9 Ways Marketing Weasels Will Try to Manipulate You

September 10, 2009

I recently read Predictably Irrational.

predictably-irrational-book-cover.png

It's a fascinating examination of why human beings are wired and conditioned to react irrationally. We human beings are a selfish bunch, so it's all the more surprising to see how easily we can be manipulated to behave in ways that run counter to our own self-interest.

This isn't just a "gee-whiz" observation; understanding how and why we behave irrationally is important. If you don't understand how these irrational behaviors are triggered, the marketing weasels will use them against you.

In fact, it's already happening. Witness 10 Irrational Human Behaviors and How to Leverage Them to Improve Web Marketing. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Let's take a look at the various excerpts presented in that article, and consider how we can avoid falling into the rut of predictably irrational behavior -- and defend ourselves from those vicious marketing weasels.

1. Encourage false comparisons

When Williams-Sonoma introduced bread machines, sales were slow. When they added a "deluxe" version that was 50% more expensive, they started flying off the shelves; the first bread machine now appeared to be a bargain

When contemplating the purchase of a $25 pen, the majority of subjects would drive to another store 15 minutes away to save $7. When contemplating the purchase of a $455 suit, the majority of subjects would not drive to another store 15 minutes away to save $7. The amount saved and time involved are the same, but people make very different choices. Watch out for relative thinking; it comes naturally to all of us.

  • Realize that some premium options exist as decoys -- that is, they are there only to make the less expensive options look more appealing, because they're easy to compare. Don't make binding decisions solely based on how easy it is to compare two side-by-side options from the same vendor. Try comparing all the alternatives, even those from other vendors.
  • Don't be swayed by relative percentages for small dollar amounts. Yes, you saved 25%, but how much effort and time did you expend on that seven bucks?

2. Reinforce Anchoring

Savador Assael, the Pearl King, single-handedly created the market for black pearls, which were unknown in the industry before 1973. His first attempt to market the pearls was an utter failure; he didn't sell a single pearl. So he went to his friend, Harry Winston, and had Winston put them in the window of his 5th Avenue store with an outrageous price tag attached. Then he ran full page ads in glossy magazines with black pearls next to diamonds, rubies, and emeralds. Soon, black pearls were considered precious.

Simonsohn and Loewenstein found that people who move to a new city remain anchored to the prices they paid in their previous city. People who move from Lubbock to Pittsburgh squeeze their families into smaller houses to pay the same amount. People who move from LA to Pittsburgh don't save money, they just move into mansions.

  • Scale your purchases to your needs, not your circumstances or wallet size. What do you actually use? How much do you use it, and how frequently?
  • Try to objectively measure the value of what you're buying; don't be tricked into measuring relative to similar products or competitors. How much does buying this save you or your company? How much benefit will you get out of it? Attempt to measure that benefit by putting a concrete dollar amount on it.

3. It's "Free"!

Ariely, Shampanier, and Mazar conducted an experiment using Lindt truffles and Hershey's Kisses. When a truffle was $0.15 and a kiss was $0.01, 73% of subjects chose the truffle and 27% the Kiss. But when a truffle was $0.14 and a kiss was free, 69% chose the kiss and 31% the truffle.

According to standard economic theory, the price reduction shouldn't have lead to any behavior change, but it did.

Ariely's theory is that for normal transactions, we consider both upside and downside. But when something is free, we forget about the downside. "Free" makes us perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is. Humans are loss-averse; when considering a normal purchase, loss-aversion comes into play. But when an item is free, there is no visible possibility of loss

  • You will tend to overestimate the value of items you get for free. Resist this by viewing free stuff skeptically rather than welcoming it with open arms. If it was really that great, why would it be free?
  • Free stuff often comes with well hidden and subtle strings attached. How will using a free service or obtaining a free item influence your future choices? What paid alternatives are you avoiding by choosing the free route, and why?
  • How much effort will the free option cost you? Are there non-free options which would cost less in time or effort? How much is your time worth?
  • When you use a free service or product, you are implicitly endorsing and encouraging the provider, effectively beating a path to their door. Is this something you are comfortable with?

4. Exploit social norms

The AARP asked lawyers to participate in a program where they would offer their services to needy employees for a discounted price of $30/hour. No dice. When the program manager instead asked if they'd offer their services for free, the lawyers overwhelmingly said they would participate

  • Companies may appeal to your innate sense of community or public good to convince you to do their work at zero pay. Consider carefully before choosing to participate; what do you get out of contributing your time and effort? Is this truly a worthy cause? Would this be worth doing if it was a paid gig?
  • When it comes to the web, make sure you aren't being turned into a digital sharecropper.

5. Design for Procrastination

Ariely conducted an experiment on his class. Students were required to write three papers. Ariely asked the first group to commit to dates by which they would turn in each paper. Late papers would be penalized 1% per day. There was no penalty for turning papers in early. The logical response is to commit to turning all three papers in on the last day of class. The second group was given no deadlines; all three papers were due in the last day of class. The third group was directed to turn their papers in on the 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks.

The results? Group 3 (imposed deadlines) got the best grades. Group 2 (no deadlines) got the worst grades, and Group 1 (self-selected deadlines) finished in the middle. Allowing students to pre-commit to deadlines improved performance. Students who spaced out their commitments did well; students who did the logical thing and gave no commitments did badly.

  • Steer clear of offers of low-rate trial periods which auto-convert into automatic recurring monthly billing. They know that most people will procrastinate and forget to cancel before the recurring billing kicks in.
  • Either favor fixed-rate, fixed-term plans -- or become meticulous about cancelling recurring services when you're not using them.

6. Utilize the Endowment Effect

Ariely and Carmon conducted an experiment on Duke students, who sleep out for weeks to get basketball tickets; even those who sleep out are still subjected to a lottery at the end. Some students get tickets, some don't. The students who didn't get tickets told Ariely that they'd be willing to pay up to $170 for tickets. The students who did get the tickets told Ariely that they wouldn't accept less than $2,400 for their tickets.

There are three fundamental quirks of human nature. We fall in love with what we already have. We focus on what we might lose, rather than what we might gain. We assume that other people will see the transaction from the same perspective as we do.

  • The value of what you've spent so far on a service, product, or relationship -- in effort or money -- is probably far less than you think. Be willing to walk away.
  • Once you've bought something, never rely on your internal judgment to assess its value, because you're too close to it now. Ask other people what they'd pay for this service, product, or relationship. Objectively research what others pay online.

7. Capitalize on our Aversion to Loss

Ariely and Shin conducted an experiment on MIT students. They devised a computer game which offered players three doors: Red, Blue, and Green. You started with 100 clicks. You clicked to enter a room. Once in a room, each click netted you between 1-10 cents. You could also switch rooms (at the cost of a click). The rooms were programmed to provide different levels of rewards (there was variation within each room's payoffs, but it was pretty easy to tell which one provided the best payout).

Players tended to try all three rooms, figure out which one had the highest payout, and then spend all their time there. (These are MIT students we're talking about). Then, however, Ariely introduced a new wrinkle: Any door left unvisited for 12 clicks would disappear forever. With each click, the unclicked doors shrank by 1/12th.

Now, players jumped from door to door, trying to keep their options open.They made 15% less money; in fact, by choosing any of the doors and sticking with it, they could have made more money.

Ariely increased the cost of opening a door to 3 cents; no change--players still seemed compelled to keeping their options open. Ariely told participants the exact monetary payoff of each door; no change. Ariely allowed participants as many practice runs as they wanted before the actual experiment; no change. Ariely changed the rules so that any door could be "reincarnated" with a single click; no change.

Players just couldn't tolerate the idea of the loss, and so they did whatever was necessary to prevent their doors from closing, even though disappearance had no real consequences and could be easily reversed. We feel compelled to preserve options, even at great expense, even when it doesn't make sense.

  • If your choices are artificially narrowed, don't passively get funneled towards the goal they're herding you toward. Demand choice, even if it means switching vendors or allegiances.
  • Don't pay extra for options, unless you can point to hard evidence that you need those options. Some options exist just to make you doubt yourself, so you'll worry about not having them.

8. Engender Unreasonable Expectations

Ariely, Lee, and Frederick conducted yet another experiment on MIT students. They let students taste two different beers, and then choose to get a free pint of one of the brews. Brew A was Budweiser. Brew B was Budweiser, plus 2 drops of balsamic vinegar per ounce.

When students were not told about the nature of the beers, they overwhelmingly chose the balsamic beer. When students were told about the true nature of the beers, they overwhelmingly chose the Budweiser. If you tell people up front that something might be distasteful, the odds are good they'll end up agreeing with you--because of their expectations.

  • Whatever you've heard about a brand, company, or product -- there's no substitute for your own hands-on experience. Let your own opinions guide you, not the opinions of others.
  • Just because something is labelled "premium" or "pro" or "award-winning" doesn't mean it is. Research these claims; don't let marketing set your expectations. Rely on evidence and facts.

9. Leverage Pricing Bias

Ariely, Waber, Shiv, and Carmon made up a fake painkiller, Veladone-Rx. An attractive woman in a business suit (with a faint Russian accent) told subjects that 92% of patients receiving VR reported significant pain relief in 10 minutes, with relief lasting up to 8 hours.

When told that the drug cost $2.50 per dose, nearly all of the subjects reported pain relief. When told that the drug cost $0.10 per dose, only half of the subjects reported pain relief. The more pain a person experienced, the more pronounced the effect. A similar study at U Iowa showed that students who paid list price for cold medications reported better medical outcomes than those who bought discount (but clinically identical) drugs.

  • Price often has nothing to do with value. Expensive is not synonymous with quality. Investigate whether the price is justified; never accept it at face value.
  • Don't fall prey to the "moneymoon"; just because you paid for something doesn't mean it's automatically worthwhile. Not everything we pay money for works well, or was even worth what we spent for it. We all make mistakes when buying things, but we don't want to admit it.

What I learned from Predictably Irrational is that everyone is irrational sometimes, and that's OK. We're not perfectly logical Vulcans, after all. The trick is training yourself to know when you're most likely to make irrational choices, and to resist those impulses.

If you aren't at least aware of our sad, irrational human condition, well ... that's exactly where the marketing weasels want you.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
171 Comments

$0.01 is quite a bit more than free, there is the whole hassle of dealing with the cashier, maybe you only have a $50 note etc. Of course it depends on the circumstances of the experiment whether this was a possible factor and that's not clear from the text above.

On the suits vs pens. You're probably going to buy 1 suit to last a few years so the saving/product lifetime is quite small (you can also think of this in terms of repeated actions over your lifetime and calculate how much you expect to save ever). If you're a student you probably buy lots of pens and you may lose pens etc and feel that you're likely to have to buy multiple pens per year, so the saving/time is quite a bit higher than for the suit.

Fergal Daly on September 15, 2009 5:39 AM

My favourite posts has been how to become a better programmer and the worst programmers, but this crap isn't amusing me a bit.

monkey brain on September 15, 2009 8:16 AM

I do not agree that human are selfish bunch by default.

We are all trained to behave selfish because this would be part of the highly praised "Indivualism". Which is a result of a change called "Liberalism", initiated or made public by Great Britains former and famous Premiere - Margaret Thatcher.

As we already know from anthropologists humans living in a tribal society are taking care for others. They support and look after within their tribe.

Thus, please do not call humans selfish. But you may call people of our culture (does not explicitly mean American or European people but also Asian and other non-tribal ones) a selfish bunch.

Juergen on September 15, 2009 8:38 AM

@ejbelair - good one

"Nothing's free; there's always a catch"

"If you don't need it, you don't need it. (Regardless of price)"

Yes very uncapitalistic. I'm sorry, but how much junk do you need to accumulate in your rats-nest of a dwelling? What resources are now depleted from accepting that junk, how much CO2 was generated etc? I'm no tree-hugging fanatic, but all the free junk is a waste of the human endeavors.

Junk USB drives. Junk trinkets. Free (junk) mp3 players.

Most of the time, free === junk === scam.

Oh, and I'd buy a quality truffle over a free, waxy, 'kiss' any day of the week. I'm elitist, so I'd rather pay :P

l33t on September 15, 2009 9:38 AM

"Oh, and I'd buy a quality truffle over a free, waxy, 'kiss' any day of the week. I'm elitist, so I'd rather pay :P"

I hope you're not implying lindt "truffles" are in any way high quality?? between those and a kiss, I'd take the kiss, at least for the childhood-memory factor...

pickles on September 15, 2009 11:51 AM

re: #3...

my father always turns down "free" things offered by sales people - especially when buying a car. his mantra: "anything free is always too expensive".

ejbelair on September 15, 2009 1:48 PM

Ariely gives excellent free talks on www.ted org. I have never read the book - great blogpost, cheers Jeff.

Andrew on September 16, 2009 5:14 AM

Law, marketing, broking and politics.
Four professions that will be looked down upon for rampant abuse.
The problem is that a few truly good honest lawmakers and leaders will continue to provide these professions credibility well into the next millenium, if we survive that far as a species.
Marketing, accounts, lawyers and politicians were absent as a profession before 1000 AD in the the present form, in cultures around the world (Yes, educated and mature societies actually lived on this planet outside Europe - archeology is witness)

As far as taking hints in life is concerned, the brush is too broad and double-sided. A blog post is not expected to be rigorous like a proof, it is well known.
But the Devil is in the detail, as always. "Perceived value" extends well beyond the domain of the tangible or physical, and therefore, so does marketing and weaseldom.
You have to trust someone, and suspect someone, all the time, to survive. Those two sets should not intersect, ideally.
Ideally. But good post.

You probably should also have added that creating artificial scarcity is a punishable crime, immoral as well as unethical. And that justice delayed is justice denied not only for the victim, but also for future victims and even the criminal himself!
A little experience, a little wisdom and a little thought make the criminal a victim in many intangible yet absolute ways.
Of course, who said the world is open source?

Historian_v1 on September 16, 2009 6:17 AM

I have a (small) bmw 320d and it had complete broken rear suspension at only 50000 Miles tacho, and engine broken at 60000 Miles...

ALEX on September 16, 2009 7:31 AM

A lot of people have raised the valid point of how much hassle it is to pay even $0.01. They repeated the experiment in the MIT cafeteria where students pay using some sort of pay card, in other words, no extra hassle whatsoever, and the results were very similar.

Another point that people seem to miss, is what rational and irrational actually mean from an economic point of view. It means that one responds positively to positive incentives and vice versa. So that if a product's price is lowered people will tend to buy more of it or that if people receive fines for doing something they tend to do that thing less.

yomismo on September 18, 2009 6:31 AM

More credit should go to Kahneman and Tversky, the founding fathers of those theories...

Roee Adler on September 20, 2009 3:05 AM

How to Reach India and how to Reach other part of India like Bangalore, Airport Delhi, Shirdi Dham, Mumbai Airport, Chennai, Pune, Hydrabad, Manali, Goa, Munnar, Ooty, Shimla, Kolkata. Find full travel guide over here. Train, Airway and Road way InformationHow to Reach Banglore, How to reach Banglore City, Banglore City Toure Guide

thesurat on September 20, 2009 11:25 AM

I'm trying to imagine the consumers of this book, I feel sorry for them. Thank you for the review, there's not one point that surprises me and so I now know not to bother reading it let alone buying it. This is again self help for the self help-less as beautifully parodied by withyou.co.uk

PAINTERCOM on September 20, 2009 12:01 PM

The sole meaning of this blog post is the majority of those trying to theorize consumer behavior are balloon full of air.

Just because they do not understand people, they call it irrational. Instead, the people is behaving totally rational because there are psychological factors involved - exactly those these pathetically labelled "researchers" are not able to see, while incredibly obvious.

It is obvious a bigger house is more confortable, so fixed the amount I am ready to spend it is obvious choose a bigger house, where it is the irrational?

It is obvious travel 15 min to save 7 on 25, but not 7 on 400, if 2 stores have a difference of 7 in a 25 price one of them is a thief - and I do not want anything to do with a thief. Or are you dear Jeff saying if I download a mp3 from peer to peer or if I pirate software I am more "rational"? Well you just showed how to reason for pricing your software, but only yours (if you really do), I am sure it does not deserve the bandwidth.

It is obvious a free item is a gift, while it is not obvious a 1 cent item is a gift, who could risk buying something for 1 cent? Which quality can you assure if you sell at 1 cent?

Nice article anyway, I notice the interest of your posts is directly proportional to the distance they have from actual coding.

xlr8 on September 20, 2009 12:30 PM

i haven´t read this book

Ferienhaus Krün on September 20, 2009 1:11 PM

(Re: free vs. non-free products)

I work for a large telco. If something costs even one cent, it might just as well cost a thousand euros, because using the company's money for anything is so incredibly bureaucratic and difficult. So very often, from the perspective of an employee sitting on the bottom of the corporate ladder, using free software is often the only practical choice because the other option can mean so much headache, you don't want to even consider it.

Europe on September 20, 2009 1:50 PM

The social norms aspects are being exploited everyday by OSS projects. I large project that starts with an M and ends with an A is constantly looking for free help.

Stephen R. on September 22, 2009 2:56 AM

Great rundown!

One comment:
"Steer clear of offers of low-rate trial periods which auto-convert into automatic recurring monthly billing. They know that most people will procrastinate and forget to cancel before the recurring billing kicks in."

Steer clear OR block the procrastination factor by scheduling reminders to candel in your calendar application X days before the monthly billing period begins.

In general, I'd love a follow up post on various smart ways to use gadgets and software to bypass these irrationalities. Conscious internalizing and blocking is not always the most efficient way to prevent irrationality.

A great (and almost too obvious) general preventive heuristic: take some time to think things through! So many marking tricks work only because they convey a sense of urgency ("One time offer! Now or never!").

thomasy on September 22, 2009 3:50 AM

TANSTAAFL.... google it up if you don't know what it means:-)

Petr Macek on September 22, 2009 12:22 PM

TANSTAAFL... in case you don't know, wikipedia entry comes here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL

Petr Macek on September 22, 2009 12:27 PM

Not a dig at ya Jeff, but this is first year marketing stuff.

uiofeijo on September 23, 2009 2:48 AM

so no new posts for 15 day?

and why is this?


because Joel Spolsky destroyed his blog and this blog too.
I hate him.

second on September 23, 2009 4:06 AM

I was wondering the same thing about how long its been since we've seen a new post.

I hope Jeff's okay...

Also Wondering on September 24, 2009 2:04 AM

"I hope Jeff's okay..."

He's still twittering, but does seem to be unwell. Don't know if that's the reason for the lack of posts.

Well Wisher on September 24, 2009 5:37 AM

@second:

"because Joel Spolsky destroyed his blog and this blog too."

Can you elaborate?

JB on September 24, 2009 8:49 AM

@second:

"because Joel Spolsky destroyed his blog and this blog too."

Can you elaborate?

JB on September 24, 2009 8:50 AM

@JB
JoelOnSoftware.com became blah blah we released new FogBugz version. we are awesome. please buy. interns please do apply for internship.

and his JoelOnSoftware forums are virtually dead.

second on September 25, 2009 6:36 AM

So ...

Jeff is dead then ?

Monkios on September 25, 2009 9:28 AM

An interesting read, as is the linked article.

I feel I must join in with 123fun, though. The Duke students selling for $2400 are probably saying that because they CAN sell them for $2400. They're doing the smart thing, and spending time they can afford to make money. The students that didn't get one weren't willing to pay much more than the ticket in the first place.

The real message there is that they have time / no commitments for the "weeks" in which they wait in line for tickets. They're probably putting WAY more than $2400 worth of time / inconvenience into the tickets.

Groxx on September 25, 2009 9:51 AM

Thanks so much for this wonderful information.

I read 'Made to Stick' recently... many of your examples/illustrations are in the same vein as this book.

Thanks again!

arachnode.net on September 25, 2009 10:22 AM

"He's still Twittering but seems to be unwell."

Those two things are mutually inclusive.

Nick on September 25, 2009 1:26 PM

Thanks for post, I didn't think that I'm so easy to manipulate.

JJ on September 26, 2009 6:51 AM

some marketing weasels blog to sell a product....

sunfire on September 26, 2009 8:44 AM

Doesn't Google make anyone nervous? Doesn't all this free on the web make anyone nervous? What would you pay for the free stuff that has become a part of your life? I feel like a "spoilsport at an orgy".

JKH on September 29, 2009 3:02 AM

good post.
http://www.christianlouboutins.de

louboutin on September 29, 2009 10:03 AM

This marketing weasel is creative, kind, volunteers, and gives to charity. What are YOU doing for humanity?

EK on September 29, 2009 10:03 AM

Altogether a very good introduction to the topic and to those that have nothing good to say - remember that this article was just that, an article and not the Unabridged Encyclopedia of Mind Manipulation Strategies. And some people never notice the good, even when it's slathered all over their noobian faces.

But, all open forums draw feedback and so here's mine about number 4 - What's not mentioned, and the thing to note here, is how the lawyer's rated the worth of their efforts. If they offer their services for free the implication is that the value of their service is incalculable (read: infinitely valuable) as all charitable services to humanity are, but if they work for a reduced rate then their services have a lower assigned value. Not something a hard-nosed, well driven attorney would ever accept.

All in all, a good read. And I've added the book to my wish list on Amazon. Thanks, Jeff

Steve on September 30, 2009 2:31 AM

one more post like this and feedburner counter falls below six digits.

spoilsky approach spoils the blog.

securityhorror on September 30, 2009 6:49 AM

It would be helpful if you could do a better job emphasizing where your information is coming from. Specifically, this article takes quotes from the book from another article (which you link, but which itself is based on Yeh's article outlining the actually book). Unfortunately, in your article lost is any indication that those quotes are themselves from the book and that the article you based your post on is itself a reworking of Yeh's outline.

My sense is you essentially hijack and repurpose randfish's article, which at least has a (single set) of quotes offsetting passages from book.

TC on September 30, 2009 11:43 AM

RE the house in LA vs Pittsburgh: The argument here is completely backwards. It is based on the fallacious idea that you "need" a certain size house. If for some reason I was forced to move to a smaller or less fancy house, would I die instantly? No. The only things you really "need" are food, water, air, and some minimal protection from the elements. Everything else is some level of comfort or luxury. People who first decide what they "need" and then go out and buy it without considering the cost tend to end up deeply in debt, because when you think that way, wants quickly turn into needs and whims into wants. The rational approach is to set priorities for your wants, then look at your available budget and buy things working down the list of priorities until you run out of money. (Including "saving for retirement, a rainy day, etc" at an appropriate place on your priority list.) If I moved to a town where housing was more expensive, I would probably buy a smaller house, because having a big house is a lower priority to me than, say, eating regularly, or sending my daughter to college. This is not irrational, this is eminently logical.

Jay on October 6, 2009 11:20 AM

And, umm, #3 says that we overvalue things that are free. #9 says that we assume value is proportional to price, which would mean that we undervalue things that are free. Maybe there's some explanation but that sounds like a contradiction to me.

Jay on October 6, 2009 11:23 AM

More quibbling (wow, this is fun): Several of the points given are based on the underlying theory that to be rational we must compare the difference between two prices rather than the ratio, i.e. a minus b rather than a divided b. On what basis do you make that assertion?

Suppose I have a choice between an adequate pen for $1 and one of the finest pens available in the world for $20. The difference is $19, an amount I can readily afford. But I always buy the cheaper pen, because I don't see the more expensive pen as being worth 20 times as much.

But suppose I have a choice between an adequate car for $10,000 and one of the finest cars available in the world for $10,019. The difference is the same: $19. But I would surely buy the more expensive car, because it is certainly worth 0.2% more.

The important thing here is not the difference in price, but the ratio.

Jay on October 7, 2009 10:18 AM

I found your post to be interesting. The only problem is; I'm not sure that you're not just trying to sell it to me! Many of the conclusions mentioned in the book are congruent with my line of thinking. One of my guiding principles is “If is says (Quality) on the label, it's a piece of crap!” In fact if it were a quality product it would not need the advertisement.

Jeff on October 8, 2009 10:08 AM

Jay:

Obviously #9 only applies to things that are NOT free. What's the ratio when one item is free and one is not? Ummmm, there isn't one.

#3 says that when something is offered as free, all bets are off.

They are not contradictory, they simply apply to two different conditions.


I will add this about #3 though. When offered two inexpensive choices like this (i.e. we're not talking bout a free car here) there's one big difference that wasn't discussed here in the review. (I haven't read the book; perhaps it was brought up there.) That is, when the kiss is one cent, I still have to pay for it. Not a money thing -- a convenience thing. I have to dig into my pocket for pennies, and if I don't have any then I have to get change. Do I get a receipt? Etc. Whereas when it's free, I can just grab it. Paying for the truffle costs me the same effort in both cases. So there IS a relatively large cost difference between buying the Kiss and getting it for free: the cost of completing the transaction. With the truffle the difference is one cent.

I should note that I think the premise is correct. It's the example that I object to: there was a hidden cost that was not accounted for.

Jeffrey Nonken on October 11, 2009 9:50 AM

nice post...

depannage informatique paris on October 12, 2009 10:19 AM

N x 0 =0 , so I can have as many Kisses as I want or are available.
There is a big difference between free and 1 cent, when you want large quantities of an item.

Anonymous on October 14, 2009 2:57 AM

I think most are not aware of false comparisons.

nariz barcelona on October 19, 2009 10:34 AM

Another point that people seem to miss, is what rational and irrational actually mean from an economic point of view. It means that one responds positively to positive incentives and vice versa. So that if a product's price is lowered people will tend to buy more of it or that if people receive fines for doing something they tend to do that thing less.

grow taller on October 19, 2009 11:10 AM

I agreed with this post.To improve the web marketing we have to concentrate on Irrational Human Behaviors.

symptoms of candida on October 19, 2009 11:56 AM

I agree many people fall too quickly into comparing things without looking at the big picture

Visual C# Kicks on October 22, 2009 2:14 AM

One of the best blog on the net thanks.

ses kayıt cihazı on November 8, 2009 8:27 AM

valuable information, thank you very much for sharing with us

Projeksiyon on November 17, 2009 6:42 AM

When a person doesn't make their living marketing or selling directly to the public they complain when they're marketed or sold to. They feel that their paycheck comes from their honest work thus giving them a sort of moral high ground.

The problem with this thinking is that their paycheck ultimately comes from the buying public who purchased the goods made by the company they work for. These goods where MARKETED TO and SOLD TO the public.

Have you examined closely the marketing tactics used by your company? You may be accepting money from weasels. If you find your company employing any of the tactics mentioned on this post would you continue to accept money from them? Are you ready to quit your job? Will you continue to enable your company to weasel the public with your hard and "honest" work?

Marc on November 20, 2009 7:14 AM

cool book and a neat review; thanks Jeff

Jason B on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

Or like offering Coding Horror stickers for sale, accepting payment, and never actually shipping them.

Don McArthur on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

I highly recommend his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

Rich Wilson on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

As Jerry Pournelle says, "The demand for a free good is infinite".

[political]And a not-so-subtle argument against the Obama Health Care Plan... or anything else that makes benefits available at no apparent cost to the consumer.[/political]

Clinton on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

Here's a related story (headline: "Businesses pay for consumers' award designation").

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/09/11/business-consumerawards.html

Wilson on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

Couldn't disagree with the "Free" portion more. I guess Don Ariely has never heard of open source. Would be interesting to hear him and Chris Anderson have a discussion.

Jon on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

Re: #7 "Capitalize on Aversion to Loss"

Your advice takes both sides. First, rely on your aversion to loss and keep your options open. Second, recognize and avoid your aversion to loss by relinquishing options you don't need. If the study is true and we're naturally averse to loss, then the first recommendation is unnecessary because marketing will tend to exploit that aversion. In other words, products are often sold with "unnecessary" options to entice customers, but it's not often that you'll find fewer options presented as an advantage.

Jason Olshefsky on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

@Juergen sure they helped each other, so as long as it was not the other tribes they were fighting and torturing and eating their livers.

;-)

Aaron Seet on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

agree with you

formation mac on February 6, 2010 11:22 PM

Okay as an woman who is trying to run a small business using the web, I can say I see what the web marketing guy was talking about. But before everyone goes ape...think about this.

These reactions work because we are human beings, not because marketers have some kind of "super secret powers".

For example the anchoring thing. Put something that has no known value next to something that does and we as humans will automatically "rate" or "score" the unknown item with the same or similar value.

Real world example. Lady GaGa...The fierce, the glam, the glitter, the hooker heels, the clothes, the gorgeousness of it all ...Blasted on the scene as the latest music vid queen. She's everywwhere: on the TeeVee, YouTube, blogs, red carpets, fashion shows.

She has become famous (or is it infamous?) almost overnight. But the WTF is up with that nose? Anyone else taken a look at the woman's face yet?

Take off the costumes and makeup and put her next to a super model or an acknowledged beauty. Not so good, huh? And her singing voice ain't all that. But have her belt out a song, dance, prance and jiggle her way along in a music vid and who cares! The grrl has got "IT".

So we have put a value (famous) on GaGa because she places herself in situations where she is seen with other people who we have already "rated" as having "celebrity" status or who have an entertaining quality.

Does the anchoring work for everything? Of course not. Mythbusters with standing, you can't polish a turd. If something truly sucks the market will let you know. Nothing stays hot or young forever. Ask Madonna. So quality does matter.

Marketers don't know any secrets...they just study basic "human nature" and use words, actions and images to appeal to our minds and emotions and get a response.

The stuff in the book works for marketing because it worked for people in the real world first...Fake boobs anyone?

Chancer http://ncwebdiva.com/

chancer reese on May 8, 2010 7:46 AM

Rather than be cynical try to apply these principles in your life for the betterment of those around you. "Manipulation" is not a bad word. This is powerful stuff...and it works...and it has tons of applications in your everyday life. Use it! http://www.mesabankruptcyattorney.org

MesaBankruptcy on July 23, 2010 10:28 PM

Nice blog by the way!
I like marketing but you need to do a lot of research to get it right. So I tend to bend more towards Affiliate Marketing. I find this to be a lot easier and still earn a lot of money doing it, but it needs to be done correctly. If you get good at it you may become a 'Super Affiliate' which then you've hit the jackpot!

If you want to start Affiliate Marketing the right way then you do need to check out http://www.snipingaffiliate.com

Cheers,
Kraig

Tom Evens on July 25, 2010 11:22 AM

The most poweful of them all is the Free Stuff.
That can really make a difference.

Pickaweb on July 28, 2010 7:45 AM

"When it comes to building the physical world, we kind of understand our limitations. We build steps. And we build these things that not everybody can use obviously. We understadend our limitations. And we build around it. But for some reason when it comes to the mental world, when we design things like healthcare and retirement and stockmarkets, we somehow forget the idea that we are limited. I think that if we understood our cognitive limitations in the same way that we understand our physical limitations, even though they don't stare us in the face in the same way, we could design a better world. And that, I think, is the hope of this thing."
http://www.escortistanbulx.com

bayan on December 16, 2010 9:10 AM

In reference to the whole moving comparison, I moved to Charleston in 2003 for a job that paid considerably more than my job at the time. I was so accustomed to the way of living in my prior town but realized the cost of living was much higher, but i was accustomed to living like i was and when i moved to Charleston, that didn't change. It was in proportion to my new salary and since then it has changed from that, but I still live in a practical mindset, not exceeding the ratio of what i need to what i want. As humans it is our nature to act on "want" rather than "need." Marketing companies, depending on niche often target the "want" rather than offering services of need. I started my marketing company based on the needs of my community. Often i end up offering my services with a sense of "improving" small businesses, and this has become a cornerstone in my business. Love the thread, there is some very good content to chew on, and i appreciate the opportunity to contribute.

Jake Shelton www.rockstaranalytics.mobi

Jacob Shelton on January 27, 2011 9:10 AM

Great post, this is always a subject that requires more attention to understand, and sometimes we stay all confused by all this complicated thing, but you´ve this a emlak
emlak
evden eve nakliyat little easy to understand, thanks

Zeynep Kaya on March 1, 2011 11:45 PM

So is this book teaching you how to become a better consumer, or a better marketer?

In any case, excellent post.

Steve Wortham on March 12, 2011 4:30 PM

Need a print ad to bring the customers in by the busload? Need a logo, brochure or billboard that sets you apart from the competition? Need an annual report that actually sells? Sure, we can do that—but give us the really hard stuff, too. We can help you breathe life into an organization and brand. LaBov and Beyond is a full-service advertising agency that is media-neutral: we offer services and results across all media channels. http://labov.com/

Ericeddler on August 4, 2011 11:00 AM

«Back

The comments to this entry are closed.