What if there was no advertising? | George Nimeh | TEDxVienna
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лис 2015
- Every month, over 200 million people are forcefully telling the world that they hate online advertising. Is anyone listening? And more importantly, is anyone doing anything about it?
More information on www.tedxvienna.at
George is a digital entrepreneur and an award-winning innovator in advertising and communications. He has worked with top brands, global agencies and startups for 20 years. And probably like you, he doesn’t like most advertising he sees online.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
I pay $225 a month for cable AND internet and still get thousands of unrelenting ads. Paying for service used to be a way to get away from ads. That’s gone. Back in the 80s they used to promote cable as “ad free”.
The average American sees 5000 ads a day. It’s crazy. It explains why we are consumers of everything. We are programmed to SPEND
No ad forces you to spend, tho! That has to do with questioning every purchase decision and purposely NOT giving in.
making a virginity joke at the start and no one laughed
happens
I loathe advertising. It wastes my time. Let's recognize nothing is really free, and we pay for content with repetitious, bandwidth hogging, obnoxious advertising. There has to be a better way.
I think atleast personally the way to improve this for all parts are:
1: Remove or atleast shorten intrusive ads. These are the ads you see before and during YT videos etc. Ads that are physically in the way of you doing what you want. Thought experiment: Would you mind an ad of this nature as much if it were 3 seconds long instead of 15?
2: Lessen the size and quantity of other ads on the internett, like the ones you see on newspages etc, so they're there, but not visually in your way.
3: The ads you see walking down the street doesn't bother you a lot right? We can keep those.
With these implements, I think people would become friendlier towards ads. That means more clicks, more traffic and generally a healthier society imo.
I agree. Heck, I wouldn't mind watching a 30-second commercial, but don't bore me to death by making me watch a 3-minute-long UA-cam ad. Also, the people who make those stinkin' prescription drug ads in the US should be sent to room 101 where they will be forced to sit and watch nothing but those blasted ads for hours on end with no other distractions to take their minds off the monstrosities they have created.
Also make them a variety of subjects, not just delivery apps. At least for me, cable TV does it a lot better than UA-cam.
The only thing I could disagree with is how short ads should be. 3 seconds may seem a little too short for some ads, especially ones about movies, shows and games. Maybe 5-7 seconds would make more sense.
Part of the reason that the ads on the internet are so bad, especially these days, is not that there is too many of them. It's that they're low quality, and even oftentimes straight up scams. Even legitimate ads from reputable companies are still terrible on the internet compared to how they appear on other platforms. Think of how ads on TV (especially from before streaming services) were memorable and well thought-out, even if still sometimes very annoying. These ads are the ones that got people actually invested in companies, the ads that were so good, you'd unmute the TV to hear the ad every time it came on. This relates to how he even says that companies need to learn how to tell better stories that relate to consumers; companies already know how to do this but they just don't seem to see the point in doing it for the internet.
Not 40% of your business disappears. You get to keep 40%of revenue spent irritating those who said "no, means NO". "I don't want ad's. Stop making me vow to never deal with you."
Stop paying to make people hate you.
Despite the fact that there are many adverts on the internet these days, I think actually many people tend to ignore them, or at least that is my experience. People usually go onto the internet to find something specific that they are looking for, which may be a product, or to read about something, so they will ignore what is not relevant to that.
I think it's like fishing. They throw the net hoping one or two people would buy (depends on the product) others just want to be normalized.
There's a reason youtube red has no ads. You're paying to become the customer, not the part-customer part-product hybrid you are as a free user, force-fed ads on the videos you watch. While I agree that paying for services you find to be either useful or of good quality or both, it's never the easy thing to do, like some people in here taking it all for granted.
A free internet is not Free.
What is UA-cam Red? I have UA-cam Premium and they have no ads, except when I go directly to an ad so I can analyze it, lol.
Not my problem. Make it free.
Not true, while it disables some adds, it leaves all the adds that content creators put in themselves. Subscription reminders, sponsored videos, merch messages...
@@thetickedoffpianoplayer4193 their comment was 5 years ago, when youtube premium was called youtube red
@@akshaynatu6568deal with ads then 😂
"Telling stories is more fun than advertising" - using a huge Red Bull ad as an example. Meh.
Really good ads, as rare as they are, are actually genuinely fun to watch. Usually they pull this off by telling a good story. That much is true but it's not new.
Not everybody can afford an ad like that Red Bull one. It should be doable with significantly less budget.
But the main problem I have with ads - even good ones - is their sheer frequency. You tend to see the same darn ad every few minutes over and over again. It becomes boring. Some ads are produced like mini-serials. The better ones of those actually accomplish something interesting: They sometimes make me look forward to new installments of them. "What happens next?" - if the turnover rate is high enough and I'm not forced to watch the exact same thing a billion times repeatedly per felt second for a felt hour a piece, ads suddenly become a huge deal more comfortable.
There don't have to be _no_ ads. Just make existing ads less painful and less painfully repetitive.
+Kram1032 Hello! Thanks for the comment. ... I think you're one of the first people I know ever to use the phrase "meh" associated with Red Bull. I used them as an example not only because they do interesting work, but also because I worked there. :-) ... And yes, frequency is a problem. The retargeting industry is making that worse. In terms of cost, well, everything needs to fit within a budget. My bet is that if companies decide to do a little less crap and more storytelling, they'll find the funds within their existing budgets. ... If you're around, perhaps you can let me know who's behind "Kram1032", and we could meet for a coffee to chat about it sometime.
Oh nice, thanks for your reply :)
That "meh" wasn't directed against Red Bull per se. I don't have anything against Red Bull. - nor for it, nor for any other soft or energy drink out there. I don't drink them, generally. I am one of the few people who actually genuinely prefers water. I don't drink coffee either, for instance. (Though I do drink tea or hot chocolate)
I will say that Red Bull ads tend to be among the better out there. They tended to be pretty fun, rather frequently.
The meh was more about your saying that this huge organized event was somehow not a (very elaborate) ad.
It was, of course, played big as some kind of technical achievement. And there is a big "awesome"-factor behind it. But the actual scientific value was questionable at best - mostly it was a confirmation, not an actual new result.
In so far was it a story. But the real reason for it clearly was a publicity stunt for Red Bull.
I don't think of this as something negative, mind you (although I will say all the money that that must have cost would have been better spent elsewhere. But then I can't say that I myself always concern my own spendings with what would be technically best for me or the world and as far as I know RB actually does quite a bit of good especially in terms of sponsoring sports of all kinds)
I simply didn't quite buy the particular point of view you presented in this video. (It is by no means completely wrong though.)
+Kram1032 It was totally an ad. Never said otherwise. It's storytelling vs banners/posters/prerolls, etc, and that's better. It broke records, btw. So somehow, it was a new result ... a human achievement. (But that's not really the point I was making.) ... I really appreciate your input and feedback. No coffee, eh? ... Wine, then? :-)
+@iboy I know it wasn't your point. It was just a minor thing that bugged me about this presentation. I'm not sure I have all that much more insight to share. I am interested in sustainable ways to fund the internet and know of a bunch of proposals of varying realism and reasonability.
I'm a bit surprised that you want to meet me over a single comment. What would such a meetup entail? I'm not sure if I had the time right now, but perhaps. Though I should tell you that I'm much better at discussing things online, where I can take my time and think of a reply more carefully, than I am in person. (It's also nice to me to be able to reply in long comments like this one, although I occasionally also challenge myself to say something meaningful in a super short format like Twitter. Though even there, even with just 140 characters, it takes much longer to compose them than it would in speech. And not because I'm such a slow typer - no I actually think I'm fairly fast at that - but rather because I take my time to think of a response and restructure it a lot before I hit "send." - If I'm in the mood anyway. The vast majority of my tweets and YT comments definitely isn't like that.
What follows is an essay of various emerging systems that try to tackle online ads in one way or another.
Right now, more and more pages are working to introduce direct donations or monetary subscriptions for the privilege of not having to suffer through ads. There are different ways in which that might be done, some of which you mentioned.
Some sites like, most recently, UA-cam, are going for a model wherein they grant *premium adfree access* only for people who pay a fee. This could potentially work for everybody although I'm a little concerned about the incentives that this may or may not cause, especially in cases of almost monopolic sites like UA-cam. (I mean, yeah, there is Vimeo, but is that _really_ comparable?) - Since it's almost the only site most people go to for videos (At least in case of open internet access and barring any special content YT will not host. I'm not sure how big YT is in, say, China), this new program could potentially cause them to actually _increase_ the amount of ads shown on the main page or to add in other nagging inconveniences just so people move to UA-cam Red. - Now I don't think they won't do that right away. But they might eventually. I tend to be more pro-Google than most people out there but I wouldn't entirely trust them to never ever go that route. (This method is better for places that do have actual competition. In that case, one place changing in a bad way will only serve to get people to move to another place. To some extent anyway.)
Next there is the *grass-roots* method which isn't actually the websites taking action themselves but it puts further pressure on them to change: Sites like Patreon have caused many a creator to actually turn off ads on their channels for UA-cam. By cutting the middleman they get a much better percentage rate of income directly from their greatest fans. Of course, this means UA-cam _further_ loses ad revenue and they have a strong incentive to get creators to show ads anyway, and most other places won't even allow to deactivate ads in the first place. That might have been yet another reason why they went for YTR.
Sites like Brain Pickings or Wikipedia which attempt to remain completely *adfree through donations* . This is the most ideal variant but it's hard to imagine that this could ever work for all of the internet. Especially smaller sites, unless they happen to have _really_ dedicated users, won't be sustainable that way.
A particularly idealistic notion is the idea of the internet as a right. Some places already begin to discuss or implement the first level of that: Broadband connections of some minimum guaranteed speed must be available for _every_ citizen of _x_ . However, this right could be extended. What if websites are actually tax-funded to remain adfree? It's not clear to me that this would be a good idea. For some websites it would definitely be a terrible idea. But if a good deal can be made that way, maybe, just maybe, it's not actually terrible. This idea definitely comes with a ton of caveats though.
And finally there are much more radical ideas which propose to have *no ads, period* and to fund websites in an entirely other way. These are largely still in the making and if they ever take off it'll likely be years if not decades from now.
They are a general movement towards saver, more secure, faster, more robust and less ad-dominated internet.
Most such projects basically are about combining the ideas behind bit-torrent and bitcoin into one coherent program.
The idea, as far as I understood, is to
- have a bitcoin style blockchain to pay for access. By providing connections, people "mine" some sort of cryptocurrency, by using those connections, people leave them behind like breadcrums.
- have data be indexed not by location but by content. You use this trustfree network established by the blockchain to find the version of a given file that's closest to you, minimizing the time it takes to download it. You can get a single file from hundreds of locations at once, like you would with a torrent. Instead of doing this with just single files, you actually can host entire websites this way. To make updates possible and always ensure the newest version to be downloaded, you can once again refer back to the above blockchain method to reach consensus.
The entire system would be peer-to-peer and could really cut down on unnecessarily repeated traffic and thus increase capacity and speed by a lot while also being much saver than the current mess of protocols are, and it could be completely ad-free, given the corresponding digital currency is valued high enough.
(Disclaimer: This is merely as far as I understood the idea now. There may or may not be deep flaws with the above description. Take with a grain of salt. That being said, various working proofs of concept _already_ are up and running. Most of those tend to be hard to use but there also is a push for doing all of this accessibly so things are improving in that regard as well.)
With the caveat that some if not all of those have their own set of problems, I'm very much for seeing more of such changes for a better internet. Especially appealing to me are the ones that end up working for everybody regardless of payment. But they also are the unlikeliest ones.
Oh and by the way, perhaps ironically, while I'd love to see ads go away, I'm also a supporter and user of Tab for a Cause - the whole point of which is to use ad views for charity. In that particular instance, I actually suffer through ads without any directly obvious benefit to me. (Though ironically twice over, Tab for a Cause doesn't even have that many ads on screen. There are websites that squeeze more of them on a single page)
i see 2 years has passed since your conversation, have you stumbled across any more alternatives to ads since then? warm regards
4:47 - How many people here using adblock?
EVERYONE LIFTED THEIR ARMS
Brought to you by Mazda. XD
Same thought, that was funny
We quit watching ads years ago. None. We record everything and fast forward the ads. If there is a show that we want to watch, but fast forwarding is disabled, we simply don't watch it.
I think you see more than you think. Not sure if that is a good thing, but I think it's true.
@@blogospheric Yes, I agree. The video is still there, fast, but there. There are images that are still shown, but I don't have to listen to the BS. What bugs me is that they have to show the same ads every break time after time. I don't know if any ad has ever influenced me into buying their product anyway.
Brilliant speech! Good message from the speaker from Austria.
Thanks very much Ruth! That's very nice of you. :-)
Thank you
Brilliant talk
Thanks Pat. :-)
The good thing about this video : No Advertisements
hhhhh
OK, I will try it.
Except now because of this idea that advertising should tell stories, we are dealing with "native" ads corrupting news content and sponsored content infiltrating media content. I wish like he said, there were easier ways for us to fund media outright.
Thanks for your comment! Native advertising is nothing new. Magazines, newspapers, and TV have been full of "advertorials" for decades. State-funded media is one way out of this, if you are specifically referring to news/media content. For the other stuff, I think a new (mostly paid) model is emerging. Content Marketing and other creator-driven solutions will continue to play a massive role in monetizing new platforms, such as UA-cam, Insta, TikTok and others. (And I know. UA-cam is not "new", but it is "new" relative to old-school linear/offline channels.) What do you think?
@@blogospheric that's a good point about advertorials, but yes I am specifically concerned about advertising leaking into journalism. I personally don't think state funded is a great idea because I view an important aspect of journalism as being "the forth estate" - or almost a forth branch that protects and works on behalf of the people, informing them about what is going on in government. I think non profit or subscription-based models for news are good ways to adequately fund it without excessive interference. Philanthropic-funded agencies tend to take on the interests of their funder, and state-funded outlets would take on the agenda of the local government.
Apologies: I'm coming into this discussion very late; I just now saw the video. I enjoyed this video and wish the presentation could have been longer. As crazy as it might sound, I feel sometimes advertising has a way of melting into popular culture, for me at least-kind of like how you might reference a funny memorable moment from a TV show or film. I'm not necessarily against advertising, but I oppose what it has done to our landscapes and Internet "experience." I feel most reasonable people can be understanding of basic Internet advertising. But it's the ads that completely hijack your browser that make people crazy. Ads that fade out your current screen only to display one humongous, full-screen ad, or a mandatory 15-second commercial before I can see a three-minute video on UA-cam. I could go on and on. Lol.
Hi Jason. It's definitely part of pop culture. The Super Bowl ads are probably the easiest examples, but there are many others. Ads as online memes (like Chuck Norris). Videos (like #squattypotty and now #chatbooks) which capture the attention of millions of people and create conversation. Or larger content efforts (like The Beauty Inside or almost everything that Red Bull does) become pop culture. ... And I don't think that's a bad thing. On the contrary, I'd rather have that than a pop-up-pop-over-full-screen-tiny-x-can't-close-it-accidentally-clicked-on-it mobile banner any day. ;-) ... Anyway, thanks for stopping by.
Yes, absolutely. I wonder: do Internet advertising content creators even like ehat they're doing to the Internet?
Imagine how the crowd would react in a stand- up comedy show
I dread the thought. Eek. ;-)
Congratulations George!
+VisualCommunicator Thanks!!
Interesting and funny facts, however no answer on the given question.
+Andreas Kranzl 1) Encourage donations, crowdfunding and new subscription formats and 2) create content and stories instead of ads. I mentioned this at the end of the talk, but perhaps it does not come through strong enough in the video. Anyway, thanks for watching! :-)
A lot of time being spent on talking about the problem (which is indeed really abysmal) and not a lot of time spent talking about the proposed solutions.
It's not that he didn't give an answer ,it's that your mind skipped the answer because you were not convinced.Your mind was still waiting for a better answer.
The reason people don't click your ads its because they are stupid ads that nobody wants and can afford.
When i "started paying for the internet" I didn't expect to be flooded with ads...
I paid for a service not to watch ads...
I "blame" the service providers for not using the correct prices in order to make internet sustainable...
It's always the same, when they get greedy here come the ads...
I start wondering if id rather not have service instead having one but we ads, and i say this because if we actually paid for the free stuff, it would create competitive sites/services.
people would focus more in satisfaction of the client instead making profits, because one would lead to the other.
but you have "no way" to tell if you are paying for a REAL service or being scammed.
I think this would be better if he spent less time talking about the sorry state of advertising on the Web and more time talking about alternative forms of revenue.
Thanks Trevin. Looking back, I think that's true. I love a good rant, however. ;-) ... And I also didn't want it to be a pitch for some new product or service. I wanted to provoke thought and a dialogue. ... But I really do get your point.
He mentions a few different ways actually, just a lot more general and more subtle than the negative state of advertising. He mentions promoting content through amazing stories told in videos - giving users the option to pay for no ads vs ads - providing content with no ads but asking users if they like it and want continued content to please consider donating. So those are right there are three very solid alternatives that are already in place and have a more proven track record of success.
Lovely video content! Sorry for the intrusion, I would appreciate your initial thoughts. Have you heard the talk about - Miyatalie Social Saccade (should be on google have a look)? It is a good exclusive guide for discovering how make money on the internet using this simple traffic technique minus the normal expense. Ive heard some decent things about it and my cousin finally got cool results with it.
It's called Communism, and it comes in many forms.
Instablaster...
I love ads and have pretty much since I could speak. Anyone who knows me knows that if there's an ad playing I'm going to analyze it. Today, though, most of the commercials are just long and boring and just make me want to throw something, and if you're on a website and you get banner ads all they do is clog up your screen. If they want us to watch their ads, they should make them like they were in the 80s and 90s.
Hey, I sympathisers with you. I find it interesting to know what companies have come up with and love analysing the concept’s behind ads. And just because I saw an ad, doesn’t mean I’m gonna buy a product. Companies wouldn’t put up those ads if they didn’t generate conversions after all…
Without ads.......... Everyone will be in heaven B)
Thank you all very much
Than you
Good speech with really nice background pics!
+Walter Reich Thanks Walter! :-)
Well, what I'd like is advertising that doesn't track me from site to site and by a plethora of trackers. I'm fine with ads that are ~10-15 seconds on youtube and unskippable, but more than that and it gets obtrusive, especially on mobile. Also, one idea I've been pondering is ads targetting a website's audience, instead of the audience individually. Say, you go to ifixit and get ads based around tools to fix things instead of concert tickets you were looking for earlier.
I am okay with advertising, I just want less tracking, less targetting, and more courtesy with ads. :) Perhaps that IS asking too much :/
Thanks for the comment! ... Part of the problem is that the monetization of generic/untracked ads is too low and too uninteresting for most publishers and advertisers. And the other problem is that people want everything for free. So, a public unwilling to pay for content (or whatever) plus low-value generic ads results in the "need" to track and monetize data. ... Do you complain about being logged in on UA-cam or Facebook? ... They're tracking everything you do and monetizing it as best as they can. ... And if you are complaining, would you pay $5/month for an ad-free experience?
*gets an ad on this video*
I love pandoras idea. Watch an ad for 15 seconds and you get an hour ad free
I hate, no, no, I HATE all forms of advertising. I resent them for existing. I hate the idea of other people designing an attractive hook to get more people to click so their bosses can buy another yacht. We don't need it. We don't want it. It helps no one.
I agree with some of that, but, just to pick one tiny example: It helps creators on UA-cam and all over the place. So, if you like Casey or whatever, he's there because he can make a living from it.
So, you don’t own a smartphone/IPhone I presume? How did you even find UA-cam if not through advertisement? I bet you’re quite happy about some of the products/services you found through ads. The real question is: Isn’t it too much, the insane amount we’re bombarded with today?
Vienna .....also advisting now
Adapt or die. I will never pay for any news service. nor will I waste a significant amount of my time watching unskippable ads on youtube.
Liked it
Mian Mujeeb ur Rehman Thanks very much!
@youtube? Maybe you should watch this
YES! :-)
Advertising works when done right. It builds businesses and is responsible for millions of dollars in profit.
Advertising doesn't generate money.. it simply diverts profits away from other companies. Advertising is fundamentally a shopkeeper going out into the street and telling people to come into his shop, instead of the one next door. There's still the same amount of money floating around the economy. What would happen if those advertisers spent their time and money on something more useful? ..like research and development perhaps. The products would sell themselves, and we'd be far further advanced than we are now. When people need a product, they go in search of it; they don't need to be shouted at. I pay £12 a month for YT Premium, and a small amount into a shared family Netflix account. Haven't watched an ad in years.
@@alexgravelle164you speaking about something you know nothing about. You wrote all that just to say nothing.
People would actually be forced to make conscious decisions about where and on what they spend their money
Possibly, yes.
TEDs vina also advisting
I will do whatever it takes to avoid ads.
"Oh there will be nothing if there are no ads."
Fine, I'll live with that.
Right before the video a ad came on
Jay Rain That irony has not been lost on me, either. 😉
so true, always thought biggest mistake of the internet was that everything was free at the start.
+Chantal Duchene ... In the 80s/early 90s, no one in the media business ever expected it to be anything other than a hobby, so they gave it away for free ... That's the "Original Sin", and we've been paying the price ever since.
+@iboy the internet started as a backbone between universities and in science it is common to share information for free for the good of mankind. one of the biggest points was to create an decentralized network that belongs to nobody and will work even when a node is failing. so i guess it gets down to political questions too - e.g. what we want to provide as a society for free.
+@iboy & thanks for the entertaining talk about this tricky question.
+Evamaria Trischak It also has a strong history with the military, but that's for another talk I guess. ;-) ... I think what's important - paramount, actually - is protecting a free and open internet that provides for access for as many (all, eventually) people across the globe. I agree with the notion of a decentralized network. I also (definitely) agree that it belongs to no own ... and to everyone. ... The big questions to me: What value to we put on it? What are we willing to do to keep it open and free. What are we willing to do to make sure it does not become corrupted (more) than it already is. How can a commercial internet coexist and survive/thrive in this environment.
+Evamaria Trischak ps: Sorry for taking so long to reply ... I just saw your comment. :-)
Payment system online also advisor
Well now we have patreon
Good thing, isn't it? :-)
Me gusta
A would without Ads will be a world where all people use Vimeo or UA-cam Plus when they want to watch videos online, your favorite news sites will give you the news for this week for free but all other more in-depth articles will require a subscription. Instead of more than your now hundreds of flow TV channels on your television, you will only have a few “high quality” channels for the same price as today ;) but without Ads. And the Radio xD will properly be more or less dead if not your government will keep some of them alive. On the other side an entire sector that creates no value for the ordinary citizen will be replaced with jobs that actually are appreciated by the citizens and which do not only exist because the competitors also use them. In short term, the world will not be worse than it’s today, it will just be “different”
Yep. And for more, see "Net Neutrality".
I already pay for internet.
True, dat. Unfortunately, ISPs don't care much about it, however. And, unfortunately, Net Neutrality is still being threatened which will only make matters worse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you, you inspired me to make a donation to brainpickings.org
+Clifton Isaacs That's awesome!
Actually those are called Native Ads, and have existed for thousands of years
Advertorials have been around for a long long time. That's true. But, I think authentic storytelling is different than advertorials.
Ads is one of the most dangerous cancer of the society. Not just that is bad looking or anything but it is taking our free will from us by telling us how to act and what to do.
Donation is a way better business model but then all non-essential for humanity business would be down in a couple of months (maybe for the best actually)
True
Sounds good , doesn't work .
No one would pay
this guys wearing skate shoes 😄
Content buble would be an extreme problem.
Do you mean overload? ... As in, if everyone switches from ads to stories, we'd be flooded?
I mean our choices are 100% limited by what we know, the best song is the best song between the ones we heard as some example. What we like is also influencied by what we think can exist, there are some stuff we wouldnt even think about searching to see if it exist or how it is.
Advertisement is a way to force us to discover new things, things that we sometimes wouldnt even think that it could exist (and so research to see if it exist or not). Without it, you we would live in a content bubble where we like what we know and and we search mostly for things related to what we know.
George ......also advisting
What if there was "Tooo Much" Advertising in UA-cam videos?
He used the trololo video. Oh, my god.
Nicely spotted. :-)
TDS vinema also advisting
How about quality speaks for itself and we stop paying for people to lie to us?
You still have to be discovered, somehow. And that's my point: traditional ads don't work. Find something new.
#ADBLOCK, #ADBLOCKPLUS, #Ublock, for android #Adblock, #Adaway, #Adguard and no more ads ever :D
"if there was no advertising" well then we wouldn't have people paying to stand on stage at a TED talk (Because that's basically what TED is, advertisement)
Care to explain?
Not at all. They're educating an audience on their area of expertise, or expressing personal views on a particular topic. They're not selling a product.
is there was no advertising people would be a lot less annoyed, cant get rid of ads, that would make too much sense.
Didn't really get this video... no solution... great title though...
Thanks. Happy to discuss it with you, if you want. Sorry if it was not concise enough.
In what world is your chance of getting struck by lightening .03%? The odds of getting struck by lightening in your lifetime is 1 out 12,000 or 0.000083 or .0083%...hmmm deceptive already.
For the 200+ million people using an adblocker on desktop, the chance of clicking on a banner ad is 0%. Same thing for the 500+ million on mobile. Everything is relative.
Advisting this data and open my all photos before 2021Junarey 21 allow link photography app
The flaw in this is that people think they need advertising....theh dont. We dont need it. Its toxic to our society. Good products and services would become popular naturally because people would recommend it. Advertising dilutes that
We need to hear the story why this guy is wearing sneakers under a formal attire.
Jeans + a jacket = formal attire? Come on Ryan. Really? ;-)
Now rephrase that as a sales pitch for your brand of footwear
Did someone hire your are you The self appointed style police!!!!
As the Human race advances, we should move away from judging each other by what we ware! He is clean and presentable, and looks comfortable so what is wrong with that!!! He is not wearing a tie either, which to me is a sign of superior intelligence!!!
What would really happen if there was no ads?
We would spend more time with each other, visiting in person, looking on pictures in an album, talking about old stories, playing games, listening to CDs, having sex, read recipes in books, ...
Go to shops to buy stuff we really need or our friends have told us about.
+Andreas Kranzl ... Please, allow me to reply:
Do you really spend that much time looking/ignoring ads?
"We would spend more time with each other, visiting in person" ... because ads prevent this?
"looking on pictures in an album" ... I think we do this *more* now thanks to looking at photos together on our phones and sharing them with friends.
"talking about old stories, playing games" ... People read ... we play more games now. We have more free time than ever before.
"listening to CDs" ... What are those? ;-) ... I prefer streaming, though it seems hipsters prefer vinyl.
"having sex" ... I think that's possible with the TV on ... I may have even tried that once or twice. ;-)
"read recipes in books" ... I prefer recipes on my iPad or watching video instructions. My wife loves her cookbooks. I think it's all about personal preference. But, I don't think ads make it harder or easier to cook.
"Go to shops to buy stuff we really need or our friends have told us about" ... I agree with the recommendations. That is and always has been the most powerful way to "advertise" ... But does it matter if you go to shops? I love Amazon, and I used to love having our basic groceries delivered from Ocado instead of trudging to the store.
Thanks for letting me rant. :-)
All shops would be blank( painted white ), because any signs would be an advertisement.
eh, I guess. Except I think he's referring to ads that are in all aspects of life whether it's on the phone, driving, the mail, the radio, etc. Shops just contain the physical space of their products with a name of their company to help identify the proper business. Have to differentiate between ads and literal areas of consumerism.
I mean, making advertising more beautiful and pleasant for everyone is wonderful! And in fact I found some of the stories told by advertising beautiful or even moving a few times. Nevertheless, the goal, what is achieved with it, is far too often a completely different and not a good one, right? Selling more to keep the economy going sounds sensible, but a truckload of plastic per minute dumped into our oceans sounds awful. As do all the consequences of such environmental destruction, see pandemics and forest fires. I'd like to know how advertising can be designed in a different way, and perhaps for other purposes, so that the time we spend on it would have a more positive benefit for everyone - such as by supporting social projects. But yes, that is of course mostly wishful thinking and digresses into criticism of capitalism, I guess.
the take away: folks who have disposable income to 'donate' afford the luxury of not being annoyed constantly... Think the problem is much capitalism, not anyone's ability to tell stories and listen without consistent background noise
Support by google communitey guidelines
Are ads relevant? I don't buy things I saw from advertisement 100%.
hello this is great
559
The solution to this problem is basic income.
While that's an interesting topic, I'm not sure I see the connection. Can you be more specific?
Yep
Stop creating perverse incentives to win profit at any external cost In order to survive.
Without Advertising is possible because of Government Regulations in some cities in some countries such as in Saõ Paulo,Grenoble,Hawaii,Prince Edward Island,Paris and many others but the industry remained the same
Earth would be better off
Lol what face book is doing with their little ads! wtf
John DeMay Thanks for stopping by. 🙂 ... I think most successful "ads" on Facebook are closer to content (or content marketing) than banners and other "classic" online advertising. Don't you think?
Connect all photos before 2021 Junarey 21 allow link niw
I think youtube would be such better place if there where no ads and everything had to pay only a small amount
UA-cam red
@@richtigmann1 yes but it would be quite cheap and required
I say don’t even make people pay.
I think UA-cam should be funded by fossil fuel industry and regulated like a public utility
@@isidoreaerys8745 I agree! The best case would be if it was treated like a public utility. Then all the censorship could stop. But maybe not by the fossil fuel industry per se.
Jarnisto?
Ewaa die video laadt nie lan
Kom antwoorden delen
@@elianpiano9543 goeie
Begin gij ma want ik ken u
inpaindaily
Utopia
...
Cute, but when Volkwagen, Honda, Toyota and all others start telling the fun stories, the internet will be even more loaded with the hidden advertising. I rather people believe the tv can still work together with the internet and let's watch Evian Babies dancing again on TV!!!
KODAK is not little lol
Well, 1) it was a joke, and 2) it is now. Right?
The only way to make ads die is you stop buying anything from it... worse than quitting drugs isn’t it?
It would have to happen en masse which is not gonna happen :(
TDS vina
Communitey guideline my id google account all time.
Propaganda about propaganda?
A lot of marketing could be considered propaganda. Personally, I try to steer clear of it and focus on more authentic ways of storytelling. Not easy, however. It's a very thin line.
An advertising hack moaning about how advertising is so pervasive and invasive? Absurd to call this very illuminating....
Hi Tony. Thanks for your comment. I've never been called a "hack" before, but there's a first time for everything. Que Linda Flor!
You earned your award~
I love ads
Good to know. ;-)
Huh? Advertising is awesome and fun...especially on SpinClicks : )
Thank you