Comment by milesrout
17 days ago
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.
> 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 really do think that people make their own decisions. Good for you. I know that many people are incapable of making decisions and businesses abuse that to make decisions for people. Advertising is one big way that happens.
> But that doesn't take away their complete responsibility for their decision.
I never said it does. You're moving the argument.
> Learning to cook isn't that hard
Maybe for you.
Not for me either. But I know several people who couldn't cook if their life depended on it. I know someone who burned a pan trying to boil water. Oh goodness the incompetence...
> and the reward in time and money saved is enormous
I disagree. It takes me a lot longer to cook for myself for negligible monetary savings and negative time savings.
> You are slow when you start off, but you get a lot faster once you have done it a little bit
I've been cooking for myself for decades. That doesn't make me faster. I'm glad it does for you.
> 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!
Ingredients are cheap! Well, unless they're not. Vegetables are generally cheap, meat is generally not.
But the time for buying them is not. Spend an hour driving to the store, going around the grocery store to get all of the ingredients, coming home, and putting them away. There goes an hour, an opportunity cost.
Then spend another hour to chop, cook, and clean afterward. Every day. That's a lot of time. And if you're not doing anything else for that time, great! You're "saving" money! And hopefully you're eating healthy too, but cooking at home doesn't guarantee eating healthy.
But if you could have done something else for that time, would you? Go to the gym, for example? More time with your kids. Or catch up on a book or a movie. Work on your hobby -- and add that hobby to your resume. Or, stay later at work for an extra hour of pay.
> It is easy to see someone voting ... and assume
It's better to talk to them and try to understand how or why they vote. Most of the people around me try to avoid thinking.
Down the party line because it's easy. This candidate because the other candidate is bad. That candidate because this candidate is bad. Very little thought is ever put into their own actual opinions, because all of the thinking is done for them and they're "done thinking" about it. Have you talked to people who vote?