Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

For me the real test is whether or not someone is trying to persuade other human beings towards a certain action. An action that is favourable for you.

This can be monetary of course. But this could also be ballot vote on election day. This could be a change in behaviour of people to drive less cars, but take the train instead. Or convince people that advertising should be banned for large corporates.

Marketing is the art and science of achieving behavioural changes to your benefit.




> For me the real test is whether or not someone is trying to persuade other human beings towards a certain action. An action that is favourable for you.

I think the test for me, at least for the kind of marketing/advertising that should be banned, is the passiveness of it.

If, while going through my day, I am interrupted by your billboard, banner ad, spam email, promotional app notification, street marketing person, etc. in an attempt to manipulate me into action, that is the thing that should be illegal.

If I walk into a shop and say "I'm looking for a camera", invite a business in to pitch for work, call somoene up for a quote, directly enter a query like "buy camera uk" into a search engine, etc. then I think that is ok. I have asked to be sold to, and I am mentally prepared for the fact of that happening (notwithstanding that certain techniques should maybe also not be allowed).


Ok I agree with that. Attention intrusion is a bad thing. It’s the worst form of advertising I’d argue.


Most in the ad game would see it as claiming behavioural changes to the benefit of clients in exchange for cash and reputation.

Marketing is as much about selling a vision to a client as it is about moving the public.

There are plenty of pointless rebranding campaigns.


Yes, we are always trying to have some effects on other people's behavior, but I don't think most people would say it's marketing. And maybe most important, quantity is a quality on itself. So, me as an individual trying to persuade another individual is a total different game than a big corporation trying to persuade millions of people. To give a more clear cut example, me having a look on the street is very different to mass surveillance.


Of course it’s convenient to define it the way it best fits your argument. I don’t blame you for that.

Quantity is of course relevant. But then again big corporations can do ANYTHING at a bigger scale than you and me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: