3 ms·

> 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

> 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!"

dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 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.