3 ms·

There's nothing wrong with what they call "guilting users." You're simply wording the negative value proposition in a way that they might easily empathize with.

There's nothing wrong with what they call "guilting users." You're simply wording the negative value proposition in a way that they might easily empathize with. That way the user can best evaluate their options rather than the "Subscribe/cancel" model. If someone hates signing up for emails, you want to convince that person that this is the list to sign up for. There's nothing shameful about selling a product. If you think there is, you're not selling hard enough. I'd recommend allowing a path that offers a limited experience, so they can at least try your value prop before they buy it. It's hard to sell someone on GQ's "award-winning journalism" if they've never read it before.

zepto 11y ago
It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a sociopath's view of the world. At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel. According to you, there's nothing wrong with that. To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live together as social beings. An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological manipulation. Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least tell it like it is.
- striking 11y ago
  So fictional books are psychological manipulation? If that's the case, then the phrase "psychological manipulation" is so broadly defined as to be completely useless. And I'm not victim-blaming. Perhaps the consumer doesn't fully recognize the benefits one quick and easy action could have on their lives. Your newsletter could change everything! Why not actually try and sell that, rather than giving unfeeling "Subscribe"/"don't" buttons? I'm not a fan of the Whole Foods "would you like to give a dollar to charity today" thing because it (accidentally or not) leverages social pressure to convince people to give money. Social pressure is a different thing entirely, and it does end up looking like a form of manipulation (although in this context, a fairly weak one at that) But to be unable to resist a couple of words on a screen? At that point, a conversation would fall under "psychological manipulation". So I don't get it. Am I still a sociopath?
  - zepto 11y ago
    Fictional books are not trying to get people to buy anything. Messages designed to induce guilt are not explaining benefits. If your mind doesn't make these distinctions then yes, you may be a sociopath.
    - striking 11y ago
      I'm assuming that the person making the offer lacks malicious intent. And I pretty highly doubt these messages create guilt. "No thanks, I don't want to protect my skin" is something I damn well can imagine saying. The act of closing these ads is a laugh to me, and I don't feel a twinge of guilt about it. "Haha fuck you, I totally would pay full price rather than hear another word from your company" is how I feel towards the ads. If it's something I care about (e.g. blood drives or charity events) then I'm okay with a "guilting" proposition. I'm not actually guilty, and they're not making money. They're honestly just trying to get more people to do something. It is my honest and fervent opinion that, when used in moderation, adding flavor text to help the user picture the positive and negative outcomes of an action helps both the user and the person serving the user. As guilt is a subjective thing that people experience and define differently, it seems to me that neither of our opinions have grounding in fact, and are based on our own perspectives and opinions. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't agree.
      - zepto 11y ago
        We certainly disagree, however this isn't really about your or my subjective experience - it is about whether these kinds of tacting induce guilt in other people. I take it you believe they do not, despite the contradicting evidence of people here supporting the idea that they do. I agree that not everyone will feel guilt at each particular message, but I am saying you are wrong if you believe that none of these messages induce guilt in anyone.

zepto 11y ago

It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a sociopath's view of the world. At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel. According to you, there's nothing wrong with that. To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live together as social beings. An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological manipulation. Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least tell it like it is.

striking 11y ago
So fictional books are psychological manipulation? If that's the case, then the phrase "psychological manipulation" is so broadly defined as to be completely useless. And I'm not victim-blaming. Perhaps the consumer doesn't fully recognize the benefits one quick and easy action could have on their lives. Your newsletter could change everything! Why not actually try and sell that, rather than giving unfeeling "Subscribe"/"don't" buttons? I'm not a fan of the Whole Foods "would you like to give a dollar to charity today" thing because it (accidentally or not) leverages social pressure to convince people to give money. Social pressure is a different thing entirely, and it does end up looking like a form of manipulation (although in this context, a fairly weak one at that) But to be unable to resist a couple of words on a screen? At that point, a conversation would fall under "psychological manipulation". So I don't get it. Am I still a sociopath?
- zepto 11y ago
  Fictional books are not trying to get people to buy anything. Messages designed to induce guilt are not explaining benefits. If your mind doesn't make these distinctions then yes, you may be a sociopath.
  - striking 11y ago
    I'm assuming that the person making the offer lacks malicious intent. And I pretty highly doubt these messages create guilt. "No thanks, I don't want to protect my skin" is something I damn well can imagine saying. The act of closing these ads is a laugh to me, and I don't feel a twinge of guilt about it. "Haha fuck you, I totally would pay full price rather than hear another word from your company" is how I feel towards the ads. If it's something I care about (e.g. blood drives or charity events) then I'm okay with a "guilting" proposition. I'm not actually guilty, and they're not making money. They're honestly just trying to get more people to do something. It is my honest and fervent opinion that, when used in moderation, adding flavor text to help the user picture the positive and negative outcomes of an action helps both the user and the person serving the user. As guilt is a subjective thing that people experience and define differently, it seems to me that neither of our opinions have grounding in fact, and are based on our own perspectives and opinions. Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't agree.
    - zepto 11y ago
      We certainly disagree, however this isn't really about your or my subjective experience - it is about whether these kinds of tacting induce guilt in other people. I take it you believe they do not, despite the contradicting evidence of people here supporting the idea that they do. I agree that not everyone will feel guilt at each particular message, but I am saying you are wrong if you believe that none of these messages induce guilt in anyone.