6 ms·

Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after

by eieio 13y ago

Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after loving the article). He makes the argument that sure, many of these tactics might increase your conversion rates or make you some money, at least in the short run. But it also causes you to come off as seedy, to come off as a back alley discount store instead of as a premium brand. He points out that if you're doing this and you're aware of that and you're ok with it, that's one thing. But plenty of sites might not have realized what they're doing and how it comes off. I know I personally resent it when sites leave boxes like "sign up for our newsletter" checked or when they have fake download box adds. Making it hard for me to do what I want to do, no matter how you do it, bothers me. It feels like you're the adversary of the site, not a customer or friend. I believe he talks about it around 12 minutes in but the entire presentation is easily worth watching. He has another one aimed at designers that I plan on watching as soon as I find my headphones(the sound is too low for me to hear it on my MBP). http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-patterns-an-overview-for-brand-owners/ http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-pattern...

true_religion 13y ago
.... actual premium services are usually under contract. Even when they're not they still want you to call into a real live human being to cancel because finding out about your concerns that lead you to cancel a $10,000+ contract is certainly worth the minor possibility that you'll be offended that cancellation is not a push button process.
- Spearchucker 13y ago
  ...finding out about your concerns... That's the benefit to the service provider. What's the benefit to the service consumer? The point at which a user cancels a service is the last chance a service provider has to end the relationship on a positive note. The provider might earn a little more goodwill, and the consumer has a frustration-free experience. Match.com wanted a whole herd of information when I cancelled. The information I typed in was complete fabrication. As such tactics gain popularity I suspect more people will balk at it, making it a net loss to the service provider. Being nice to your customers is called win-win.
  - true_religion 13y ago
    I was countering the notion that premium services don't do this. Also, Match.com isn't a premium service. Real personalized match-making and concierge service (they'll take care of everything involving the first few dates) is a premium service and the pricing starts at $10,000 and only goes up from there. If you want to join up with a premium matchmaker, you need to have a phone call and at least an hour consult. If you want to quit, you need to call in---there's no automation at all. For another example.... When you hire a corporate lawyer, it takes a phone call to engage their services, or cancel their services. Their goal isn't to make the threshold to complete an action easy, their goal is to be the best representation your money can buy. If you go to LegalZoom.com for your incorporation services, it ought to be expected that you can cancel with a click of a button.
    - Spearchucker 13y ago
      I understand what you're saying, but disagree (up-voted your clarification anyway). If I'm paying $10k for a service, I'd especially expect a one-click opt-out or cancellation (assuming that's possible contractually). So the point here is that more I pay the more I expect to interact with a provider on my terms. Think about it. Rich people don't have time to fuck about. If they've an assistant who does this for them then that assistant shouldn't have to divulge personal reasons on his or her employer's behalf.
      - true_religion 13y ago
        > If they've an assistant who does this for them then that assistant shouldn't have to divulge personal reasons on his or her employer's behalf. Well in my experience, you're not forced to divulge anything. You're just asked a couple of questions, and they do try to change their service (within reason) so that you won't leave. But if your heart is set on leaving, and you don't really want to interact... you can just say so, and they'll let you go albeit with a sad sound to their voice.
buro9 13y ago
> Acting shady hurts your brand. These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx . Sometimes you do things you know have a negative, because you believe that the positives outweigh it. Not that I agree with these dark patterns, but I understand why companies choose to implement them.
- adrianhoward 13y ago
  These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx. Actually - they often are silly. It might be $x right now, but it turns into $10x later on as the consequences of that initial damage roll on and affect future interactions, recommendations, etc. It's very easy to quantify the short-term gains being sneaky get you. It's much harder to quantify the longer term consequences.
  - luikore 13y ago
    By doing this they survived first and took place of some other honest companies. Still very large benefits.
    - jmagoon 13y ago
      Do you have examples of that? Because he has several examples of the opposite in his talk.
- grey-area 13y ago
  If you scroll right to the end, you'll find a great example of a site who thought they were being smart by being shady, and instead annoyed their users enough that people just went elsewhere (experts exchange), even though the measures were easily worked around. If, as you acknowledge, these are user-hostile patterns, using them is going to lose the trust of your users, and in the end you will flounder, even if in the short term they provide economic benefits. That's the premise of the article, and yes the companies are silly for employing these dark patterns because they're trading long-term trust in their brand (and thus long-term profits) for short-term economic advantage.
lesterbuck 13y ago
>Acting shady hurts your brand. The Ladders has a long history of actually being shady, viz. "Liars at the Ladders" http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/newsletter/oe20090120.htm http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/newsletter/oe20090120.htm

by eieio 13y ago

true_religion 13y ago

.... actual premium services are usually under contract. Even when they're not they still want you to call into a real live human being to cancel because finding out about your concerns that lead you to cancel a $10,000+ contract is certainly worth the minor possibility that you'll be offended that cancellation is not a push button process.

Spearchucker 13y ago
...finding out about your concerns... That's the benefit to the service provider. What's the benefit to the service consumer? The point at which a user cancels a service is the last chance a service provider has to end the relationship on a positive note. The provider might earn a little more goodwill, and the consumer has a frustration-free experience. Match.com wanted a whole herd of information when I cancelled. The information I typed in was complete fabrication. As such tactics gain popularity I suspect more people will balk at it, making it a net loss to the service provider. Being nice to your customers is called win-win.
- true_religion 13y ago
  I was countering the notion that premium services don't do this. Also, Match.com isn't a premium service. Real personalized match-making and concierge service (they'll take care of everything involving the first few dates) is a premium service and the pricing starts at $10,000 and only goes up from there. If you want to join up with a premium matchmaker, you need to have a phone call and at least an hour consult. If you want to quit, you need to call in---there's no automation at all. For another example.... When you hire a corporate lawyer, it takes a phone call to engage their services, or cancel their services. Their goal isn't to make the threshold to complete an action easy, their goal is to be the best representation your money can buy. If you go to LegalZoom.com for your incorporation services, it ought to be expected that you can cancel with a click of a button.
  - Spearchucker 13y ago
    I understand what you're saying, but disagree (up-voted your clarification anyway). If I'm paying $10k for a service, I'd especially expect a one-click opt-out or cancellation (assuming that's possible contractually). So the point here is that more I pay the more I expect to interact with a provider on my terms. Think about it. Rich people don't have time to fuck about. If they've an assistant who does this for them then that assistant shouldn't have to divulge personal reasons on his or her employer's behalf.
    - true_religion 13y ago
      > If they've an assistant who does this for them then that assistant shouldn't have to divulge personal reasons on his or her employer's behalf. Well in my experience, you're not forced to divulge anything. You're just asked a couple of questions, and they do try to change their service (within reason) so that you won't leave. But if your heart is set on leaving, and you don't really want to interact... you can just say so, and they'll let you go albeit with a sad sound to their voice.

buro9 13y ago

> Acting shady hurts your brand. These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx . Sometimes you do things you know have a negative, because you believe that the positives outweigh it. Not that I agree with these dark patterns, but I understand why companies choose to implement them.

adrianhoward 13y ago
These companies are not silly, they understand the damage to their brand can be quantified as $x and that the benefit to their bottom line can be quantified as $xx. Actually - they often are silly. It might be $x right now, but it turns into $10x later on as the consequences of that initial damage roll on and affect future interactions, recommendations, etc. It's very easy to quantify the short-term gains being sneaky get you. It's much harder to quantify the longer term consequences.
- luikore 13y ago
  By doing this they survived first and took place of some other honest companies. Still very large benefits.
  - jmagoon 13y ago
    Do you have examples of that? Because he has several examples of the opposite in his talk.
grey-area 13y ago
If you scroll right to the end, you'll find a great example of a site who thought they were being smart by being shady, and instead annoyed their users enough that people just went elsewhere (experts exchange), even though the measures were easily worked around. If, as you acknowledge, these are user-hostile patterns, using them is going to lose the trust of your users, and in the end you will flounder, even if in the short term they provide economic benefits. That's the premise of the article, and yes the companies are silly for employing these dark patterns because they're trading long-term trust in their brand (and thus long-term profits) for short-term economic advantage.

lesterbuck 13y ago

>Acting shady hurts your brand. The Ladders has a long history of actually being shady, viz. "Liars at the Ladders" http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/newsletter/oe20090120.htm http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/newsletter/oe20090120.htm