3 ms·

I wouldn't use the "scumbag" term, but "intelligent marketing" can sometimes be quite "scummy", in my opinion. Take the example given above: "Scarcity: '3 prod

I wouldn't use the "scumbag" term, but "intelligent marketing" can sometimes be quite "scummy", in my opinion. Take the example given above: "Scarcity: '3 products left in stock'" Why should the number of products left in stock be useful to me if I was planning on buying the product? (So long as there are as many as I was planning on buying, that is). It's only useful for converting someone who would not have otherwise bought the product. So suddenly through this bit of extra information (which is in itself almost certainly unrelated to why you were considering buying the product in the first place), you're overriding someone's decision from "don't buy" into "buy". There's a fuzzy argument in there about "might have bought tomorrow and buys today, instead", but my gut tells me that's more of a rationalization than anything. 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. I know it seems like such a little thing (and generally, I'd agree that it is, really), but the original article itself shows just how often people think we're making rational decisions, but in reality have been manipulated.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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.
- bartkappenburg 12y ago
  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!
  - kathysierra 12y ago
    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.
    - jordan0day 12y ago
      > 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!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 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.

bartkappenburg 12y ago
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!
- kathysierra 12y ago
  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.
  - jordan0day 12y ago
    > 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!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]