undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmozumder7y ago0 comments

> Do any people actually associate the ads they see with the content next to them on any platforms hosting user generated content? (Or any platform whatsoever)

Yes. This is how branding works. It's why companies pay for a famous celebrity to represent their brand, instead of a random person, because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity.

The major brands have very specific rules on what their ads can appear next to.. they actually write down things like "our ad can't appear next to blood/violence" etc..

Doesn't matter if it's user-generated or not. As long as that image exists next to the brand, the brand is fucked. I mean, what would you think of Chanel if they ever placed their beautiful ad next to a picture of a dead body?

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

hackinthebochs7y ago· 5 in thread

>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity.

I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol.

But the question remains, does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand? Even when people know the placement is algorithmic/automatic? I don't think speculation will answer this question.

pdkl957y ago

(edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs)

> does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand?

Yes, it does because the negative sentiment will be added to the possible results returned by "System 1"[1][2] thinking that tends to be very fast at approximate searches of long term memory and applying energy saving simplifications/heuristics. System 1 strongly favors fast lookup times over accuracy; this is very useful when you need to decide quickly if that thing you just saw around the corner was a bear or just a strangely shaped shrubbery. Wasting a bit of energy running away from shrubbery is a better survival strategy than waiting for an accurate analysis from System 2 while the bear eats you.

The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will. What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_sy...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM

EpicEng7y ago

This is fairly well settled science. If you have conflicting data then by all means, share, but you can't just write off decades of _real_ work in the field based upon your own musings and expect to be taken seriously.

hackinthebochs7y ago

I'm not sure what decades of research you're referring to, but after my own search the literature seems suspiciously sparse on the effects of endorser to perceived quality of the product. I agree that celebrity endorsements are effective generally, just not for this reason. I would be interested in seeing some of these studies you're referring to.

1 more reply

mozumderOP7y ago

When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too.

This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works.

If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.

hackinthebochs7y ago

Would be interesting to see those studies. But at the same time, consumers are much more sophisticated these days and so those studies would need to be repeated with a modern audience. For example, no one believes LeBron James wears Nike because they're the best, they know he's being paid $1 billion to wear them.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 1 top-level

hackinthebochs7y ago· 5 in thread

>because you associate a higher quality with a famous celebrity.

I don't think people are buying because of perceived quality. They buy because celebrities are trend setters. A celebrity using something makes it a kind of status symbol.

pdkl957y ago

(edited and fixed after accidental early posting. edit2: added URLs)

> does an ad being shown next to something objectionable transfer some of that negative sentiment to the brand?

The question isn't if the brand will be negatively affected - it will. What we don't know is how this is the size of the effect, which probably varies wildly due to many different factors.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Two_sy...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM

EpicEng7y ago

hackinthebochs7y ago

1 more reply

mozumderOP7y ago

When a celebrity buys something, it is perceived as higher quality, since a low quality product would damage that celebrity's brand. Celebrities also have filters for bad branding, too.

This isn't new a new field of research. This is literally and exactly how branding works.

If you feel a century of advertising science is unproven, feel free to show your own research that goes against the experiences of millions of people in the field.

hackinthebochs7y ago

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse