Vestitor:I stand by what I wrote. In medicine if you con people, they either get more ill or they die.

There's more than one way to con people medically than to kill them. I can sell sugar pills that cause no harm, and result in no good, and sell them to ward off the cold. No one is likely to die from the cold, but a sugar pill isn't going to help either.

Vestitor: Regulation seeks to remove quackery. Not the same.

Even in overly permissive Holland, I'm willing to bet that more fields are regulated than the medical field. In the US, England and the Commonwealth nations, English common law provides a remedy in civil court for bogus claims. I'm not sure about the legal system in Holland. Maybe you can make all sorts of claims in the Netherlands and get away with it so long as you don't wear a lab coat while you're claiming it. That's about the only thing to explain the seventeenth century tulip mania.

Vestitor:Marketing now heavily employs what can only be described as 'manipulative tricks' brought in from expensive psychological research to capitalise on certain common human psychological traits, which more-or-less ensure manipulation outside of the alleged 'choice' model so heavily promoted in market systems.

Well if you would produce specifics, then I might be able to describe them as something else.

Vestitor:It's a far cry from mere baseline advertising or raising awareness. The refinement of PR, advertising and marketing is a story of refining a type of coercion, which of course relies upon a certain narcissism and passivity of whomever is being coerced. And the deepest pockets often get the best return.

So now we've moved from manipulation to coercion. Yet I'm still looking for specific examples of either. Of course this refers to the vast unwashed masses and not to you, who being so much brighter than the average bulb, don't fall prey to manipulation and coercion. Wouldn't it be simpler to say advertisers and marketers just use Jedi mind tricks that don't work on you?

You have overlooked the central point (in my estimation) of marketing. It is to create desire for a product. But the product itself has to be desirable. No amount of glitzy advertising is going to manipulate me or coerce me into buying a cappuccino machine (short of putting a gun to my head and saying buy one or else). So how is it that the cappuccino machine manufacturers haven't manipulated and coerced me into buying one yet? Or maybe Coca-Cola has all the best Jedis working for them?

Vestitor:I agree with your central point, that marketing is a tool, but it is rarely used in a neutral way.

Indeed business isn't set up to be neutral. We're not journalists or the Swiss army here. We're trying to earn a buck, and we have to be biased for our own product.

FoxtrotUniform: I'm not sure that Cain slew Able because Able was a shepherd and Cain, a farmer, couldn't join in a chorus of "The Sheep-men and the Farmers Should be Friends" but because Able's sacrifice was acceptable to God and Cain's wasn't.

My point in referring to Cain and Abel was that right off the bat the actions (including business) of people are in trouble, be it involving business, sheep or vegetables!

I guess I'm more of an optimist than that. I don't see people as basically corrupt. Are people basically honest who sometimes lie, or are people basically liars who sometimes speak true? I think they are basically honest, but I don't have the tools to defend the point so I'll just say I stand by what I said, and not attempt to defend it.

Fair enough.

By the way, I wasn't implying in my earlier post that everyone's corrupt, at least not in the sense of everyone's out to make a buck at the cost of the other guy. No, not at all. My point in all of this was simply that where ever you go (in business or what have you), there are people, and where there are people there are problems and corruption. From that standpoint, business (people relationships of every kind, for that matter) has been contaminated with corruption since day one. Not all business transactions, mind you, but life as a whole is the product of people who aren't perfect; some who traverse quite far along the path of corruption. I hope we can at least agree on that much.

At any rate, to get back to this thread's original post, I don't think the poster was using "marketing" at all in the sense of business. I'd hate for us to forget what was actually this thread's point.

FoxtrotUniform:

Vestitor:Marketing now heavily employs what can only be described as 'manipulative tricks' brought in from expensive psychological research to capitalise on certain common human psychological traits, which more-or-less ensure manipulation outside of the alleged 'choice' model so heavily promoted in market systems.

Well if you would produce specifics, then I might be able to describe them as something else.

This is an interesting topic. What is your take on marketing techniques that exploit the availability heuristic and other well known cognitive biases? Or the ubiquitous foot-in-the-door?
What about the techniques used in supermarkets?

yyaann:What is your take on marketing techniques that exploit the availability heuristic

What does that mean?

What about the techniques used in supermarkets?

I don't see these are tricks. It is just good business practices. Interesting article though.

I think the problem is with the consumer rather than the seller. It is easy to point fingers at others, but the problem is with the way we shop.

Let's assume that they are unfairly tricking us. How should we solve that problem. Do we make a law that says milk should be sold in the front of the store and bread at the back?

Alkanadi:What does that mean?

Link

The availability heuristic is only one among many cognitive biases that we all have. Because most of the time we are unaware of them, our decisions are often not as rational as we like to think. Many of these biases are exploited by marketers.

Alkanadi:I think the problem is with the consumer rather than the seller. It is easy to point fingers at others, but the problem is with the way we shop.

On one side we have supermarkets who know what they are doing and who are applying techniques to try to make consumers buy more than they originally intended. On the other side we have most likely uninformed customers, who are not only unaware of the techniques used on them but also unprepared to defuse their influence. You can't expect everyone to be informed on every subjects, so the supermarkets and their customers are clearly not on an equal footing.

Alkanadi:Let's assume that they are unfairly tricking us. How should we solve that problem. Do we make a law that says milk should be sold in the front of the store and bread at the back?

Your question is rhetorical but that doesn't mean nothing can be done about it. Debiasing training at school is one example.

FoxtrotUniform:
There's more than one way to con people medically than to kill them. I can sell sugar pills that cause no harm, and result in no good, and sell them to ward off the cold. No one is likely to die from the cold, but a sugar pill isn't going to help either.

If you sell them marked as 'sugar pills' they are just useless sweets. If you mark them up as something else (medicines for example), then you're dishonest. No magic there.

FoxtrotUniform:Even in overly permissive Holland, I'm willing to bet that more fields are regulated than the medical field. In the US, England and the Commonwealth nations, English common law provides a remedy in civil court for bogus claims. I'm not sure about the legal system in Holland. Maybe you can make all sorts of claims in the Netherlands and get away with it so long as you don't wear a lab coat while you're claiming it. That's about the only thing to explain the seventeenth century tulip mania.

'Overly permissive Holland' is a myth. You'll find there's a very robust, long-established civil law system in place here. Also quackery is less commonly swallowed here because people tend to be more sceptical in general. Healthy scepticism rather than hatred of the government in principle, though commerce is almost as much a religion here as the U.S.

FoxtrotUniform:So now we've moved from manipulation to coercion. Yet I'm still looking for specific examples of either. Of course this refers to the vast unwashed masses and not to you, who being so much brighter than the average bulb, don't fall prey to manipulation and coercion. Wouldn't it be simpler to say advertisers and marketers just use Jedi mind tricks that don't work on you?

Marketers are well aware that people don't have the time to waste their lives away doing endless research for everything they need (or want) to buy, so it is exploited. That is basically the premise behind marketing anyway. The squeaky hinge getting oil. Proof of products that are substandard, but which are ubiquitous through marketing and manipulation abound: e.g. Microsoft Windows. The rest of the above is nonsense.

FoxtrotUniform:Indeed business isn't set up to be neutral. We're not journalists or the Swiss army here. We're trying to earn a buck, and we have to be biased for our own product.

Not entirely honestly unfortunately. As the pile of work trading standards gets through attests to. It's not my fault you chose a crooked profession, that's something you'll have to live with.

yyaann: This is an interesting topic. What is your take on marketing techniques that exploit the availability heuristic and other well known cognitive biases? Or the ubiquitous foot-in-the-door?
What about the techniques used in supermarkets?

I'm unsure what "heuristic" means. Even looking it up in the dictionary, the definition doesn't seem to gel with the context you use it. The fault is probably mine; I haven't internalized the word. But taking the specific examples you provided, I'll take them point by point. Remember that I'm not suggesting that a business isn't out to make as much money as they can. They have a duty to their shareholders and employees to maximize profits. The question I'm concerned with if deceptive or coercive practices are widespread.

I read the entire article, and I did not find one example of a practice that is dishonest or coercive. Stores should strategically place departments to maximize revenue. Items they want to sell should be at eye level. Why wou ld a store want to hide the items it most wants to sell?

Some of the points were unsubstantiated. I'm not seeing anyone being conditioned to walk down every aisle of a store or they move customers right to left? Indeed at the store I shop at more often, the items I tend to buy are on the left of the store (frozen foods, dairy, beverages, and prepackaged items.) So I go to the left.

Alkanadi:I don't see these are tricks. It is just good business practices. Interesting article though.

I think the problem is with the consumer rather than the seller. It is easy to point fingers at others, but the problem is with the way we shop.

I don't think the problem is with the consumer either. It is not unusual for me to enter the store with a list of 8 items that should cost about $25, and for me to leave the store with 15 items that cost about $40.

What happened. Well lots of stuff. When I picked up the milk, I noticed the orange juice that is normally priced at $2.49 a gallon is now $1.99. So I picked it up. Was I being coerced? No. Was I being manipulated? no. I drink orange juice. I didn't have an immediate need for orange juice, but if I get it now, I will save 50 cents over the price when I do need it.

When I went to pick up the coffee, the coffee filters jogged my memory that I'm almost out of them too, so I picked those up too. They weren't on my list because that item slipped my mind. I needed them, I just forgot I needed them.

Then I passed the meat counter and they had a display of shish kabobs, already skewered and ready to go. They were a little more than I planned to spend on dinner tonight but it beats the frozen pizza I had planned on. So yes, "One please." And what's a shish kabob minus the rice, so I'm adding instant rice.

Then I get behind the extreme couponer who is checking the price of every item and arguing over every rejected coupon. I'm getting really thirsty so, okay, another $2 for a 20 oz. Mountain Dew. I can drink it while I wait.

At no point did I become a mindless robot. I made impulse purchases, some wiser than others, but I was always in control.

Let's assume that they are unfairly tricking us. How should we solve that problem. Do we make a law that says milk should be sold in the front of the store and bread at the back?[/quote]

Vestitor:'Overly permissive Holland' is a myth. You'll find there's a very robust, long-established civil law system in place here. Also quackery is less commonly swallowed here because people tend to be more sceptical in general. Healthy scepticism rather than hatred of the government in principle, though commerce is almost as much a religion here as the U.S.

A think a society that permits sex-shop owners to display women willing to have sex for hire in windows, is "overly permissive." You want to talk about exploitative business practices, I can't think of anything more exploitative or coercive than prostitution.

Vestitor:Marketers are well aware that people don't have the time to waste their lives away doing endless research for everything they need (or want) to buy, so it is exploited. That is basically the premise behind marketing anyway. The squeaky hinge getting oil. Proof of products that are substandard, but which are ubiquitous through marketing and manipulation abound: e.g. Microsoft Windows. The rest of the above is nonsense.

Talking about the rest of the above being nonsense. I think people have a pretty good grasp on things. I'm not sure that Windows is substandard. My parents use Apple's OS. I use Microsoft's OS because it the standard. I'm not seeing Apple's as being far superior. It is assumed that Apple is better at graphics, and fun while Windows is the boring workhorse. But one being far superior than the other I don't see it. Just making a claim without supporting it isn't making a case.

Vestitor:Not entirely honestly unfortunately. As the pile of work trading standards gets through attests to. It's not my fault you chose a crooked profession, that's something you'll have to live with.

You've yet to provide an example of dishonest marketing. Nor have you even began to demonstrate that marketing is crooked, coercive, manipulative, or dishonest. You just claim it is and ignore all attempts provide examples other than to say since in my view Windows is substandard, marketing is coercive, dishonest, manipulative and crooked. Can you say "non sequitur" boys and girls? Sure, you can!

FoxtrotUniform:
A think a society that permits sex-shop owners to display women willing to have sex for hire in windows, is "overly permissive." You want to talk about exploitative business practices, I can't think of anything more exploitative or coercive than prostitution.

Sure. Let me tell you that the city I live in, Utrecht, closed down the 100+ room red light district two years ago. Now the prostitutes (which are in every city in the world, including yours) end up streetwalking, whereas before they had police protection, safety in a controlled area and they paid taxes. It is only because Amsterdam has a notorious red light district that you are mentioning it. Germany has 20 times as many. What are your prostitutes doing? Hiding it away is not addressing it.

FoxtrotUniform:Talking about the rest of the above being nonsense. I think people have a pretty good grasp on things. I'm not sure that Windows is substandard. My parents use Apple's OS. I use Microsoft's OS because it the standard. I'm not seeing Apple's as being far superior. It is assumed that Apple is better at graphics, and fun while Windows is the boring workhorse. But one being far superior than the other I don't see it. Just making a claim without supporting it isn't making a case.

Apple? Just the same marketing machine with a different product, albeit one that works properly; obviously when its basis is UNIX. I'm a Linux user, so I actually chose my OS rather than having it forced upon me by Microsoft having OEM deals with every major computer manufacturer. Or not being able to choose the operating system one runs on the hardware one owns (Apple).

FoxtrotUniform:You've yet to provide an example of dishonest marketing. Nor have you even began to demonstrate that marketing is crooked, coercive, manipulative, or dishonest. You just claim it is and ignore all attempts provide examples other than to say since in my view Windows is substandard, marketing is coercive, dishonest, manipulative and crooked. Can you say "non sequitur" boys and girls? Sure, you can!

Give it a rest. You know as much as everyone else the lists and lists of dishonest and manipulative marketing campaigns. Or maybe you don't listen in class? Or maybe the course creators carefully market the information to you to shape it's presentation? My girlfriend also works in marketing and advertising and even she admits it's not straight.