Comment by inetknght
18 days ago
> They spend more than they earn. They don't earn enough and they spend too much.
Yeah, because Coca Cola (and other "businesses") convince them to spend.
> Yeah they probably have some diffuse structural blame for the situation at a societal level but nobody is forcing anyone to drink a litre of coke a day
Have you seen advertisements at all?
Nobody's forcing people to see/hear them. But they're shoved in your face wherever you go.
> Could you blame advertisers for people spending money. Maybe?
Not even just maybe. You're shortselling yourself.
> They don't seem to work at all in politics so I doubt they do much anywhere else.
You might want to double check how politics use advertisements.
> Yeah, because Coca Cola (and other "businesses") convince them to spend.
It's amusing to see that a lot of people don't believe in ad, because "they don't work on me".
I think that the best lesson school should teach is to learn how to shield ourselves from ads and avoid consumerism. Not going to happen in the US for obvious reasons.
I don't think that ads don't work on me. Of course they do. But they don't make anyone do anything. They encourage, they suggest, they shape your ideas. But no number of Cocacola ads will get me to buy Cocacola because I don't like Cocacola! It tastes bad. The same applies generally: you can suggest and cajole and encourage all you like, but ultimately the decision lies with me. You aren't responsible for my decisions. If I am only aware of the brands that advertise, that is my fault for not doing any independent research before purchasing. Maybe that is fine, because it is a low impact purchase. But that is still a decision.
Ads do not make anyone do anything. Only one person is responsible for what you do: you!
BTW, accepting this is very liberating.
You can only convince someone with an argument and ads don't have arguments. Cocacola suggests they spend. It plants ideas in their heads. It puts Coke at the top of their minds. But the decision is not Coke's. Coke doesn't make them buy Coke. This is basic responsibility.
>Nobody's forcing people to see/hear them. But they're shoved in your face wherever you go.
So what? You are forced to hear or see all sorts of things in your life. That has nothing to do with whether you are ultimately responsible for your own decisions.
I think that on a societal level we should be talking about what impact these products (ultraprocessed food) have. But that is no excuse at an individual level. It is so easy to be normal: just don't eat crap food, which BTW is far more expensive than cooking your own meals.
>You might want to double check how politics use advertisements.
Hilary and Kamala outspent Trump by huge amounts and it did basically nothing. Lots of research shows that political campaign spending has little or no correlation with electoral success across many different countries.
It turns out that when decisions are important people make their own minds up, ads don't tell them what to think, and politics is important enough if you care enough to vote at all.
> You can only convince someone with an argument
That's a logical fallacy.
> ads don't have arguments
No, they have information. Often misinformation.
Let me pick just from some that Coca Cola themselves have had in the past [0]:
- "BE REALLY REFRESHED..."
- "SIGN OF GOOD TASTE"
- "It's the real thing. Coke."
- "Have a coke and a smile."
What's the common theme among these? That if you drink coca-cola, then you will be affected by good things.
[0]: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/history-of...
> Coke doesn't make them buy Coke.
Nope, but it certainly does convince people to buy coke.
> So what? You are forced to hear or see all sorts of things in your life. That has nothing to do with whether you are ultimately responsible for your own decisions.
You seriously think that hearing something won't affect your decision making?
So if you're standing on a sidewalk next to a road and you hear a large vehicle coming, are you going to continue doing what you do, or will you decide to avoid the danger?
And, if you do decide to avoid the danger, do you not think that someone who sees an advertisement for a product can likewise make a decision that they wouldn't have made without seeing the advertisement?
> I think that on a societal level we should be talking about what impact these products (ultraprocessed food) have.
Yes, absolutely.
> But that is no excuse at an individual level
Sure, sure.
> It is so easy to be normal: just don't eat crap food
I'm sure you're writing that with a straight face. I'm also sure you're writing it without thinking.
> just don't eat crap food, which BTW is far more expensive than cooking your own meals.
You really think that? Would you consider opportunity costs here? It's truly unconscionable that you'd make a statement like this without considering the cost in time to learn how to cook vs doing other work or relaxing, or the cost in time to actually do cooking vs paying someone else to cook while you do CEO things, or the cost in sanity if you don't like to cook.
It's also just as easy to eat crap food when you cook crap food for yourself.
> Lots of research shows that political campaign spending has little or no correlation with electoral success across many different countries.
You really think it has to do with the spending and not the message?
> It turns out that when decisions are important people make their own minds up, ads don't tell them what to think, and politics is important enough if you care enough to vote at all.*
And on the flip side of the coin there are a lot of people who go out to vote just on party lines. That's not thinking at all.
>What's the common theme among these? That if you drink coca-cola, then you will be affected by good things.
Ads serve to remind you of the advertised product (or inform you of its existence) and try to create positive associations and connotations. They show happy people drinking Coke.
None of that forces people to do anything or makes any decisions for them. Coke doesn't force itself on you. Consumers choose it.
>You seriously think that hearing something won't affect your decision making?
>So if you're standing on a sidewalk next to a road and you hear a large vehicle coming, are you going to continue doing what you do, or will you decide to avoid the danger?
It is still entirely my decision. Hearing a large vehicle doesn't force me to get out of the way.
>And, if you do decide to avoid the danger, do you not think that someone who sees an advertisement for a product can likewise make a decision that they wouldn't have made without seeing the advertisement?
Of course? But that doesn't take away their complete responsibility for their decision. If someone makes a decision on your behalf, they are responsible for the consequences of it. That isn't the case here.
>You really think that? Would you consider opportunity costs here? It's truly unconscionable that you'd make a statement like this without considering the cost in time to learn how to cook vs doing other work or relaxing, or the cost in time to actually do cooking vs paying someone else to cook while you do CEO things, or the cost in sanity if you don't like to cook.
Learning to cook isn't that hard, and the reward in time and money saved is enormous. You are slow when you start off, but you get a lot faster once you have done it a little bit. Once you can cook a few things it becomes enjoyable and easy. You quickly realise almost everything you make yourself is better than almost everything you can buy. You'll stop enjoying bought biscuits when you have had homemade. They are incomparable.
It is frankly quite weird not to be able to cook. Almost everyone has been able to do it for almost all of human history. Everyone can do it in every country. It is seemingly just Americans that act as if you're asking them to do something strange and difficult when you suggest they cook a meal.
If you are rich enough to pay for someone to cook for you that is fine. Most people are not. But many do so anyway, using takeaways and restaurants all the time. It is a huge money sink.
I am not saying you have to cook every meal. I have takeaways once or twice a week and often buy lunch. I could save more money and be healthier if I cooked (or reheated leftovers) 7 nights a week and made lunch every day. But I don't need to. I can afford to buy lunch. I don't complain about being poor. :)
On this website I see many comments from people claiming that it is more expensive to cook because you have to buy ingredients. Ingredients are cheap!
>It's also just as easy to eat crap food when you cook crap food for yourself.
That is harder than cooking healthy food. Healthy food has fewer simpler ingredients. Try buying vegetables, dairy, herbs and spices, and poultry/meat only, for a few weeks. It is not hard to cook from scratch.
You can always go back. I don't think you will.
>You really think it has to do with the spending and not the message?
I think it is evidence that advertising isn't as simple as advertising = success. Maybe some ads work, but just advertising a message doesn't necessarily work. If Clinton had spent half as much on advertising, would she have got any fewer votes? Who knows.
>And on the flip side of the coin there are a lot of people who go out to vote just on party lines. That's not thinking at all.
I think it is more likely that they have reasons that just don't correspond to the ones you think are important. It is easy to see someone voting without following the election campaigns and assume they arent thinking. But for example, they might care more about or a policy difference that hasn't changed in years. They look like a "lifelong [party]" but they are really just voting based on eg. abortion or something that has been a campaign issue the parties haven't moved their positions on for decades.
1 reply →