by dahart | 2025-10-12 14:44:01+00:00
Oh, the very first thing I need to say is that I missed the fact that you’re not the same person who said there is no such thing as an honest advertiser and that all advertisers are scum. I did indeed assume you were defending that stance and disagreeing with everything I’d said. That’s my mistake, apologies.

If you agree that some ads and some advertisers are not dishonest, not scummy, and not doing harm, then I think we’re probably in full agreement. I agree that some ads are some advertisers are deceitful, I’m aware of visual pollution and I don’t want it. I also seek to minimize ads with my own online activity.

> “paid placement” definition […] is so very prevalent and typical that you accepted it as true.

No, I agreed to accept it for the purposes of this conversation, to avoid further useless semantic argument, because you were pushing that definition. I did in fact offer multiple examples of how that definition does not work in general, and outside of this conversation, my definition of ‘advertise’ is unchanged and does not equal ‘paid promotion’.

> I wanted to discuss how advertising is not “any form of letting people know you or your services or goods exist”.

Google’s first definition of advertise is “describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.” Google’s 2nd definition is “seek to fill a vacancy by putting a notice in a newspaper or other medium”. Google’s 3rd definition is “make (a quality or fact) known”. Google’s 4th and last definition is to “notify someone of something”. I don’t know about you but in my mind, all four of those definitions are very close to what I said. To advertise is to “make known”, yeah that is a lot more concise than my quote. It doesn’t necessarily involve payment, and it doesn’t necessarily involve manipulation, and it doesn’t necessarily involve dishonesty or scummy people. Right?

I’m not pro ads, my singular contribution to this conversation is to counter the false claim that all advertisers are bad people and that all advertising is bad. I was trying to give examples of advertising - examples that you and GP would agree count as advertising - that are not dishonest, scummy, or manipulative.

Yes, ads in your church flyer absolutely count as paid promotion, and your church benefits financially from them. The other example that I gave of a non-business organization that does a lot of paid promotion is the government, and I mentioned it specifically because much of the paid promotion activity from the government is informational & PSA type of advertising. (Though I can readily admit our current administration is pushing some truly stunning advertising.)

> There is no gotcha here

I wasn’t aiming for a gotcha, I was aiming for a more serious reflection on the role of advertising in society. The stance by GP that I was reacting to that all paid ads are pure evil is an extreme stance that fails to recognize why advertising is here and why it’s so prevalent, fails to acknowledge the benefits of advertising, and fails to offer any thoughtful alternatives. If we want to talk about advertising being bad, we ought to steer toward what we can do instead. Without a viable alternative to the economic output of advertising, we can complain about the bad ads all we want, but we’re tilting at windmills and nothing will change, right?

Are you certain your employer does no advertising? To me that implies your employer does no marketing at all, and gains all new customers strictly via referrals from other customers. Is that true? That’s great if so, but doesn’t change the fact that most people work for companies that advertise, which is a good reason to reflect on the role of advertising in society.

I hope you feel neither scummy nor entitled when you start a business and have to advertise. Making known your goods or services is simply a necessary part of doing business, and when it’s done well it’s an honest living and supports the families you employ.