This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Make advertising illegal?

#21MushuPork222Posted 6/1/2011 9:59:42 AM
People actually think some degree of advertising should be made illegal? Wow......

Who cares if Head & Shoulders doesn't have a "plethora of scientists?" Buy the product. If it works, great. If it doesn't, never use it again. Don't run to bureaucrats to take care of you. They'll just screw things up even more.
---
Go Stanford Class of 2009!
#22TBW4EverPosted 6/1/2011 10:04:19 AM
To be honest, I had no reason to question it. And if I that's my response, then no doubt there are people buying it because they think an independent study showed that Head and Shoulders was the best.
They're trying to sell you something, that's all you need to question every single word they put out. There's never a reason to trust anybody let alone somebody trying to sell you something.

The market can not be efficient and contracts can't be legitimate, if there isn't symmetry of information.
Indeed. Though I think a government totally bent upon securing that the information presented is accurate is more than a little inefficient and as SST said, likely to generate a good deal more problems by neglecting to give off brand products the same level of scrutiny.

Rather much like how we regulate our existing bureaus we should be in favor of the "fire alarm" approach as opposed to the "police dog" approach. Rather cheesy vernacular I'm aware but they do highlight a nice dichotomy. Much of congressional oversight falls under the fire alarm approach which relies on concerned citizens to notice a problem whilst alternatively a police dog approach sets up prohibitive barriers to misconduct but has been considered too time consuming by most congressional representatives.

I feel that so long as we mandate that the real information be out there and readily accessible to the public that that's as much as we need, let consumer advocacy groups handle the truth in advertising. Same reason I support restaurants putting up nutrition information but at the same time I'm violently opposed to food bans; buyer beware.
---
I'm thoroughly convinced that Jorn Lande is actually the devil and not just playing a part in an opera.
#23MushuPork222Posted 6/1/2011 11:09:10 AM
Same reason I support restaurants putting up nutrition information but at the same time I'm violently opposed to food bans; buyer beware.

Well, if restaurants putting up nutrition info wasn't enforced by law, you would still have the right to avoid that restaurant if you wanted.

Why make it mandatory? If the public doesn't want to eat at places that hide what's in their food, then they'll lose business. And if people choose to eat mystery food, then that's their prerogative. I don't see why posting nutrition info should be forced upon businesses.
---
Go Stanford Class of 2009!
#24OrcaPosted 6/1/2011 8:08:10 PM
Super Saber Tiger posted...
So you're saying we should allow asymmetry because when people are prevented with a lot of information symmetry, they may miss out on a little and be mislead?

A publicly enforced "lot of information symmetry " will create a new class of asymmetry, and I don't see society really benefiting from such an endeavor.


If the net gain is more symmetry then you can only see society benefiting from such an endeavor.

And there's not real logic behind this new class of asymmetry point. It's either symmetrical or asymmetrical. If someone can't provide symmetrical information in the market and they can't provide symmetrical information with the government forcing it, then there's no loss.

Who cares if Head & Shoulders doesn't have a "plethora of scientists?"

I'm sure most people care that they're being lied to.

I feel that so long as we mandate that the real information be out there and readily accessible to the public that that's as much as we need, let consumer advocacy groups handle the truth in advertising.

The irony being that many businesses astroturf as consumer advocacy groups.

Why make it mandatory?

Because it's essential for an efficient contract which means it's essential for any market action. You can not argue for a market solution if there's asymmetry of information.
---
http://www.thebrokenheadphones.blogspot.com/
#25MushuPork222Posted 6/2/2011 10:06:35 AM
I'm sure most people care that they're being lied to.

Companies being dishonest should make people not want to buy their products. It may sting that first time before you find out about the lie, but as long as you're not forced to buy that product (which people rarely are), you have all the power to punish that company for being dishonest.

Because it's essential for an efficient contract which means it's essential for any market action. You can not argue for a market solution if there's asymmetry of information.

It's one thing if a company lies about a product and it ends up causing harm - go ahead & punish them. But it's another if a company says it has 3 scientists perform a study when only 2 scientists actually do.

If a company chooses not to provide information, we have the ability to avoid their product. I can understand why mandating information symmetry can sound appealing, but markets can work nearly as well by making the disclosure of information up to the company (in the absence of collusion), and this would occur without bureaucratic entanglement.
---
Go Stanford Class of 2009!
#26TheOppositePosted 6/2/2011 11:34:44 AM
If you want your internet or cable bill to be $500 a month then I can see why you want advertising to be illegal.
#27OrcaPosted 6/2/2011 5:29:34 PM
MushuPork222 posted...
I'm sure most people care that they're being lied to.

Companies being dishonest should make people not want to buy their products. It may sting that first time before you find out about the lie, but as long as you're not forced to buy that product (which people rarely are), you have all the power to punish that company for being dishonest.


You have no power to punish a company for being dishonest. They get money they were never going to get from you if you hadn't been mislead and then they go back to not getting that money they were never going to get in the first place.


It's one thing if a company lies about a product and it ends up causing harm - go ahead & punish them. But it's another if a company says it has 3 scientists perform a study when only 2 scientists actually do.

Well, for starters it was claiming there was an independent institute doing the study when it was actually one guy in his apartment, hired by Head and Shoulders.

That's a pretty huge difference.

If a company chooses not to provide information, we have the ability to avoid their product. I can understand why mandating information symmetry can sound appealing, but markets can work nearly as well by making the disclosure of information up to the company (in the absence of collusion), and this would occur without bureaucratic entanglement.

A) Markets reward businesses if there's assymetry. There's actually market incentive not to disclose information. There's market incentive to lie, manufacture and mislead.

B) The entire idea of the market can not work at all with assymetry. If the market is the most efficient means of deciding the distribution of resources, then distortions sending resources where they wouldn't be is ultimately anti-market. Sometimes these market distortions give money to one shampoo company that's inferior to another. Sometimes these market distortions leads to investors buying shares in companies that are actually unsustainable. Sometimes these distortions lead to people pulling money out of things that are legitimately healthy and crippling them. Sometimes these market distortions lead to borrowers taking loans they won't be able to pay if the interest rate changes (why hallo thar, GFC). Reducing assymetry is important because it prevents the big consequences which affect all of us AND preventing the small consequences of which there is no recourse (and while it's small if you only see it on a micro scale, say one bottle of shampoo that one time, it actually builds up to a decent market distortion, since if one person is misled, a number of people are probably misled, and people are misled more than just once over the course of their lifetime). There's no reason to oppose reducing market assymetry, from an economic standpoint, from a market standpoint or from a moral standpoint. The only reason to oppose it is psuedo-economics (government doing things is bad because it's the government doing things).
---
http://www.thebrokenheadphones.blogspot.com/
#28ZodiaMasterPosted 6/2/2011 5:59:32 PM
Why punish all people advertising things because of a bunch of dorks? That makes no sense.
---
The signature you entered contains possibly offensive language. Please change it.
#29penance44Posted 6/2/2011 6:06:22 PM
In Europe, you now need a prescription to get vitamins

wut?
---
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Give a man religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
http://i54.tinypic.com/2i0yubo.png
#30sthaterPosted 6/2/2011 6:29:50 PM

From: Brett8 | Posted: 6/1/2011 7:44:35 AM | #020
I don't think you should make advertising illegal but there should be stronger truth in advertising laws.

I agree with this, but I really don't think advertising should be made illegal.

Despite all the criticism advertising gets, I think it's worth the price. If we banned advertising, we wouldn't be left with a magical world where I get commercial-free television for $20/month and House still makes money, we'd be left with a world where we'd have to pay double or more for shows to make the same amount. To me, sitting through advertisements is preferable to an alternative pay system. Free Hulu with 60 seconds of an L.A. Noire ad is significantly better to me than paying for Hulu Super Plus, now ad-free!

That said, there's no reason to let advertising devolve into propaganda and exploitation, and I firmly support strong laws regulating truth and "fair play" in advertising.


I don't know it would be interesting to see more channels work like HBO and Cinemax. Their original programming tends to be pretty good imo.
---
Like my loafers? Former gophers -It was that or skin my chauffeurs,
Part of the presidential triumvirate of board 666