[me-vs-cat]

> Advertising is any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist. If you’re only talking about a subset of that, we should discuss how you’re defining advertising.

Sure, let's discuss.

I cannot agree. Even if it isn't necessarily wrong, that's not strictly correct either. I'll call it a generalization well past the point of not being useful.

Reading several dictionaries' definitions of "marketing" and "advertising", there is room between them, with advertising focusing on paid placement in every one. The American Marketing Association says: "Marketing is a business practice that involves identifying, predicting and meeting customer needs. Advertising is a business practice where a company pays to place its messaging or branding in a particular location." https://www.ama.org/marketing-vs-advertising/

Yet "paid" isn't enough, and not only because of the common phrase "paid advertisement". A more accurate distinction might be made with intent. Perhaps: an advertisement is intended to change a viewer's trajectory to the advertiser's desired outcome when the viewer is not already heading in that direction. This is not completely satisfactory.

I believe most people would find it a little off or burying the lede, though not necessarily wrong, to hear, "https://adobe.com/photoshop is advertising for Photoshop", in a way they wouldn't if "promotes" was used instead. I believe most would have a similar impression, "that's a rather weird way to phrase it", if you were to say a business is advertising in the phone book when they are only listed by name, address, and number -- the most basic listing.

[dahart]

It’s fine if you want to define advertising as paid announcements here in this thread, though words have multiple definitions and I’d be willing to bet every single dictionary you checked includes definitions that don’t involve payment (I just checked a few as well). Paid promotion might be the most common definition, I can accept that, but it’s also a fact that use of the word “advertising” in non-commercial and non-paid contexts is quite common and perfectly valid in English speech and writing. Most common does not equate to only, and it’s a mistake to imply otherwise.

Defining ads as requiring payment leaves out some obvious examples that aren’t “paid”, like companies next to freeways or streets that put commercial advertisement murals on their buildings. It’s routine for billboard companies, magazines, publishers, movie trailers, etc., to advertise the space they offer for paid ads. It’s common for Google to advertise Google services on google.com. Nobody is “paid” for the ads in those cases, not in the sense you’re talking about, and I’m sure those are still ads by your definition, whatever it is, right?

So, for the purposes of this discussion, assume I accept your definition of advertising as being paid promotion. Nothing in your comment addressed my point that paid advertising is the business model by which the arts largely gets funded, nor that you likely benefit financially from paid advertising by organizations you’re part of. I don’t know that for a fact, of course, I’m just betting based on the fact that the vast majority of people are part of, or make a living from, organizations that do paid advertising.

You haven’t established any reasons why paid advertising would be considered “dishonest”, or why advertisers should be considered “scum”. Does that apply to your employer? Does that apply to grant foundations or business donors that fund plays or concerts? Does that apply to the government? Kickstarter or gofundme campaigns? Startup companies? Paid PSAs?

There are some ads and companies that I would agree are dishonest and scummily manipulative, like cigarettes. But there are also plenty of ads that are innocuous and not irritating, and quite a few ads and advertisers who are good and kind people that support their communities and public works.

[me-vs-cat]

Do you believe I disagree with everything you said earlier? I don't. Take me at my word, that I wanted to discuss how advertising is not "any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist".

I have been making an effort the past couple years towards less advertising in my life, including less reliance on ad-supported services. That has required a significant investment of time, though less money than you'd expect, and is why I was interested in discussing what it is about advertising that causes people to say things like the person above did with "scum". However, you conceded that and appear disinterested in discussing it further; where you're going now doesn't look very interesting or useful.

> You haven’t established any reasons why paid advertising would be considered “dishonest”, or why advertisers should be considered “scum”.

One good reason to not like advertisers is because the job involves such a high degree of intentional manipulation of a viewer towards the advertiser's self-interest. Many do call that dishonest. I called this "paid placement" definition not completely satisfactory -- but this is so very prevalent and typical that you accepted it as true.

Have you heard "visual pollution" used for advertising? https://petapixel.com/2023/01/11/what-major-cities-would-loo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa Those working towards pollution are quite scummy. How many snake oil salesman do you need to be ill-intentioned before the whole profession is tainted where you are no longer surprised to see people stereotype them? You're not adding much to the discussion if you're only arguing against a stereotype with the equivalent of, "there are some very bad advertisers, but you also have some that are very fine people".

> you likely benefit financially from paid advertising by organizations you’re part of.

My current employer does not advertise, and I've been with them a decade. I've never been in a position to control advertising by any of my past employers, most of whom did advertise. I recall declining advertising jobs, such as door-to-door sales of Cutco knives, back when I was a student. (I still remember that presentation, despite leaving in the middle; this captures much of what I felt: https://www.thetakeout.com/the-invasive-manipulative-art-of-....) There is no gotcha here: I am a working stiff, my employer is medium-size, though they also don't rely on customers off the street. I don't see how these things do or do not affect the current discussion.

Other than as an employee (or business-owner), I struggle to imagine what other types of organizations I could be a part of that would provide financial benefit to me. My church does provide financial benefits in the form of donations to families, but I am thankful to have not been in the position to need that. They also don't advertise, though is the line blurred by accepting advertisements to put in flyers distributed to members, or in that instance, is the church the community which benefits from the advertisers?

Most people have no control over advertising by their employer, and I see no cognitive dissonance with an employee cashing paychecks while disliking the advertisers employed by their employer. Nor is there dissonance with a business owner feeling scummy by their own need to hire advertisers. Distasteful things can be necessary in a given environment.

You recommend starting a business, and I have gone far enough down that path to realize one of my significant hurdles would be dealing with things such as advertising. Still, a business would probably be worthwhile, and if I ever do, I hope I feel scummy when I advertise instead of feeling entitled:

* https://web.archive.org/web/20020802143637/https://research....

* https://publicknowledge.org/watch-those-commercials-or-else/ -- It's amusing how this describes the first TV remote being advertised for muting commercials without getting up.