A Quote by Tim Wu

I do think the best thing for companies like Google and Facebook, if they are afraid of this ethical trap of advertising, is they should start letting people pay who want to pay and avoid some of the advertising.
Facebook, when it began, like Google, was very resistant to advertising. They knew, like all - Mark Zuckerberg, like all good engineers, knew that advertising makes the product worse. But, you know, over time, they've been forced to increase the advertising load more and more and more. And the way they advertise is they - it's subtle but they know everything, you know, about everybody on the site.
The truth is I don't think actors should have to do anything but come in and act. I feel the film companies should pay for proper advertising to see that the movie will sell instead of putting it on our backs.
If you want quality service, you have to pay for it. You don't buy into waste. I have great misgivings about the amount of advertising that we see in the health care field, some by hospitals, a lot by drug companies.
I feel the film companies should pay for proper advertising to see that the movie will sell, instead of putting it on our backs.
It is very similar to companies like Google and other internet companies. When you go and search on Google you don't pay for that. But sometimes you click on an advert and Google makes money on that.
Advertising is the price companies pay for being unoriginal.
Advertising holding companies used to boast about their share of the advertising market. Now they are proud of how much of their business is not in advertising.
Mahalo's business model is advertising. Yahoo, Google, Ask, AOL and MSN are all advertising-based. So I don't see anything wrong with advertising-based search.
I think of Google as a set of overlapping things. It's a consumer platform, consumer phenomenon of which search is its fundamental activity, but there are many other things you can do than search... I think of Google as an advertising company who services the broader advertising industry in the ways that you know.
Eventually we have to "settle up" and pay the price for our ethical violations. Just remember the old line that says, "You can pay me now . . . or you can pay me later." Often you can buy some time, but when you "pay later" you'll probably have to pay more.
I'm not a huge spender. Sometimes when you pay a lot, you're paying for the company's advertising. It feels ridiculous to pay for a name.
Fashion is not art. Fashion isnt even culture. Fashion is advertising, and advertising is money. And for every dollar you earn, someone has to pay.
We tell the for-profit sector, 'Spend, spend, spend on advertising until the last dollar no longer produces a penny of value,' but we don't like to see our donations spent on advertising in charity. Our attitude is, 'Well look, if you can get the advertising donated (at four o'clock in the morning) I'm okay with that, but I don't want my donation spent on advertising, I want it to go to the needy,' as if the money invested in advertising could not bring in dramatically greater sums of money to serve the needy.
I don't believe in tricky advertising, I don't believe in cute advertising, I don't believe in comic advertising. The people who perpetrate that kind of advertising never had to sell anything in their lives
What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.
Technology companies must constantly weigh ethical decisions: Where should Facebook set its privacy defaults, and should it tolerate glimpses of nudity? Should Twitter close accounts that seem sympathetic to terrorists? How should Google handle sex and violence, or defamatory articles?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!