zlacker

Come on. There is a massive difference between an ad that optimistically emphasizes the best aspects of a real product or service and an ad for a fake product or service that will take your money and leave you with essentially nothing.

>>D13Fd+(OP)
Yes there is a massive difference, you are correct. Also, most of the ads do not fall into that category.

>>63stac+e1
I remember back in the good old days (so like 2008) you'd visit the some bigco website looking for specs on some item and then later you'd see their products in your banner ads. Times were so simple back then.

>>D13Fd+(OP)
I think the poster is lamenting the general quality of all advertised products in general. If it's a brand of good quality (Miele, Henry, DeLonghi) it probably does not need to be advertised, as word of mouth and price point is generally enough.

>>D13Fd+(OP)
I agree there exist many shades of grey

>>tcfhgj+J3
50, actually.

>>tetris+J1
Maybe. Stealing ad space from a competitor may be in itself valuable.

Another metric comes to my mind: if a newcomer has money to spend on ads, then it's a stable firm.

I'm sure there are more.

>>tetris+J1
>If it's a brand of good quality (Miele, Henry, DeLonghi) it probably does not need to be advertised, as word of mouth and price point is generally enough.

what about iPhones? They're ubiquitous enough that Apple probably doesn't need ads to let people know they exist, yet every at launch ads for them are plastered everywhere. Same with soft drinks and cars, just to name a few. Before you say "iPhone sucks", the same can be said for basically all other phone OEMs, and if your theory allows categorizing an entire industry as crap, your theory is basically unfalsifiable.

>>gruez+t4
I would guess that a company like Apple (or Miele or whatever) pays some attention to the context in which their advertisements appear. I don't think they'd want an advertisement for iPhone to appear online with a weight loss pill on the left and a gambling site on the right.

>>gruez+t4
> if your theory allows categorizing an entire industry as crap, your theory is basically unfalsifiable

Or maybe, just maybe, the entire industry is crap and so many people are complicit such that it becomes a self-sustaining problem.

>>tetris+J1
> If it's a brand of good quality (Miele, Henry, DeLonghi) it probably does not need to be advertised, as word of mouth and price point is generally enough.

Nah, they advertise (probably) for a similar reason as car brands do, to make the people who bought it already feel better and more reassured about their choice.

Also, obligatory "lucky 10k" xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1053/

>>inetkn+V7
>and so many people are complicit such that it becomes a self-sustaining problem.

If you're defining "ads" to be a "problem", then it turns the statement into a meaningless tautology. Only crappy brand use ads, because brands that use ads are crappy.

>>gruez+t4
In the case of iPhones specifically--which I see a lot more ads for than appliances--people do upgrade phones a lot more frequently than appliances, especially major ones, often for specific capabilities like cameras. So reminding people they don't have the latest and greatest makes a lot of business sense.

>>sofixa+49
I'm guessing high-end appliance brands are enough of a niche market that it just doesn't make sense for them to advertise in relatively unfocused ways. You'll see plenty of ads for high-end appliances and cookware if you frequent gourmet-oriented websites and magazines.

>>D13Fd+(OP)
It's legal to advertise real products or services that will take your money and leave you with essentially nothing.

For example:

- gambling, e.g. slot machines, sports betting

- healing crystals

- palm readings

- carnival games

Perhaps the right distinction is whether something is legally a fraud or not. But I kind of agree that most ads are scams and also that ad networks don't have the ability to separate legal scams from fraud. So I just block them all.

>>fiftee+d4
There could be more! The title doesn't specify they're the only ones.

>>ants_e+Kb
Yes, these scams have aleays been there. The distinction was that advertisers like newspapers and magazines had a standards body that would reject ad placements that were insulting to their audience's intelligence.

>>tetris+J1
I should start by saying that I find ads incredibly irritating in any form. That said, Miele and DeLonghi are both more than a hundred year old companies. Maybe they don't need to advertise because they have such solidly establish brand identities, but they do advertise and they have advertised throughout their history as companies. Ads are a way of maintaining brand awareness, introducing new products, and creating demand. Even if you have an incredibly solid product with good word of mouth there is still benefit to advertising it.

>>tetris+J1
Two of the three names are unknown to me. This word of mouth delivery did nothing to make me interested in any of the three though. I have no idea what any of them actually do. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader as how best to internet search "Henry".

>>fiftee+q4
This is something people don't credit enough. How many times have you search for something by name and received a direct competitor's product as top result? This is why I put no stock in digital ads for the little guy. The bigger guy will always have a larger ad buy budget and will outbid you at every turn.

>>saghm+Vc
Right, the title also doesn't state the bit depth the color values are stored. There could be 64, 128, 256, 1024, 64million shades. Data Inadequate. I'm really surprised this was missed on this forum!

>>D13Fd+(OP)
I'm willing to throw that away to get rid of the scammy ads. It would be nice if there were ad networks that were vigilant about who they let use their service, but "money", I guess. So adblockers it is.

>>dylan6+Vs
All 3 are appliance manufacturers. Miele and Henry are predominantly vacuum cleaner brands.

Henry hoovers are ubiquitous in the professional market in the UK and well regarded for durability, performance and the cute face all their cleaners have. Essentially anyone in the UK will have used, or seen one be used

>>rchaud+Tm
I know television is not newspapers and magazines, but they at least had to have some level of standards bodies (I'm fairly sure they at least did in the early 90s), and I remember Psychic Friends Network ads on tv which is clearly in the realm of palm readings. I guess maybe it wasn't insulting to the intelligence of people watching late night TV in the early 90s?

>>gruez+b9
> Only crappy brand use ads, because brands that use ads are crappy.

Hey, you're starting to get it, but not quite.

Only crappy brands use ads, because ads pollute my very valuable time, my very valuable window of vision, my very valuable hearing, and my very valuable sanity in trying to stay safe against malware hiding in advertisements. That's on top of wasting my valuable money convincing me to buy things that I don't want to buy.

If a brand really wants me to use their product, then make a great product and show off its features in demos, at conferences, and it will eventually get to me by word of mouth. One friend showing me how a product has improved their life is worth at least five-figure digit counts of ads shown to me, if not six-figure counts.