Thats a bit of a pessimistic if realistic take. Advertising in its ideal form is meant to inform you of something that could improve your life (happiness, productivity, health, etc...). It could conceivably be "let the consumer know that our product solves their problems that competitors can't solve or for a cheaper cost." Of course, cutting corners leads to more profits for less effort, so that's what often happens.

Ethically speaking, ads simply shouldn't be manipulating us at all, just informing us of something that might be useful.

Although, the sharing of useful information is different than an advertisement, entirely, so such a thing wouldn't be called an ad.

Wikipedia exists to share information and inform us of something we might find useful. It doesn't need to be pushed on anyone. It just needs to exist in the open.

Anytime something is brought to you that you didn't ask for, demanding your attention, there is motive behind why it's being done, be it a coworker pitching a tool to you trying to get buy-in and force a decision they want to be made in their favor, a flyer of sales happening at the grocery store that's delivered to your door on Sunday, or the blinking square ad impression telling you that if you just give up some of your money, they will provide you with a service that will make you feel like you're making progress on something (and then you'll convince yourself that's true even if it's not because nobody likes to admit they made a mistake and wasted time and/or money).

Ads are forced upon us, telling us something, and there is so much motive behind why it's being done, people will spend millions to make sure you see it. Even if it's just a tidbit of info, selling no product, whoever is motivated enough to pay a lot of money for you to see it, has motive to push an agenda which you seeing that info stands to benifet from. It's still manipulation. It's not possible to be ethical.

The only example of real world ethical advertising I can think of, would be the million dollar webpage. A webpage of pixels purchased to show an ad, that you have to willingly make the decision to navigate to and look at, and that website no longer exists, which proves my point pretty well imo

That isn't right. When the Wright Brothers went on tour to advertise their new contraption called the airplane, that was advertising, and it wasn't manipulation. Maybe someone could have argued they were just selling snake oil back then, but in retrospect.

Ideally speaking of course, there is room to advertise stuff. Like advertising a vaccine so you don't get sick or die; sure the vaccine maker is also going to make money on giving you that vaccine, but it is still an ad that might be "ehtical."

Sure, no motive or financial incentive to do so at all...

> The brothers contacted the United States Department of War, the British War Office and a French syndicate on October 19, 1905. The U.S. Board of Ordnance and Fortification replied on October 24, 1905, specifying they would take no further action "until a machine is produced which by actual operation is shown to be able to produce horizontal flight and to carry an operator."

> The brothers turned their attention to Europe, especially France, where enthusiasm for aviation ran high, and journeyed there for the first time in 1907 for face-to-face talks with government officials and businessmen. They also met with aviation representatives in Germany and Britain. Before traveling, Orville shipped a newly built Model A Flyer to France in anticipation of demonstration flights. In France, Wilbur met Frank P. Lahm, a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Aeronautical Division. Writing to his superiors, Lahm smoothed the way for Wilbur to give an in-person presentation to the U.S. Board of Ordnance and Fortification in Washington, DC, when he returned to the U.S. This time, the Board was favorably impressed, in contrast to its previous indifference.

> With further input from the Wrights, the U.S. Army Signal Corps issued Specification 486 in December 1907, inviting bids for construction of a flying machine under military contract.[90] The Wrights submitted their bid in January,[b] and were awarded a contract on February 8, 1908

> In May they went back to Kitty Hawk with their 1905 Flyer to practice for their contracted demonstration flights.

> The brothers' contracts with the U.S. Army and a French syndicate depended on successful public flight demonstrations that met certain conditions. The brothers had to divide their efforts. Wilbur sailed for Europe; Orville would fly near Washington, DC.

They just wanted to spread the good news though

This whole thread is classic overthinking. Advertising isn’t a binary good/bad morality thing. It is in many ways subjective. There have been times an ad helped me learn about something that solved a problem or need I have. There have been times where an ad was pushing something that I personally (subjectively) consider to be useless junk.

It depends. Ads aren’t inherently good or evil. Step back from dogma for a second.

> Ethically speaking, ads simply shouldn't be manipulating us at all, just informing us of something that might be useful.

Sure, if that existed in a vacuum, and not in a capitalist economic system where you are rewarded by doing unethical things to generate more profit. In reality, there is no way to successfully deploy ethical advertising. Even if one tried, it could never compete with the ones not being ethical, since they will have higher returns, and infinitely more budget as a result, to make it so your ethical ad is never even shown to a single human eyeball

I agree with you on the large scale, but once I zoom in, my thoughts get murkier. I can't think of any ethical digital advertising, but have a harder time condemning all advertising. How would you evaluate these kind of ads:

- Asking customer to place yard signs on their property

- Small businesses putting physical ads in other small businesses

- Printing shirts, hats, pop sockets, etc. . . and handing them out for free

- sponsoring local events/athletes/scholars

- Parade floats, community bulletein boards, festival/event booths

- wrapping company vehicles

I guess, after typing out this list, none of this is targeted advertising; maybe that's what separates them in my mind.

You're kidding right? Everything you listed is being done with because of a motive where they stand to gain somehow. They are not providing a public service. While the definition of advertisement does include "just telling someone something", in practise in the real world, advertisements exist because someone has motive to make them because they stand to gain from doing so, where as "just telling someone something" is never called an advertisement it's called an announcement or a broadcast.

> - Asking customer to place yard signs on their property

They don't ask the customer to do so out of the kindness of their hearts, they offer a discount on the bill for doing so. Another way to look at that same situation, is, extortion - "run our ad on your lawn for a month or you'll pay more for this work"... And, the discount compared to the length of time they get an ad spot on someone's lawn is probably very much in the favor of the company. Charging someone more money unless they advertise your business, not out of satisfaction, but because the other option is to pay more, isn't very ethical to me, as the customer basically is given a choice that isn't a choice unless they want to knowingly spend more money for nothing.

> - Small businesses putting physical ads in other small businesses

They share ads between each other to try to leach of off each others customers. Maybe even closer to "participate in our shared cartel or we'll send folks to some competitor who does.". Either way, it's not being done to inform folks of something, it's being done to profit and these users are already out, spending money, and close by, so it's the cheapest costing acquisition funnel.

> - Printing shirts, hats, pop sockets, etc. . . and handing them out for free

That merch given out is paid for by the company's marketing budget and that's because what they are buying is ad space with potentially unlimited and extremely cheap display time. You see a nice company giving you a shirt for free. What they see is a sucker who is happy to become a walking billboard that will go to packed concerts, bars, tv shows, friend groups, etc for the price of a cheap t shirt and silk screen, for the life of the tshirt, gaining brand recognition if nothing else the entire time. Manipulating a person into thinking the free shirt they were given is ethical advertising when they are actually being used to freely advertise their brand, not something I'd consider ethical.

> - sponsoring local events/athletes/scholars

All done to get a giant banner on the fence of the field, have your branding stamped on every helmet, bike, bat, glove, shirt, said in every annoucement, etc. They aren't "sponsoring" those things, they are paying for advertising space, and saying it's not that isn't very ethical. They aren't doing anything for the good of the community, they are doing it for mindshare. Redbull on every extreme sport for instance.

> - Parade floats, community bulletein boards, festival/event booths

Parade floats are so the company gets a mention or airtime or mindshare as it passes by people. Festivals and event booths, please see my free tshirt reply. That booth they purchased or conference they sponsored is advertising budget and used to push their product on attendees.

- wrapping company vehicles

> I used to do fleet vehicles for corporations. Company branding applied to company fleets is not advertising. It's so when those service vehicles arrive to a customer, they are recognizable by those expecting them (UPS, FedEX, DHL, Geek Squad, etc). They inevitably get used to advertise, because of course they do, but the only thing they can do is steal mindshare and force through repeat exposure a bias for the company just because you see their name more often. It's manipulation, and hardly ethical.

I'm not going to reply to example after example. No matter the application, no matter they given benifets or percieved value you think they are giving, the end result is for you to give them money, and the fact that so many forms of ads exist that people don't see as exactly that, companies talking you out of your money or otherwise using you to make money (walking billboard), shows that it's not possible to be ethical advertising. Ethical advertising is build a good product, let it speak for itself by being a good product, and let happy customers spread word when they want to, if they want to, and for no other reason than because of the product they are impressed with. If you're not selling garbage, or shit people don't need, you shouldn't have to spend money to manipulate people into thinking they need it.