5 ms·

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other peop

by Iv 9y ago

tl;dr: The 3 items possibly statistically significant are: - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) - Saying other people are watching this product (+2.3%) - Time limited offer (+1.5%) I did not see mention of combining these factors. I doubt the gains are cumulative. My main takeaway is that most optimizations are not worthy if you have the opportunity to spend your time/money on something else to bring value to the consumer. Also, I think #1 and #3 are dick moves and #2 needs some good crafting to not be. I doubt the cost in reputation is worth the increase in revenue.

robbiemitchell 9y ago
> I doubt the gains are cumulative Why do you doubt that? Aren't they presented as independent results? > bring value to the consumer This is vague, but also a separate goal. Perhaps another way of representing customer value is churn reduction. In any case, it could be appropriate to invest in gaining 3% more revenue per additional customer, then use the gains to invest in more customer value. > #1 and #3 are dick moves and #2 needs some good crafting Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. For example, saying there are two copies of something available, and the rest are backordered for three weeks, can be pretty useful information.
- dkersten 9y ago
  Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. I assume what was meant is that they're dick moves if done purely for sales optimisation (i.e. If they are lying) and not if the scarcity or time limitations actually naturally exist.
- Iv 9y ago
  I think they are not purely cumulative because I assume that consumer have a it of slack in their decision/budget and that each optimization consumes some of this slack. The basic idea behind 1 and 3 is to stress out the consumer into believing that he may miss a sale. I think that stressing them out with 1 or 3 more or less gives the same result and does not need to be applied twice. Real scarcity exists, but this paper gives an incentive to create artificial scarcity. I have seen a lot of websites mention low stocks but none mentioning backorders or restocking estimates. Saying "Only 3 items left" has a very different effect than "only 3 items left but 100 more arrive in 2 weeks".
baxtr 9y ago
I like your expression "dick moves", summarizes it quite well. John Gruber started calling static mobile navigation bars as "dickbars" [1]. Maybe we should build on that and call these moves accordingly ;-) e.g. "dicktimer" [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars
gumboshoes 9y ago
Whether they're dick moves is all in how you handle them. In the nonprofit world, these things are well-known and tend to be handled with finesse and even grace. 1. It's not just about items in stock. "Our SomeNonprofit membership program has just 10 places left at the platinum level, where you receive the following benefits..." 2. Social proof is more than just what people are watching. "Fans of SomeNonprofit donate an average of $121 to SomeNonprofit every year." Or, "When we asked SomeNonprofit donors what they liked most, they said it was the way SomeNonprofit does SomeThing. If you like SomeThing, too, then donate to support SomeNonprofit." It's really just about demonstrating that others have done a thing so it's okay for you to do it, too. 3. One nonprofit I'm involved with very successfully does a fundraising campaign for the last 24 hours of every year. It's an artificial time restraint in some ways, but it also capitalizes on being the very last day each year that tax-deductible donations count toward a year's taxes. It's a true time-constraint!
- Iv 9y ago
  OK, agreed here. I need to specify it a bit more: 1 and 3 are dick moves when they are totally artificial, like saying only 3 left while the stock is around 300 or saying "only 2 hours left" when the time constraints are imaginary. In your case they are not, so I agree that it is interesting to remind people of actually seeing these.
- ryanckulp 9y ago
  are you still involved w/ non-profits? we offer our social proof platform 100% free to all charities: https://www.usefomo.com https://www.usefomo.com ping me (ryan@usefomo.com) for a free-forever account, no strings.
daveguy 9y ago
> Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) This one is interesting. When doing product design the opposite is important. I expect it depends on what you're selling. Knowing there are 20,000 of an electrical component available vs 20 is a good thing. Availability weighs a lot more than: Quick! Get the last one!
ourmandave 9y ago
Hotels.com uses #2 ("X people have looked at hotels in this area in the last hour.") and it feels like a dick move.
- omarchowdhury 9y ago
  Why is that a dick move if it's true?
  - ryanckulp 9y ago
    what's unfortunate is we'll never know if hotels.com is true, because they built the component in-house. the use of 3rd party platforms increases trust, ie restaurants using Yelp vs self-hosted text boxes.
accountyaccount 9y ago
AirBnB does a lot of these — and they aren't necessarily dick moves when you're looking at something with limited availability. If 1,000 people have looked at an AirBnB listing, it does actually make sense to book faster than a property 3 people were looking at.
- Iv 9y ago
  It makes sense when the information is accurate and complete. I tend to not trust companies to do the right thing when they have an incentive to do the opposite. For instance, do you count people "watching" this property through suggestions while they are browsing another one? Do you count people who clicked it but went back after checking the address? How long before you do not consider a person "watching" anymore? Each of these decisions have different answers if the goal is to raise revenues or to provide accurate information to consumers.
  - accountyaccount 9y ago
    Fair. Personally I'll occasionally look at the source to see if there's any obvious trickery going on. It would be interesting to do a study to see what people consciously think about that type of thing.
    - ryanckulp 9y ago
      my company would happily fund a study like this. we rely on these strategies "working" for our customers, in order to exist. i'll wager that when consumers know a "widget" or live notification is provided by an external source, they trust it more than when the build is internal. ping me (ryan@usefomo.com) if you want to get involved!
TallGuyShort 9y ago
>> - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) I appreciate this one, as long as it's actually true. Many times I've been on the fence about something, come back the next to to find out it was gone and wasn't going to be restocked. Knowing would have changed my decision. On the other hand, sometimes I've bought something and the number claimed to be in stock didn't change for months after. THAT'S a dick move. Same with #2. Time limited offers make sense when you're trying to attract attention or compete with other sales (e.g. opening day sales, Black Friday, etc.) Some brick-and-mortar stores have time-limited offers constantly, and then it's clearly just manipulative.

by Iv 9y ago

robbiemitchell 9y ago

> I doubt the gains are cumulative Why do you doubt that? Aren't they presented as independent results? > bring value to the consumer This is vague, but also a separate goal. Perhaps another way of representing customer value is churn reduction. In any case, it could be appropriate to invest in gaining 3% more revenue per additional customer, then use the gains to invest in more customer value. > #1 and #3 are dick moves and #2 needs some good crafting Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. For example, saying there are two copies of something available, and the rest are backordered for three weeks, can be pretty useful information.

dkersten 9y ago
Real scarcity exists, and there's value to communicating it to the customer. I assume what was meant is that they're dick moves if done purely for sales optimisation (i.e. If they are lying) and not if the scarcity or time limitations actually naturally exist.
Iv 9y ago
I think they are not purely cumulative because I assume that consumer have a it of slack in their decision/budget and that each optimization consumes some of this slack. The basic idea behind 1 and 3 is to stress out the consumer into believing that he may miss a sale. I think that stressing them out with 1 or 3 more or less gives the same result and does not need to be applied twice. Real scarcity exists, but this paper gives an incentive to create artificial scarcity. I have seen a lot of websites mention low stocks but none mentioning backorders or restocking estimates. Saying "Only 3 items left" has a very different effect than "only 3 items left but 100 more arrive in 2 weeks".

baxtr 9y ago

I like your expression "dick moves", summarizes it quite well. John Gruber started calling static mobile navigation bars as "dickbars" [1]. Maybe we should build on that and call these moves accordingly ;-) e.g. "dicktimer" [1] https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars https://daringfireball.net/2017/06/medium_dickbars

gumboshoes 9y ago

Whether they're dick moves is all in how you handle them. In the nonprofit world, these things are well-known and tend to be handled with finesse and even grace. 1. It's not just about items in stock. "Our SomeNonprofit membership program has just 10 places left at the platinum level, where you receive the following benefits..." 2. Social proof is more than just what people are watching. "Fans of SomeNonprofit donate an average of $121 to SomeNonprofit every year." Or, "When we asked SomeNonprofit donors what they liked most, they said it was the way SomeNonprofit does SomeThing. If you like SomeThing, too, then donate to support SomeNonprofit." It's really just about demonstrating that others have done a thing so it's okay for you to do it, too. 3. One nonprofit I'm involved with very successfully does a fundraising campaign for the last 24 hours of every year. It's an artificial time restraint in some ways, but it also capitalizes on being the very last day each year that tax-deductible donations count toward a year's taxes. It's a true time-constraint!

Iv 9y ago
OK, agreed here. I need to specify it a bit more: 1 and 3 are dick moves when they are totally artificial, like saying only 3 left while the stock is around 300 or saying "only 2 hours left" when the time constraints are imaginary. In your case they are not, so I agree that it is interesting to remind people of actually seeing these.
ryanckulp 9y ago
are you still involved w/ non-profits? we offer our social proof platform 100% free to all charities: https://www.usefomo.com https://www.usefomo.com ping me (ryan@usefomo.com) for a free-forever account, no strings.

daveguy 9y ago

> Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) This one is interesting. When doing product design the opposite is important. I expect it depends on what you're selling. Knowing there are 20,000 of an electrical component available vs 20 is a good thing. Availability weighs a lot more than: Quick! Get the last one!

ourmandave 9y ago

Hotels.com uses #2 ("X people have looked at hotels in this area in the last hour.") and it feels like a dick move.

omarchowdhury 9y ago
Why is that a dick move if it's true?
- ryanckulp 9y ago
  what's unfortunate is we'll never know if hotels.com is true, because they built the component in-house. the use of 3rd party platforms increases trust, ie restaurants using Yelp vs self-hosted text boxes.

accountyaccount 9y ago

AirBnB does a lot of these — and they aren't necessarily dick moves when you're looking at something with limited availability. If 1,000 people have looked at an AirBnB listing, it does actually make sense to book faster than a property 3 people were looking at.

Iv 9y ago
It makes sense when the information is accurate and complete. I tend to not trust companies to do the right thing when they have an incentive to do the opposite. For instance, do you count people "watching" this property through suggestions while they are browsing another one? Do you count people who clicked it but went back after checking the address? How long before you do not consider a person "watching" anymore? Each of these decisions have different answers if the goal is to raise revenues or to provide accurate information to consumers.
- accountyaccount 9y ago
  Fair. Personally I'll occasionally look at the source to see if there's any obvious trickery going on. It would be interesting to do a study to see what people consciously think about that type of thing.
  - ryanckulp 9y ago
    my company would happily fund a study like this. we rely on these strategies "working" for our customers, in order to exist. i'll wager that when consumers know a "widget" or live notification is provided by an external source, they trust it more than when the build is internal. ping me (ryan@usefomo.com) if you want to get involved!

TallGuyShort 9y ago

>> - Saying there are just a handful items left in stock (+2.9% revenue per client) I appreciate this one, as long as it's actually true. Many times I've been on the fence about something, come back the next to to find out it was gone and wasn't going to be restocked. Knowing would have changed my decision. On the other hand, sometimes I've bought something and the number claimed to be in stock didn't change for months after. THAT'S a dick move. Same with #2. Time limited offers make sense when you're trying to attract attention or compete with other sales (e.g. opening day sales, Black Friday, etc.) Some brick-and-mortar stores have time-limited offers constantly, and then it's clearly just manipulative.