The Instigator
tinydog2473
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
republicofdhar
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Advertising should be BANNED from TV and Radio

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
republicofdhar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,397 times Debate No: 65636
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

tinydog2473

Con

I stand against advertising from being banned from TV and radio. One of my main arguments includes jobs. The amount of jobs that will be lost from no advertising is astonishing. If there weren't any advertising for radio and TV then roughly 27,000 people will be unemployed from the advertising. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics states. Many of these jobs include directors and co-directors, set designers, actors, stunt doubles, musicians that write the jingles, and many more.

To hear the rest of my argument please join my debate.
republicofdhar

Pro

Thanks for instigating this debate. Since this is a normative question, the burden of proof is shared. I assume that advertising refers to paid announcements by a business.

Economic Arguments

Argument 1: Advertising is almost always waste of resources

Advertising is a waste of resources. Advertising comes in two forms: informative and persuasive. Persuasive advertising tends to be more prevalent than informative advertising; this ranges from celebrity endorsements to “advertising showdowns” between various major brands. This provides no tangible benefit to the consumer of these products, aside from the amusement of course. Instead, a lot of time, money and effort is spent on planning and executing tedious advertising ventures. This has an opportunity cost for the consumer: all this time, money and effort could instead be spent on improving the quality of the product and the quality of the customer’s experience. Informative advertising is only not a waste of resources if it leads the customer to making an informed decision and purchasing the right product. I have outlined below why that is often not the case and the repercussions have already been mentioned above.

Argument 2: Advertising will result in higher prices in the long run

Since advertising creates a cost with no tangible benefit (in other words, customers wouldn’t pay for advertising on its own), it drives up the costs of firms engaging in advertising. In the long run, this would result in higher prices for consumers, depleting consumer surplus and affecting their welfare.

To say that an industry should exist simply because it provides employment to people is an economic threat, because it means that money is being spent on something that cannot generate growth. As economic growth is a macroeconomic goal of government, it would be the wise option to ban advertising.

Non-economic Arguments

Argument 3: Advertising can be misleading
The firm producing the good has more information about the good than the buyer. This information asymmetry results in firms pushing the envelope in a bid to persuade consumers to purchase their products. Customers rarely understand the product and the industry before buying a good. Consequently, they do not know which product best suits their needs before they purchase it.

Let’s look both at persuasive and informative advertising.

Persuasive advertising is easy to analyse. Persuasive advertising attempts to skew the customer’s perception of their product with minimal consideration of whether the product really is suitable for the consumer. If a consumer sees an advertisement of one firm and buys its product, when instead the firm’s competitor’s product would have been more suitable, then the advertisement has succeeded in getting business for the firm, but it has come at a cost to the consumer.

Informative advertising is a lot more, well some might even say altruistic. It attempts to give more information to the customer about the product and thereby enable the customer to make a more informed decision. However, very often, customers (especially first time buyers) are unable to weigh the options accurately on their own, or make an appropriate decision, because they are unaware of the criteria that go into purchasing the product. The customer, overwhelmed by the information, may end up choosing randomly to get out of their confusion, even if the advertised product is the right one for them.

At the end of the day, it is important to understand the dynamics at play. Firms exist to provide benefit to consumers and households. Consumers do not exist to create jobs for firms. As long as firms are hiding behind advertising in a bid to escape their responsibility to consumers, the dynamic will never be at an optimal scale. As an alternative, firms may instead find it better to use the advertising money to fund an organization that will understand consumers’ needs and send them to the right business. If one business gets a larger market share, then it would be an indication that they are doing something right that other businesses should emulate, and that we, as a society, would want continued in the future.

We can therefore conclude that advertising should be banned. Looking forward to your response.

Debate Round No. 1
tinydog2473

Con

First off, I would like to say thank you for accepting my third debate.

As many Americans are aware of, cable costs a lot. Now, when an company wants to make a commercial and air it on television, they would pay the channel station to air their commercial. Since channel stations get a tremendous amount of money from this, they would raise the price of cable in place of the loss of funds from the advertising agencies.

Also, many successful directors and producers have started in advertising. Same goes for musician when making jingles.

Many people need the commercials that run during the TV show that they are watching to say, get a drink, or go to the bathroom.

Commercials are very important for companies especially during Black Friday and Christmas time. Many companies get the word of there products out to little children through the TV. One way that a company could do this is from sending a pamphlet out with the morning newspaper. However this will cost the company thousands of dollars. I know this from experience, my dad used to work as like a news boy and I would help him deliver papers. We had to deliver roughly 200 newspapers in one night. When a company was advertising themselves thought the papers they would pay about 10 cents for every paper that their company was in. Now in the warehouse that my dad worked at there were about 100 people deliver papers every night with average 200 papers to deliver a night. If that company had advertising's in every paper for 10 cents a paper, that would come or to be $2,000. Now remember this was just one night let alone not on a Sunday, where a company would have to pay 15 cents for every paper.

I good solution to not having to "put up with" these commercials could be too just get say, Netflix or like Hulu. Where there are no commercials.

Once again I thank you for joining my debate and I hope these reasons make you consider my stand on this topic.
republicofdhar

Pro

Thank you for your robust response.

Counter-argument 1: Cable? I couldn"t really follow your first point. When you say "advertising agencies" do you mean the firms that are paid to handle advertising for many clients, or do you mean the firm that is advertising its own product? Also, I"m not sure what you meant by "loss of funds". Either way, you conclude by saying that channel stations would raise the price of cable, which cannot be a desirable outcome for the consumer, and so advertising should be banned.

Counter-argument 2: Advertising as a starting point for talented artists You are right to say that talented people have started in advertising, but that is a weak reason to support its existence. Talented people come from all walks of life. Some are known to have grown up in slums and ghettos, but that does not mean that we should preserve slums and ghettos. If an artist really is talented, they should not need advertising as a platform to begin with.

Counter argument 3: People need commercials for breaks during TV shows I wasn"t very impressed by this argument. Are you suggesting that we should preserve a parasitic multi-billion dollar industry simply because people need to go to the bathroom? This is hardly the most important question here, but an alternative: why not play a musical interlude, or place short sketches in between TV shows instead?

Counter argument 4: Just get Netflix or Hulu Well, I think that you"ve just established that advertisements are unnecessary. If they can work on platforms like Netflix and Hulu, then it is indicative that TV can be watched without advertisements.

I have responded to all your arguments, though I"m not sure that you have responded to all of mine. Since my arguments still stand, I conclude that advertising should be banned. Thanks for this very interesting debate; it"s opened my eyes to new perspectives. a86;
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
"Many people need the commercials that run during the TV show that they are watching to say, get a drink, or go to the bathroom."

Tinydog,

I dont know if u were for real or not, but i almost peed my pants reading that!!
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
That's good to know, but it wasn't specified and since this question applies universally, it isn't obvious. Either way, thanks for a good debate! :)
Posted by tinydog2473 2 years ago
tinydog2473
Well I was just thinking of America when I made this debate...
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Hey Carthage, this debate wasn't made specific to America. Advertising is pretty much universal, but many countries are not protected by the legal provisions of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by Carthage 2 years ago
Carthage
First Amendment
Posted by benkitching13 2 years ago
benkitching13
@republicofdhar I agree with you in that advertising is expensive, but I believe advertisements cover a wide variety of products.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
@benkitching13 Advertising tends to be expensive, so only big businesses really spend money advertising. Advertising is most common in oligopolies like the automobile market or smartphone market.
Posted by benkitching13 2 years ago
benkitching13
Advertising helps to promote local buisness, which benefits a large number of people, although major brands are already so well known that their is no reason for them to frequently promote themselves over smaller buisnessess.
Posted by benkitching13 2 years ago
benkitching13
Advertising helps to promote local buisness, which benefits a large number of people, although major brands are already so well known that their is no reason for them to frequently promote themselves over smaller buisnessess.
Posted by Carthage 2 years ago
Carthage
Freedom of speech.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
tinydog2473republicofdharTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote-bomb against mcdorr.
Vote Placed by Flipbook 2 years ago
Flipbook
tinydog2473republicofdharTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Dumbest thing I've ever read, the perfectly styled clean neat progressional style arguments by a clearly experienced Pro, were just dumb and made no sense. Conduct to pro cuz this was obviously a way for con to find stupid people to debate.
Vote Placed by mcdorr72 2 years ago
mcdorr72
tinydog2473republicofdharTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70