In terms of cost of an ad to earnings, and how well, even a targeted ad, can hold a viewer’s attention. Have we just become numb to ads? Does targeted advertising actually yield better results?
In terms of cost of an ad to earnings, and how well, even a targeted ad, can hold a viewer’s attention. Have we just become numb to ads? Does targeted advertising actually yield better results?
Nope. Advertising is based on paying a third party. The company didn’t pay someone else to show you that packaging when you didn’t ask for it.
No it’s not, Toyota putting Toyota badges on their cars is advertising.
No.
Did you even read the definition?
Yep. And, like a sensible user of language, I recognised that it could be stretched to include your odd definition, but chose to stay with the combination of what was written in the dictionary and what is the common-use definition because the rest of the English-speaking world is under no obligation to stretch out the definition to help you. Everyone knows what ads are. Only a particularly obtuse user of language would call ‘an intrusive video, put in front of you for the benefit of other people and the detriment of society’ and ‘a label of manufacturer of the object you are currently looking at, being used as an identifier’ the same thing. They don’t look alike. They don’t serve the same purposes. One interacts with them in different ways. Only in the idiosyncratic space of marketing theory would one call them the same.
You’re coping so hard rn
Are you going to present some evidence of where I have made a mistake in my reasoning or just ‘cope’ by pretending to have some insight into my mental state that invalidates the points I made in order to avoid acknowledging you were wrong?
You’re actually crying