upvote
Nah, it's not real. Your claim isn't supported by the data. Political advertising can help a bit at the margins but in the 2016 Presidential election the losing campaign spent about twice as much on advertising as the winner. Very few voters were swayed by last second radio ads.

(I would support a Constitutional amendment to restrict campaign contributions and effectively overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.)

reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
Again, I don't want to get into a political slap fight here, I want to keep this on the subject of advertising.

It sounds to me like you're confusing the magnitude of advertising spending with effectiveness of advertising techniques.

Some people have found more effective ways to advertise to people, we know all this, it isn't uncharted conversation territory. We all know about micro-targetting based on personalized data, dominating certain niche mediums like AM radio to target people when they're driving and coordinated pushes with people in industry.

The point is that advertising works. It works disconcertingly well.

This is why people buy stupidly impractical automobiles that they don't need.

reply
Which is it? If your first claim is true, why do we need to amend anything?

They seem like mutually exclusive claims, to me. Am I missing something?

reply
If you don't want to make this about politics, use a product advertising example instead of politics which is not even comparable.

Advertised products will sell more, but only to a certain point. Like someone who wants an SUV and knows nothing else might buy the one from Chevy instead of Mitsubishi because of advertising.

reply