Ads create common knowledge (as RamblinDash’s answer points out)
Creation of common knowledge is the main bottleneck to creating or moving Schelling points
Most social symbols/signals of group identity or role identity are Schelling points
As an example, let’s consider an oversimplified scenario with two social identities: the MBA types, and the artsy counterculture types. The MBA types want to signal that they’re MBA types, definitely not artsy counterculture types. The artsy counterculture types want to signal they’re artsy counterculture types, not MBA types. So this is a pure cooperative game: everyone wants clear signals, and everyone is incentivized to use those signals honestly.
But that still leaves a degree of freedom in which symbols signal which group membership. In our world, converse hightops signal artsy counterculture, while MBA types debate the relative merits of oxfords vs brogues. But one could easily (and somewhat amusingly) imagine a different world in which the middle managers wear hightops, and the artsy types debate oxfords vs brogues. The choice of which symbols signal which things is a Schelling problem: everyone wants to coordinate on the choice of symbolic meaning.
Now enter the Converse marketing team. The main thing they care about is that their brand have some strong group identity signal, so that there’s some group of people who will buy their overpriced sneakers. Early on, their customer base accidentally happens to have relatively few MBA types, so they lean into that and launch a marketing campaign to establish common knowledge that converse hightops signal artsy counterculture. Their product becomes a profitable part of the symbolic meaning Schelling point.
Notably: at this point, the association between converse hightops and artsy counterculture group membership becomes a real feature of the world; converse hightops have real predictive power about the social behavior of people who wear them (and their friends). The ads aren’t just manipulating people into buying the product; the ads helped to create a real predictive feature in the environment. So it would be epistemically suboptimal to be “immune to” the outputs of the advertising.
So it would be epistemically suboptimal to be “immune to” the outputs of the advertising.
I get that you are saying that ads convey useful information. It seems to me, though, that instead of relying on ads for this information, I could get the same information just as easily by observing people.
Are there any particular situations where it is especially useful to pay attention to ads for this kind of group signalling information?
(I gather that hightops and brogues are types of shoes. I had to look them up...)
It is sometimes good to avoid coming across as really weird or culturally out of touch, and ads can give you some signal on what’s normal and culturally relevant right now. If you’re picking up drinks for a 4th of July party, Bud Light will be very culturally on-brand, Corona would be fine, but a bit less on-brand, and mulled wine would be kinda weird. And I think you can pick this sort of thing up from advertising.
Also, it might be helpful to know roughly what group membership you or other people might be signalling by using a particular product. For example, I drive a Subaru. Subaru has, for a long time, marketed to (what appears to me to be) people who are a bit younger, vote democrat, and spend time in the mountains. This is in contrast to, say, Ram trucks, which are marketed to (what looks to me like) people who vote Republican. If I’m in a context where people who don’t know me very well see my car, I am now aware that they might be biased toward thinking I vote democrat or spend time outdoors. (FWIW, I did a low-effort search for which states have the strongest Subaru sales and it is indeed states with mountains and states with people who vote democrat).
A few parts:
Ads create common knowledge (as RamblinDash’s answer points out)
Creation of common knowledge is the main bottleneck to creating or moving Schelling points
Most social symbols/signals of group identity or role identity are Schelling points
As an example, let’s consider an oversimplified scenario with two social identities: the MBA types, and the artsy counterculture types. The MBA types want to signal that they’re MBA types, definitely not artsy counterculture types. The artsy counterculture types want to signal they’re artsy counterculture types, not MBA types. So this is a pure cooperative game: everyone wants clear signals, and everyone is incentivized to use those signals honestly.
But that still leaves a degree of freedom in which symbols signal which group membership. In our world, converse hightops signal artsy counterculture, while MBA types debate the relative merits of oxfords vs brogues. But one could easily (and somewhat amusingly) imagine a different world in which the middle managers wear hightops, and the artsy types debate oxfords vs brogues. The choice of which symbols signal which things is a Schelling problem: everyone wants to coordinate on the choice of symbolic meaning.
Now enter the Converse marketing team. The main thing they care about is that their brand have some strong group identity signal, so that there’s some group of people who will buy their overpriced sneakers. Early on, their customer base accidentally happens to have relatively few MBA types, so they lean into that and launch a marketing campaign to establish common knowledge that converse hightops signal artsy counterculture. Their product becomes a profitable part of the symbolic meaning Schelling point.
Notably: at this point, the association between converse hightops and artsy counterculture group membership becomes a real feature of the world; converse hightops have real predictive power about the social behavior of people who wear them (and their friends). The ads aren’t just manipulating people into buying the product; the ads helped to create a real predictive feature in the environment. So it would be epistemically suboptimal to be “immune to” the outputs of the advertising.
Thanks for the explanation!
I get that you are saying that ads convey useful information. It seems to me, though, that instead of relying on ads for this information, I could get the same information just as easily by observing people.
Are there any particular situations where it is especially useful to pay attention to ads for this kind of group signalling information?
(I gather that hightops and brogues are types of shoes. I had to look them up...)
It is sometimes good to avoid coming across as really weird or culturally out of touch, and ads can give you some signal on what’s normal and culturally relevant right now. If you’re picking up drinks for a 4th of July party, Bud Light will be very culturally on-brand, Corona would be fine, but a bit less on-brand, and mulled wine would be kinda weird. And I think you can pick this sort of thing up from advertising.
Also, it might be helpful to know roughly what group membership you or other people might be signalling by using a particular product. For example, I drive a Subaru. Subaru has, for a long time, marketed to (what appears to me to be) people who are a bit younger, vote democrat, and spend time in the mountains. This is in contrast to, say, Ram trucks, which are marketed to (what looks to me like) people who vote Republican. If I’m in a context where people who don’t know me very well see my car, I am now aware that they might be biased toward thinking I vote democrat or spend time outdoors. (FWIW, I did a low-effort search for which states have the strongest Subaru sales and it is indeed states with mountains and states with people who vote democrat).