196

🤓 They dont! Or rather they do much less than they used to, and the effect of all the product hype has been deteriorating since anthromorphic cigarette boxes have been letting you know a particular brand exists and you may like it during the half-hour show intermission in the fifties.

We're not completely sure why, because it's complicated. For one thing, while were blasting adults with ads, we're also desensitizing the next generation from the same intensity, so to influence them we have to up the hype, and guess what that does to their kids.

Another factor is competition. Even ads for non-competing products are still competing for your time, your memory, your attention, so while Coke and Coors are trying to tell you what to drink you're still thinking about the hot woman in the Toyota ad. PS Sex sells, but mostly it sells sex. People remember the hottie twerking on screen, not that Raytheon sponsored her. If we're thinking about banging the green M&M, we're not thinking of her as tasty chocolate candy.

And then there's the matter that ads now try to convince you you need this product rather than simply informing you this brand exists, and you might like it, on the assumption you're already on the market for a new hair shampoo. And the advertising sector is saturated with false products, e.g. shampoos that allegedly (but don't actually) make you irresistibly sexy to hottie passersby, rather than merely clean your hair. So we trust modern household products the way we trust politicians.

Advertisers have been losing the war for your attention since the fifties, which rach successive more expensive ad campaign being less effective than the last, all the while further enshittifying the medium space they occupy.

Curiously, bad decisions by marketers are compounded by bad decisions by upper management, who insist on unethically sourcing their materials and labor to make shoddy products and then blame their marketing team when their business model tanks.

/🤓