Bill Hicks on Marketing

> if someone says they’re in advertising I automatically hate them You might enjoy Bill Hicks’ take: [VIDEO]

"Email marketer here." It’s "spammer". Changing the word doesn’t make what you do less awful. (and check this nice video: [VIDEO] )

Bill Hicks does a good job of explaining my thoughts on the matter: [VIDEO] But on a more serious note, while I somewhat agree that not all marketing is evil, some absolutely is. I do not consider the marketing that cigarette companies did to knowingly hook kids on an addictive, cancer causing substance a good thing; I find it rather evil. Since it can be used for evil, I would rather make it as difficult as possible for them to use it against me. It might be a mostly pointless exercise, but it makes me feel better about it.

Ha! Reminds me of the late, great, Bill Hick’s seminal piece on marketers and advertisers: [VIDEO] I oft wonder how much disdain Bill Hicks would have for the tech bros and the Orwellian apparatus many large tech companies have created.

I would think the feeling that marketing as a whole, and advertising as part of it was a large social negative was prevalent enough that one would not have to explain it even if not everyone agrees. I mean it's common enough that Bill Hicks on the subject is pretty much a meme by this point [VIDEO] I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but if someone says advertising is a cancer on society or something like that I would not be like - whoa what particular belief system has led him to conclude this?!? - I would think, huh, they have that set of beliefs regarding advertising and marketing.

I formed the opinion a while ago that we should go a step further: ban advertising entirely (not exactly a new idea, Bill Hicks came first [1]). Billboards, TV ads, newspaper ads, paid-for articles, promoted Instagram content, all internet ads, everything. One of the main tenants of capitalism is that it naturally produces a meritocracy. Products which are of a higher quality or cheaper than their competitors should, in theory, sell better. Advertising in any form subverts that. More expensive and lower quality products can completely outsell competitors by out-advertising them, which fundamentally undermines capitalism. I do not believe that any limits can be imposed which will make a meaningful impact: banning individual forms of advertising which we think have gone too far will be a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Kill the industry entirely. [1] [VIDEO]

I doubt the only products you buy are cucumbers, tomatoes and gas. You've chosen your phone, laptop, car, and various other branded items. Advertising very likely played a role in your decisions there. How can you actually be sure that advertising doesn't work on you? Of course, you don't see an ad on TV for a new smart fridge and immediately jump out of your sofa, wallet in hand, to go buy it. But the key thing is that _nobody does_. That's not the point. The idea is that six months down the line when your fridge breaks irreparably and you're deciding between different brands, those ads will have an influence, and you won't realise it. People who think advertising doesn't work on them _are godsends to advertisers_. This article puts it quite well, although I don't agree with its conclusions[0]: "If you don’t believe advertising works on you, you are going to be more likely to see good advertising as something else entirely and be more receptive to it and thusly more likely to take the action I want you to take." There was a study a few months ago which found that people who think they are immune to advertising are more susceptible to it than average, but I can't find a link. It was one of the things that changed my opinion on this: I also used to think I was not susceptible to most advertising, but this is a dangerous mentality. You just don't think you're susceptible. I've come around to thinking Bill Hicks was completely right on this [1] Also with the Metromile point, tha

Correct. This fact is well known and exploited by those with the means and interest to reach a political goal, accrue wealth, and gain or stay in power, i.e. corporations, governments and advertisers. The internet is a playground for this crowd, and they couldn't have asked for a better tool. It's incredibly ironic that the same adtech and social media built by western societies, sources of so much pride and prosperity, is legally and knowingly used by both internal and external enemies to influence their governments in any way they please, without leaving any trace of who did it, or what they exactly did to begin with, since it happens on long timescales with millions of small "attacks". It's the ultimate weapon. As to how we get out of it? It's difficult putting the genie back in the bottle now. We can educate people about critical thinking and disinformation, but that will only reach those who are open to hear it. We can regulate social media platforms, but we run into a few problems: a) governments have no idea how they work or how to even begin enforcing regulation, b) corporations will never agree to self-regulate since it directly impacts their growth interests, and c) even if they do agree, it's an incredibly difficult technical challenge. I think the solution lies somewhere involving all of the above. I think we all have to live with this now, as it's only going to get worse before, and if, it gets better. Also, this is a good start: [VIDEO]