I mean to forbid any kind of promotion of brands in mass media.

A society might want to forbid advertising because they see it as a practice that costs a lot of resources, but doesn't meaningfully improve the goods themselves. It can also help lead to monopolies.

Has there ever been an otherwise capitalist society that has forbidden advertising? If so, what were the results?

Has anyone ever studied the effects of an advertising ban on a society?

  • somewhat related – lazarusL Mar 30 '16 at 13:17
  • 2
    So - how do you expect a new company to find a market for their product to overturn existing monopolies? – Michael Broughton Mar 30 '16 at 13:47
  • @Michael Broughton maybe through some centralized goods database/catalogue? – Anixx Mar 30 '16 at 13:50
  • 6
    This question sounds too much like a rant, than an actual question. Could you clarify it a bit, removing the unnecessary parts, and precising what kind of study you are looking for? – clem steredenn Mar 30 '16 at 13:51
  • This doesn't appear to be about politics. – user1530 Mar 30 '16 at 19:24

First, there is more lame content between the ads sometimes.

Second, companies take a "percentage of your money" for lots of things. R&D, employee benefits, transportation, all of which are required to bring a product to market. Advertising is just another business expense, and an important one to generate sales.

Third, you will now have companies with established distribution networks having a virtual stranglehold on the market - making it almost impossible for new products to gain entry.

I understand the annoyance of ads. Truly. But in a competitive market vendors need to be able to differentiate their products. Instead you'll be paying extra for fancier packaging / in-store promotions / fliers at your door / whatever other ideas they come up with. Or, the competitive market will die and you'll have monopolies fixing prices.

I'll take the ads.

|improve this answer|||||
  • You forgot that it would kill most non-subscription TV. – Phil Lello Mar 30 '16 at 15:54
  • non-subscription TV is on its deathbed anyway, although anything that killed the so-called "news" channels might just be deemed a public service! :P – Michael Broughton Mar 30 '16 at 16:03

As far as I'm aware, in the early days of television this was the case in some countries. For example, the BBC first began regular broadcast TV to the UK in 1936, but does not allow paid advertising - I'm unable to find a reference on if this has always been the case.

The Television Act 1954 paved the way for commercial TV stations, generally funded by advertising.

It would probably be relevant to consider the reasons for both the 1954 act, and the affect on society. Feel free to pick another country which started with a state broadcaster and later introduced commercial TV.

|improve this answer|||||

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .