If saws were effective they would use them to hammer in nails.
Wrong tool for the job is never going to be effective. Show me a politician who rarely (if ever) debates and gets elected from advertising alone.
Change my Mind
Submitted 2 days ago by yesman@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bba1c696-d054-4d28-9608-18de96c24565.jpeg
Comments
zxqwas@lemmy.world 1 day ago
frank@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. I mean, Trump is just the marketing of a president. All sizzle, no steak. He has appeared in debates but it’s a huge stretch to say he’s shown up well in them.
In fact, a lot of politics are purely a popularity contest these days, aren’t they?
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
“if vitamins were effective, they’d use them for beating children!”
You’re misunderstanding the use of debate.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 2 days ago
They used to, back when the League of Women voters ran the debates and asked real questions. That’s why they stopped allowing that.
minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, a few either a things are different as well…
Skyrmir@lemmy.world 1 day ago
All part of the plan.
RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 1 day ago
Big government banned my radium juice 😠
atcorebcor@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Because debates in the US are often set up to be a fight with a winner and loser. Real debates are about learning and instigating truth. Those debates are effective.
taiyang@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fun unsolicited social psych lesson: in terms of persuasion, spontaneous messaging is catchier but thoughtful messaging is more likely to have a stronger long term impact. Often best to use both.
It’s not always the same level as debate, but the idea is there. Why buy? It’s got safety standards. It builds strong bones. It’s good for the environment. Good? Ok now here’s emotional music and a celebrity you like.
Research shows spontaneous messaging without the cognitive side isn’t going to sway attitudes in a meaningful way, although the latter might be needed to get attention (and most won’t work if someone is already decided, then you really do need debate lol).
That said, I’m pretty sure the average ad is just trying to keep a brand in public consciousness, since that’s taught in marketing programs. Some research on associative learning might support that but I think it’s weak at best.
Meron35@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Debate isn’t effective, and its main purpose is theatrical. It is basically the modern day equivalent of gladiator fights, except with the side effect that it platforms and legitimises the opinions of the participants, no matter how extreme.
There is now mountains of scientific evidence showing the debates have limited to no effect at changing people’s minds. Instead, simply making friends and spending time with different perspective is effective.
This article won’t change your mind. Here’s why | Sarah Stein Lubrano | The Guardian - theguardian.com/…/change-mind-evidence-arguing-so…
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 day ago
A lot of advertising is built around making consumers feel good for buying particular products, not convincing them to buy in the first place. Debate in this context would be useless because it’s more about confirmation bias.
minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It isn’t more effective or cost effective. It may still be effective.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
It’s very cost effective in terms of content creation. Just give 2 people a mike and you get 2h worth of content you can upload uncut
minorkeys@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Charlie Kirk did plenty of debate content tbh, as do a lot of podcasters. But advertiser’s don’t have 2 hours at a time to convince you to give them your money. So perhaps it the timeframe that they are working with. For their purposes, more encounters may be more effective than longer single encounters. Debates still work to change minds, just not in the context of a 10 second advertising. window.
j4k3@piefed.world 1 day ago
99.999% of advertising is shit to make a rich person feel like they are going something to drive business.
Like dude owned the first bike shop I worked at was paying a bunch to place ads on various platforms. I asked if he had ever actually tested that it works. He just gave me a puzzled look. I told him simply pick any product you feel is universally in high demand and try and give it away with no strings attached. See how long it takes to get someone to show up and claim the thing. It took 3 weeks and I am nearly certain the person that showed up was one of his personal friends. We stopped advertising online after that. Ads may increase awareness in dome cases, but they are mostly ineffective media. People are just too stupid to be objective and actually test things; instead assuming the existence of the option to advertise validates its efficacy
justdaveisfine@piefed.social 1 day ago
I’m not so sure - I’m in the world of indie game dev and silently publishing a game without any advertising is usually a death sentence for a game. Especially in a busy market where finding anything decent is a chore.
Granted, the more effective advertising is usually getting streamers or reviewers to check a game out. Traditional ads, in my experience, have not been valuable.
Naz@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
TLDR: I agree with you
It can kill even a AAA game; Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines 2 came out, a sequel to VTM after 12-18 years.
No one had a clue and no one bought it for that reason
The ideal time to release a trailer or promo materials is around 1-2 weeks (4 weeks tops) before the game’s formal release, it gives people time to adjust schedules and/or get word of mouth out or even allocate funds (if they need to)
Half Life 3 could open drop on Steam with zero advertising and people wouldn’t have a clue unless the Steam front page informed them about it
A certain percentage of gamers shamble forwards in a haze of marijuana smoke, whose long term memory or executive function may not be the best
See: Arc Raiders