On: Privacy washing: Google claims to support privacy while lobbying against it

[bostik]

Not immoral. Just potentially counterproductive.

I've taken a stance, DECADES ago, that all ads are telegraphing a very simple message: "my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits, therefore I have to spend money to drown out the more worthy options".

[xyzelement → bostik]

//my offering is not good enough to be discovered on its own merits

That's kinda like assuming that because you're such a good guy, you never have to leave your basement and your future wife will find you.

You could just as well interpret advertising as "I am so convinced my offering is good, I am willing to spend money for you to become aware of it."

[gretch → bostik]

> Just potentially counterproductive.

It is definitely not counterproductive. Mountains of evidence and real $ back the fact that advertising works.

You have a quirky pocket theory

If you want to conduct an experiment, try making a product or starting a business and don't advertise it.

[bostik → gretch]

I wasn't trying to claim it didn't work. That's the whole point of it: to drown out other options. Hence for me advertising is a major negative signal as far as quality or suitability for purpose is concerned.

It's like being in the countryside, where each inn and resting spot has a fire going on. You can spot them by their smoke trails. Then some entrepreneurial individual wants to grab market share from the punters and puts up a massive tire fire. A billowing column of black smoke will be seen from way further off, and as luck would have it, blocks visibility to anything behind it. It also makes the surrounding environment worse off for everyone.

And anyone who is attracted by the big flames will soon find themselves inhaling toxins.

[sambazi → bostik]

now stretch that analogy and substitute the valuable service (lodging) for something benign, like astrology or pet barber.