Compare an ad you see on the side of a bus (one you’re not riding) to an ad you see on Facebook. I can’t think of any conceivable way anyone is compensated by the bus ad unless they take public transit and the ad revenue keeps fares cheap. Assuming you don’t use public transit, like me, I’d say your attention is being robbed.
Facebook, on the other hand, I only visit voluntarily and I only see their ads because I decided to visit Facebook. Frankly I don’t recall the last time I ever thought “Gee I’m glad I checked in on Facebook today”. I still think it’s fair to assume that since I do it regularly and completely voluntarily, I must feel like I’m getting some value out of the visit.
Yes except I’m saying the majority do compensate us and by any reasonable definition (or at least my own definition) the more pernicious and irritating an ad, the more likely you’re seeing it voluntarily and that we can assume you’re getting some value out of it.
For example, a 3.5 minute interruption of a tv show I’m watching is incredibly disruptive to the activity I was attempting to engage in. A high way billboard? It’s true I can’t help but look at it if I want to drive to work, and it’s true the billboard company isn’t benefiting me at all, but it’s not like I have to stop my car or slow down. I’m pretty sure I take no conscious notice of the vast majority of billboards.
I’d say one could’ve made a much better argument against advertising’s morality 20 years ago when a lot of activities virtually every American loved required looking at ads. Saying “just don’t ever watch TV and you’ll be ok” seems like a really unreasonable argument in 1995. In 2015, I vastly prefer limiting myself to Netflix precisely because I hate seeing commercials so much.
What ads DO “compensate us”? If we watch an ad that’s irritating and obnoxious, is it only because we’re being “compensated” somehow? I know I’ve watched/tried to ignore a lot of really irritating content in waiting rooms, airports, restaurants etc. and was unsuccessful because it was eye-grabbing or there was nowhere else polite to look - but I’ll be damned if I can figure out how I was compensated for that Hobson’s choice.
Don’t blame advertising for that, blame yourself. My massive number of boxes consist of sf magazines which haven’t been advertised in over 50 years, if ever. Stuff that is advertised today I can easily resist.
Over the years I have learned that buying something I’m not going to use is pointless, and I’ve stopped. And I’ve directed my urge to acquire things to cheap things.
Try this: A show that you want to watch on TV is available in two formats; 1. Pay-Per-View for $10 with no ads, and 2. ‘free’ broadcast with commercials every 15 minutes.
The ads on the ‘free’ broadcast compensate you for watching the ads by providing $10 worth of viewing pleasure.
To deal with the question in the OP - yes, it is morally justifiable. There are few situations where advertising is hard to avoid - billboard for one - but in these cases it is not very intrusive, and got eliminated in some places where it is. We make a deal to accept some advertising for free or reduced cost content. Even if we don’t like this deal, offering it is not morally objectionable. I think it might be possible to make an argument (not a very good one) that it is more morally objectionable to skip ads than to offer ads.
And advertising could perform a social good by improving the information the consumer has about new product. Yeah there are less intrusive ways of doing this, but even today it is still a good. Look at movie trailers pre-internet. Definitely useful.
As for the author of the quote in the OP - extracting our attention? Hah. Those of old enough to have watched TV before DVRs made going to the bathroom or getting a snack during the commercials into a fine art. Nobody nails you to the couch.
I didn’t mean to imply that all television commercials are voluntary and come with compensatory enjoyment of whatever they’re interrupting. I just meant that the vast majority of ads we see are both voluntary and compensate us with otherwise free benefits.
How much of your TV time is in a waiting room or airport? 1%? 0.1%? For me personally 0.1% is probably way too high.
Technically I agree that irritating commercials in waiting rooms and airports are displayed without our permission or compensation. I still reject the idea that we need to concoct some new legal protection for attention. Personal property laws seem to do the job pretty well already. Why would your right to your own attention trump some doctor’s right to screw a television to the wall of his waiting room?
What I think Fuzzy is trying to say is that many of these ads directly support the content that you’re consuming. For example, say you want to watch a sitcom on TV. The people producing the show all need to be paid, and the studio wants to make a profit on the show. If they’re a broadcaster, they have no method to collect money from the people watching the show directly. Instead, they sell your attention to advertisers and compensate you for your attention by providing you with a show to watch.
When you watch ad-supported TV, you’re not the customer. You’re the product, and the television show is the method of production. Same thing with radio programs, websites, and anything else that is primarily supported by ads.
Which makes Hulu Plus a very strange service where you pay Hulu to be their product.
Without advertising, we wouldn’t know to want any of the stuff or even what was available for purchase. Sure, we wouldn’t need to work so much, as we wouldn’t need the money to buy the stuff, so we’d have plenty of free time, but what would we do with it? Existence is futile, and the pursuit of stuff is as good a distraction as any. At least we get to live in a world with internet and don’t have to make all of our clothes by hand.
Forget the ads. The damn program is shown without permission or compensation. I try to stay as far from the TV as possible so I can read in peace, but in some waiting rooms that’s impossible.
Advertising is only acceptable on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!
