tacky graphics and UI/UX, or even strategic language to stand out and show "personality". What it can not have are advertising boxes for unrelated advertising injections that the user did not go to the website to learn about. That would then be a Marketing site with banned Advertisements. The same for the Marketed product, they can not Advertise on unrelated media; basically inserting itself against the users will (the Advertised product being placed/injected/"forced" upon the person/user).

>>luckyl+0E
Money for advertising is already a super sized network effect, making it difficult to challenge incumbents unless you're already rich,

Look, it's a radical idea and on its face, all at once, is impractical at the moment. So I suggest rather than pointing out the myriad of holes like shooting fish in a barrel, you give it the benefit of the doubt and roll around the ways it could work in your head. And what your online/offline experience would be if it were even 10% effective.

It already is that effective in a lot of the world with stricter advertising laws, and as a Canadian I do find the levels of advertising in the us landscape to be jarring. So there are examples

>>jbenin+dK
Money is much easier to combine though. You can convince 1000 people to each donate $100 and now you have a sizeable amount to run a campaign. Convincing _and coordinating_ 1000 people to each talk to five neighbors is _much_ harder, and much less effective since the messaging will be all over the place.

Strict regulation of ads is one thing, outlawing advertising is another. There are places that don't allow billboards and other street-level advertisement, but that's a long way from outlawing advertisements in general.

I get that it's a nice idea to many, but I follow a general rule of adding extra skepticism if the problems of some approach are absolutely obvious and the response to pointing them out is "don't worry about, that'll sort itself out, let's just do it". Especially when the collateral damage might be huge and the energy feels like "this will save us".

>>msla+(OP)
Stop being so pedantic. Everyone knows what the topic is about. "Ban advertising" is the goal and not the policy itself. Start with the obvious and unambiguous examples if you still want to act like this. Do you still disagree?