Hacker News Reader

Comment by lightbyte | Hacker News Reader

>the kids can learn quickly how to determine if they should do what ads tell them to do.

The problem is they can not do this at all. Children are extremely easy to manipulate, and that is pretty much what advertising is.

View on HN

As a kid I quickly learnt to distrust ads, so I'm not sure why you think kids can't do this. They may not be adults, but they're not robots either.

You personally might not be able to, but there is a lot of research that shows children can't always understand that they are watching an advertisement, and what that entails. That's why the US has lots of regulations regarding advertising to children.

> That's why the US has lots of regulations regarding advertising to children.

We have regulation on advertisements to children? That's a little surprising.

This one is more on the data collection side of advertising, but I'd say it's still relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr...

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_sta...

I remember at that age understanding that ads are not truthful at a deep level and filtering them. I find it's much harder for me now. Everything seems like an ad now a days and I may not believe the message but having the money to pay for so many ads on expensive platforms gives me a different message. If a company can afford a superbowl ad it gives me the impression the product has resources behind it and I can assign a level of trust.

Kids are better at filtering in some ways.

You're talking about the demographic who believes in Santa Claus, right?

In a Country that largely believes virgin birth and one very specific zombie.

One crazy belief is not sign of universal insanity. Perhaps though it is a sign of susceptibility, which is what we seem to be talking about.

I just knew some smartass was going to liken Santa Claus to God.

Both are fictional, believed by a large demographic and don't instantly signal insanity, just gullibility.

Gullibility, which is what we were talking and why advertising to children is bad. If we started teaching our kids to do things like try to test for Santa they would be more likely to come to correct answers for the rest of their lives, and in general be less gullible.

Whatever you say.

Both make a list of the naughty and nice boys and girls. One substitutes brimstone for coal, nebulous "eternal happiness" for toys, but they seem pretty similar to me.

I think that's excessively reductive and there are other differences, like incontrovertible proof there is no Santa (as opposed to merely a lack of evidence), the fact that Santa often has the exact same handwriting as Mom and Dad, the fact that no supernatural powers are attributed to him and yet he would need them to do what he supposedly does, etc. Besides that a debate about Christian apologetics kind of takes us away from the point I was making.

Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas, in order to become a Saint you have to performed miracles in the eyes of the Catholic church. He certainly does have super power, at least the ability to resurrect childre, if he is real.

I think we can safely say that Santa Claus the children's character is almost completely divorced from the guy who punched Arius at the Council of Nicea.

Im certain you just don't see the value in your new perception.

Somehow I don't trust your own judgment of your ability as a child, especially when it is in contrast with the experience of most people and the findings of researchers.

I recall it exactly. When you start to trust theory over reality I'm sure you've taken a bad turn.

Would you also say you're exceptionally modest?

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence! Especially anecdotal data reported by the subject. All you are showing is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific process.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence (hence the name). You just can't apply the usual statistical methods that assume the evidence was sampled perfectly randomly from an effectively infinite population. Empirical evidence rarely lives up to the theoretical requirements, either, but that doesn't stop science from progressing.

Good ads work on an emotional level. They work regardless of whether you know you can't trust then.

That sounds like nonsense.

You will not find a single person in America who believes advertisements are a good neutral source of information, yet they still run them. They run them ever for products everyone has heard of and probably tried at some point. Why do you suppose that might be?

I'm not saying ads are worthless, I'm saying they don't have control over you.

I don't see how this is a response to what I said.

It's all about name recognition. Ads work because they stick the advertiser's brand in your brain, along with some warm and fuzzy feelings. The next time you're hungry on the road, and there's a McDonald's across the street from a Burger King, whoever has your warmer and fuzzier feelings will win.

Do you interact with any kids lately? They're all absolutely obsessed with the latest thing that is being pushed on them.

Minecraft, Pokemon Go, Star Wars...

To be fair you're describing a significant portion of the user base here as well.

Sure, in some ways, we all did - though I think most of us just got disappointed in a product or two or finally realized the ads weren't realistic.

This wasn't the case with other things, though. I remember really liking Care Bears back in the 80's. My father was appalled when he took me to a movie - he said it was basically an add to get kids to buy the new line of toys. My brother, 11 years younger than I, had the same sort of thing with Power Rangers and then Pokemon. I don't have children and am not quite sure what the current modern version of this is, but I'm sure it is there. Adult versions abound. These aren't the things we can spot so easily, especially as children with little world experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com