> It's only useful for converting someone who would not have otherwise bought the product.
Its not useful for converting someone who has decided "do not want". It is useful primarily for converting someone who is on the fence and is considering deferring a purchase decision on the assumption that the decision can be later with no cost (other than delay in getting the product).
Its also potentially useful for converting someone who is on the fence but subject to being swayed by the perception that other people are buying.
> So suddenly, you're selling products not based on the product itself, but based on some bit of metadata wholly unrelated to the performance of the product itself.
Scientific study of the specific mechanisms that work here might be new, and even moreso any particular result of that study may be, but that general fact is not even remotely new. Its pretty much a major part of what sales and marketing are about. Engaging on a rational level may be part of that, but its never been the major part.
> It is useful primarily for converting someone who is on the fence and is considering deferring a purchase decision on the assumption that the decision can be later with no cost (other than delay in getting the product).
That's the main argument I was expecting, (and I called it out somewhat at the end of the paragraph you quote). I'd be very curious to know what percentage of people do make that purchase at a later time. I'm under the impression that the in-person sales industry has a derisive term for this sort of person: "bebacks", meaning someone who says they'll "be back" later to buy, but rarely does return. That leads me to believe that someone who was "on the fence" and would have deferred the purchase, but is swayed by the scarcity argument should be considered a "do not want". We can argue on this one all day long though, I'm sure.
> Its pretty much a major part of what sales and marketing are about. Engaging on a rational level may be part of that, but its never been the major part.
See, that's the problem I have with all of this. The fact that we seem to condone psychological manipulation in marketing as okay because it's not outright lying and most of the time it's not that bad (whatever that means!) is kind of crummy, imo.
I mean, I get it. People can never make perfectly-informed decisions. Sales and marketing are a necessary evil in a world where they have to choose between seemingly-equal options. It's just weird to me that statements like:
> Its also potentially useful for converting someone who is on the fence but subject to being swayed by the perception that other people are buying.
Aren't viewed as...gross? "Don't buy Acme Laundry Soap for its form or function, buy it because everyone else is!"
> I'm under the impression that the in-person sales industry has a derisive term for this sort of person: "bebacks", meaning someone who says they'll "be back" later to buy, but rarely does return.
That's not because people are genuinely deferring purchase decisions are unlikely to return, that's because claiming to be deferring purchase decisions is a common polite way for a "do not want" to excuse themselves from a conversation with an in-person sales person.
On the statement at the end: humans are, in a significant respect, social imitation machines. Its a pretty strong factor. Recognizing that it exists isn't gross. You seem to have problems differentiating descriptive statements from positive value judgements on the thing described.
> See, that's the problem I have with all of this. The fact that we seem to condone psychological manipulation in marketing as okay because it's not outright lying and most of the time it's not that bad
That has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I disagree, it often is outright lying and often is quite bad. All I said was that the badness isn't, in any respect, new, though the study of how it works may be.
Nice, you're describing a part of our process which sits at the beginning at our decision engine: segmentate visitors in three groups: buying for sure (no need to persuade), not buying for sure (no need as well) and people that have not decided yet. That last group is most interesting: they can be persuaded. Question remains: with what kind of message and at what time. That's our challenge!
The very idea that you can view "they can be persuaded" as anything less than behavior manipulation is interesting. If you're trying to impact behavior at a subconscious level, you're bypassing a person's conscious security controls and accessing their legacy brain API. An API that -- long ago -- saved the brain owner's life but today keeps modern humans trying to stock up on high calorie food because "winter is coming." Or as Clay Johnson put it, "brains want what WAS good for us, not what IS good for us." Your algorithms are counting on this and exploiting it.
I know exactly how easy it is to feel OK about doing this given just how much manipulation design I used to develop, advocate, even teach. I'm now horrified I ever did it, and even more horrified that I cognitive dissonanced my way into thinking it was not just OK but perhaps even noble -- after all, those kids games I made for the [ginormous candy company] were educational.
I suggest you read "Addiction by Design", about precisely what happens when personally-tailored adaptive algorithms are combined with behavior science. If reading Kahneman doesn't give you a reason to rethink this, Addiction by Design might.
> I'm now horrified I ever did it, and even more horrified that I cognitive dissonanced my way into thinking it was not just OK but perhaps even noble
Your whole comment is great, but this line especially stuck out to me. It's amazing how much effort people people in this line of marketing are spending trying to read (and then manipulate) other people's minds, without taking a moment to examine what's going on inside their own.
Based on the tone of bartkappenburg's comments though, I'd be afraid that the reading material you've suggested might come off as how-to guides!
Its not useful for converting someone who has decided "do not want". It is useful primarily for converting someone who is on the fence and is considering deferring a purchase decision on the assumption that the decision can be later with no cost (other than delay in getting the product).
Its also potentially useful for converting someone who is on the fence but subject to being swayed by the perception that other people are buying.
> So suddenly, you're selling products not based on the product itself, but based on some bit of metadata wholly unrelated to the performance of the product itself.
Scientific study of the specific mechanisms that work here might be new, and even moreso any particular result of that study may be, but that general fact is not even remotely new. Its pretty much a major part of what sales and marketing are about. Engaging on a rational level may be part of that, but its never been the major part.