One idea I thought of the other day is an observation. Advertising is a 0-sum game of one-upmanship. Consumers in a given country have a finite amount of money to spend, and usually they spend all of it. (saving for retirment just spreads the spending)
Well, if company X spends a bunch of money and creates catchy advertisement, company Y has to spend similar sums in order to compete. It becomes a game of various parties trying to out-shout each other, similar to parties trying to communicate in a crowded environment.
For instance, it might start where company X spends 5% of revenue on advertising. Company Y counters by spending 6% of revenue, and so Company X has to match it, and so on. This ratchets up until some kind of diminishing returns situation is reached (if too much is spent on advertising, product quality suffers, and complaining consumers create negative advertising that cancels out any benefit from further spending on marketing?)
Couldn’t the government break this feedback loop by saying “it is ILLEGAL to spend more than X% of your revenue on advertising”.
Since everyone would be forced to spend less on advertising, the smaller number of ads in the world would theoretically get proportional shares of consumer attention. The money not spent on advertising would go to increasing corporate profits (which spurs new investment) and product improvement (which benefits society)
Don’t threadjack me, bro. This is not a thread to debate the merits of the government interfering in business, but rather to debate whether this specific intervention would be a beneficial thing or not.