For the average person immensely. Especially when you're not familiar with a field and just need something, you'll probably buy something you saw before. For example if you see Makita ads for power tools and you suddenly need to buy a power tool.
As someone who owns Makita power tools, I feel personally attacked ๐
don't be. none of us are immune (and makitas are probably decent)
Eh. In my experience, DeWalt tends to have more power and punch, and the batteries last longer. Makita's impact drivers (at least the ones my company got) really just never had the torque to tighten bolts down to the right NM or ft/lb. I needed. They'll do, I'd rather use an impact driver than nothing. But if I get to pick, I'll pick a DeWalt.
For me not at all. I'm old enough to research & shop for what I need rather than impulse buy. Tech wise I ~~dont~~ very rarely see any ads at all thanks to strong ad blocking & general privacy consciousness. I try to stick to open source only & fediverse is the only social media I use. For YouTube I never sign in to so I'm not affected by the algorithm & never see ads on it ever (channels I like are in a Joplin note synced between devices). Broadcast TV is recorded via HTPC & ads stripped before episodes are fed into Jellyfin.
I dont "get" influencers. Even back in the day I used to ask why celebrities always put their name to perfume/aftershave as I'd only buy what I liked the smell of regardless of the brand/name.
Yeah, I know I'm an outlier, even my mates take the piss.
I mean, you're not alone. I got so fed up with ads because it was always junk I needed but couldn't afford, or shit I already knew existed and had otherwise already acquired with satisfactory results. Not to mention ads following me around. I hated being haunted by a pair of sneakers across four websites.
It's not paranoia if you're right, dammit.
Not really. I have most of what I want and need. Now I just need to zero my debt, which ain't gonna happen soon. So I don't need new shit. I'm just hitting yard sales.
And none of that shit ever got me laid like they said it would.
Have we just become numb to ads?
Online I use multiple browser extensions and settings to avoid showing ads. In the offline world there is no way to avoid them but I think I pretty much can ignore them.
I also intentionally do not buy anything I remember seeing an ad for.
I'm the same way, but I end up buying something similar. Show me Wendy's and I'll eventually go to Burger King
They are effective, but not usually by being convincing. Its usually through saturation so that the first brand that comes to mind when you do need a thing is the one that saturated your market.
Spon con and influencers are more convincing/creating a parasocial connection.
In 2020 Freakonomics did a dive into the effectiveness of adverts. Link below (transcripts too). There are sources listed and such. My tl;dr based on memory is that ads in general are not very cost effective for most companies. Ads are very cost effective for companies that sell ads though.
so just like crypto & AI: a ponzo scheme
I think ads are super effective for some demographics. Children are probably the best target market. Teenagers, particularly those who seek external validation or align to external norms are a sweet spot. Old guys like me? No effect whatsoever.
Brand recognition is important. I have heard for many ads they don't care if you pay attention so long as you hear/see it briefly, because you will be more likely to pick their product later when it's the name you recognise even (especially) if you don't remember why you know it.
so osmosis? kinda like the consensus people form from being on the internetverse - not knowing just where they picked a fact or perspective up from, but touting it as an obvious fact or perspective that everyone has
We sometimes play a game around here where we'll turn off the volume during a commercial and try to guess what they're advertising. It's harder than you might imagine for unfamiliar ads.
Ads were effective in that they caused me to stop watching tv soooo... ๐คท
When was the last time you bought something you'd never heard of
All the time. When I actually need something, then I'll go do a bit of research on different products based on feedback from friends, and what people online say, then use that to inform what I buy. I can't think of any product I bought because it was advertised to me.
You happen to use a search engine or visit websites while researching? The people who claim not to be influenced by advertising are the ones most unable to understand how they are being manipulated.
I love how you jump straight to assuming other people are dumber than you. Yet, as I've already explained, I start with asking people I know about their experiences first. I also don't buy things until I actually find I have need for them.
When did I say that
As someone who uses ad blockers, almost every time i buy something. If i want something, I'll find it. I don't need marketing vermin telling me what I should want based on who gave them money. I also hate ads enough that i specifically avoid buying anything for which i have seen or heard an advertisement.
You go to the store with your eyes closed and pick at random I assume? Product packaging is advertising.
Nope. Advertising is based on paying a third party. The company didn't pay someone else to show you that packaging when you didn't ask for it.
No it's not, Toyota putting Toyota badges on their cars is advertising.
Did you even read the definition?
Yep. And, like a sensible user of language, I recognised that it could be stretched to include your odd definition, but chose to stay with the combination of what was written in the dictionary and what is the common-use definition because the rest of the English-speaking world is under no obligation to stretch out the definition to help you. Everyone knows what ads are. Only a particularly obtuse user of language would call 'an intrusive video, put in front of you for the benefit of other people and the detriment of society' and 'a label of manufacturer of the object you are currently looking at, being used as an identifier' the same thing. They don't look alike. They don't serve the same purposes. One interacts with them in different ways. Only in the idiosyncratic space of marketing theory would one call them the same.
You're coping so hard rn
You're good at projection.
How pathetic.
Projecting my feelings onto others like brands project ads onto packaging
Are you going to present some evidence of where I have made a mistake in my reasoning or just 'cope' by pretending to have some insight into my mental state that invalidates the points I made in order to avoid acknowledging you were wrong?
You're actually crying
I wish you well, kid, but goodbye.
Sunsofold wept
Any company that pays for ads closely tracks the efficacy of ads and can more or less prove that the ads are worth it. There's no guess work.
Given that Google generated more than 250 billion U.S. dollars in ad revenue in 2024, I'd say they must be pretty effective.
I believe that the revenue comes more from advertisers paying to advertise on Google than from people paying for the advertised products or services.
Those people wouldn't keep paying if they didn't find those ads effective. Not to mention there are methods to measure the efficacy of ads so they do know how well they work.
Super effective!
It's not so much that ads can only sell you something anymore. They're able to sell your personal details and identity when abused.
I believe the issue has been written on even prior to the 2025 article from Wired.
Data brokers are basically form centralized American platforms which carry immense databases about its users. These demographics can essentially be used to target high value targets. These can include government employees, members of military, and other persons of interest.
These brokers use Mobile IDs to allow advertisers to micro-target people with their habits, browsing fingerprint, and purchase habits. Even if these companies say they don't associate identities with these Mobile IDs, the brokers can cross-reference enough information to basically de-anonymize a target.
Plus with influencers these days, many don't disclose if what they do is sponsored or part of a greater outreach campaign. You're basically stuck wondering if you're getting targeted or astroturfed.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-dv360-banned-audience-segments-national-security/
many dont disclose if what they do is sponsored
I assume they all are. If they say "OK so I just got and..." I immediately disregard anything they have to say.
this reminds me of many instances of undesireable policymaking where algorithms just connected state personell with agendas of politicians through the black box of social media... like a judge who got the thoughts of a politician on certain rulings which is illegal in nordic countries. like the message of "hey what if climate activists are obstructing capital ventures in law? can a judge try that?" is illegal for a politician to ask of a judge here, yet through social media it happened. she didn't see that politician's exact words but was bombarded by posts and probably ads that shaped the way she thought about her job as a juridical arbiter of lives. left uncorrelated in mainstream
Ads are extremely effective in aggregate though it's difficult to impossible to assign value to any individual ad. Targeted ads are popular because they are more directly attributable to purchases, but it's also likely that other ads led you towards that decision as well.
Ads are effective at communicating how other people will view your purchase
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~