cool book and a neat review; thanks Jeff

Wow, this is your top entry this year so far imho. I'm going to keep a bookmark to this this page forever.

"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."

Then standard economic theory is stupid. You're thinking of buying an ipod. Do you want the ipod touch or the ipod nano? The ipod touch is 300 and the nano is 100. (Making this up). $200 difference. Which do you choose? Now I tell you you can have a nano for free for an ipod touch for $200. Now which do you choose. Of COURSE you are going to choose what's free. You get *something* for *nothing*. Doesn't seem irrational at all to me.

Replying to myself: "You will tend to overestimate the value of items you get for free. Try to 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?"

Of course, this does *not* apply to the free health care we'll all be getting soon. That's perfect.

*ducks*

Great post Jeff.
Now reworking pricing table to include the platinum edition, plz don't tell anyone else about this.

i think your numbering is screwed

Tim:

If you are _definitely_ buying an ipod (in your example), then you might as well already be out the $100 for the nano. The only question is whether you are willing to pay $200 to "trade" your nano for an ipod. That's why "theory" (actually, a deliberately simplified model) predicts you would only care about the price difference.

But this is assuming the prices you are offered are market prices! If someone offers you a free ipod nano, you know you are receiving something with a market price above zero. You could turn around after the offer ends and sell the ipod nano on ebay. You are not as sure that the ipod touch is really worth more than $200 as that the nano is worth more than zero. So you are right that it can be rational to reverse your decision, given that you participate in a market where you can buy and sell as well as consume.

I have similar concerns about whether other "irrationalities" mentioned here (and in similar discussions of behavioral economics) are really either rational reactions to concerns outside the frame of reference of the experimenters, or are non-selfish behaviors that have positive effects in a group. As a (possible) example of the latter, consider the "relative discount" example (people will drive 15 minutes to save $7 on a pen, but not on a suit). This could be explained as a desire to punish high relative markups. In a world where people did not have this behavior, cheap items would frequently be sold at very high relative prices, and the aggregate cost (of paying or avoiding these prices) would be high. In the world where people will make an irrational effort to avoid high relative prices, such prices are rare and the effort to avoid them is not necessary.

"Irrational" behavior FTW.

I haven't read "Predictably Irrational," but it sounds a lot like "Influence" by Robert Cialdini, which was first published in the late 1970's (I can't find the exact date of the first publication, but I think it was 1976). These are really interesting ideas, and it's nice to see them in a book accessible to the general public. But, while some of these studies are relatively new, the general principles have been around for a while.

For a second there, I thought I wasn't reading Coding Horror.

When you are an undergrad your choices are basically ramen or cheap ramen, I go for cheap ramen. This clearly book don't apply to me.

When you are a teenager without a credit card to buy things online, there are two options for software or music or movies: free, or piracy.

Defiantly a good read, thanks!

I'm surprised this slipped past both the book's authors and you about the free legal aid item: pro bono. Lawyers aren't required to provide some of their time for such uncompensated services, but it is enocouraged by the various bar associations. So to the lawyer, doing that work for $30 means taking a big pay cut (and, rememebr these are lawyers, so the thought that it's setting a precendent must loom large, too); doing it for free, at least as long as it's not too great an amount of work per lawyer per year, gets them the pro bono practice to make them look good to their peers. It's not hard at all, at all, to see why they preferred to donate their time for free.

Even Wikipedia knows about pro bono...

#3 Reminds me of LINUX.

Interesting stuff, but as far as the last point with the painkillers goes:

If the placebo effect works, is that necessarily bad?

If the users genuinely think that they are feeling better, maybe it is worth the extra "wasted" money.

Come to think of it, this might explain why mac users are so fanatical... it cost more, it must be better!

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

@TM, thank you so much, I've been saying this for years. We actually have to use macs in one of my classes, and while trying *very hard* to like the thing and get used to it so I can properly study the OS, I so far see nothing that makes it any better or worse than a PC. Safari actually regularly crashes when playing Youtube videos in HQ, among other things.

The difference of course is Apple's closed-source attitude and higher prices. By closing the system and raising the price (and advertising on the merit of design) they create the illusion that their product is somehow more valuable than another *equivalent* piece of hardware with the exact same specifications.

This isn't me harping on Mac, I don't think they're bad, I just don't think they're all that great either. My point is, this line of thinking applies to marketing everywhere, and it's something I've been closely watching for years. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who approaches most marketing with skepticism. ^_^

(sorry, didn't mean to make this two comments)

@void: Damn. Just.. damn. That's an excellent way to interpret an interpretation of an interpretation of a theory. I mean... wow. And the best part is, you made a good point. ^_^

I can buy the book from your links, pay $18.47 and you get a kickback or I can but it from B&N with my membership, pay $20.15 and have same day delivery in Manhattan.

I can feel like I helped out someone who gives me something to read for free every day and get a book for less by buying it through Amazon, but I won't know if I was manipulated by the marketers until I read the book.

Maybe I should just see if someone I know has a copy and read that one?

10. Stupid humans explanation

Watch out for weasly marketers selling booksthat tell you how stupid people are so you can realize how smart you will be.

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

@Chris: You should really bother to read the book, research the author, or read his previous publications before making judgments like that. The author is a professor of behavioral economics at MIT, so educating people is kind of his "thing".

I disagree. We're actually trained like this. Most of the time we enjoy "free" stuff, because it is free. If it wasn't there, you wouldn't get anything at all and most of the times it is not there. We don't see the stuff as completely free, but we are indulged by it.

Remember that "you get what you pay for" applies equally well when you've just paid for overpriced junk.

10. Giving you a list of N things.

This post itself is also kind of taking advantage of an easy way to manipulate you. This is a "List of N Things" type post which Paul Graham just wrote about ( http://www.paulgraham.com/nthings.html). This one even has lists inside lists, for double the effect, eh? This post is easy to read, even easier to _not_ read but still think it's good, and is just the kind of thing which could end up on the Digg front page.

And I'm not saying this is a bad post :)

I see this all the time. My friend, like many people, isn't rational when it comes to purchasing. He's a bit skint (that means cheap) and will drive 10km out of their way, or do heaps of price comparison on something that's only $50 just to save $10.

Time and time again I try to explain that they've wasted not only a day price comparing, but have also spend $8 in gas to save $10. Net price difference of a whopping $2 for a wasted weekend.

Better to pay $50 and $5 for doorstep delivery and spend the day at the beach.

The same person will, on impulse, buy a $200 outfit without thinking.

But then some people just like shopping I guess.

Interesting stuff. A couple of the examples don't seem so irrational, though.

People moving from Lubbock to Pittsburgh can't afford a big house. People moving from L.A. to Pittsburgh can afford one and probably get a capital gains tax cut for buying one.

If someone overcharges me $7 for a pen, they're ripping me off and I will go elsewhere to avoid letting them think they can rip me off. If someone charges an extra $7 for a $450-dollar suit, I might figure the extra time to get it somewhere else is worth more to me than the $7.

About the Duke basketball tickets, the students probably couldn't afford to pay more than $170, but there might be alumni able and willing to pay $2400.

Anybody notice that giving Kiss's for free made a difference of only 4%? I'm not saying people don't behave irrationally when they see FREE, but the example provided is kinda weak, showing only 4% difference.

You should definitely read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.

http://www.amazon.com/Blink-Power-Thinking-Without/dp/0316010669/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252651366&sr=8-1

@Shinhan: Its 73:27 and 31:69, so quite a big differnce.

And I think it's only logical. With 1 cent, you have got to take out your purse and search for money, with 0 cents you just grab the sweet and run with it. The time you save might be worth much more than 1 cent.

Tim your the perfect example of how a mind is easily manipulated.

The only decision was the difference in price of 200 and yes you immediately opted for the free one even though the difference is the same. You, in your head, valued the freebie as more valuable, when it was free. That's the trap and you fell into it like everyone else does :).

Several years ago, I carefully examined a presentation aimed at marketing one of our software products. Boy, that was shocking. By choosing the correct wording and presentation style it succeeded in creating the impression that the product is awesome and perfectly solves every problem in its domain without making any explicit promise. This way, customers will not be able to say they were decieved.

I don't think I'll ever be able to prepare such presentation.

I was wondering who gives kisses away for free, I had to read it 3 times to notice it's about sweeties, not real kisses ;)

Acutally, when you move from one country to another you usually change your job so that your new pay is relative to your new home, not your old town - but you're still bound to the old pricings, that's the irrationality in it.

that's one useful post!

"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."

So why don't Bud add 2 drops of vinegar to their beers to improve the flavour? :)

So you've been employing this knowledge then Mr Atwood?

I feel duped.

I read it recently too - and also enjoyed it. I was thinking about the first one - yes, it's irrational from a purely personal economic point-of-view, but possibly not from other perspectives. If a $455 suit varies in price by $7 (1.5%) then it's most likely a pricing inefficiency: nobody's going to get rich on the number of extra $7s they're getting. If a $25 pen is overpriced by $7 (28%) then someone's trying to rip me off and I'm prepared to go to some additional effort to deny them the satisfaction. It's not a tangible economic benefit, sure, but I'm going to feel better in myself and that's worth something. Even better, if we all behave similarly "irrationally" then the rip-off merchant will either adjust his prices or be replaced by a vendor who operates fairly. Then we won't have to drive that 15 minutes and more.

6 is silly, when people say they will buy something for $X and sell it for $Y>X they are including the "cost" of sleeping out for weeks to get it. This is a statement that they would sleep out for weeks to get $2,230

What I just picked up from this post? Budweiser tastes better with 2 drops of balsamic vinegar added :) (Provided you don't tell anyone you added it that is)

"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?"

It's disgraceful that the average citizen of the USA *still* needs a book to tell them this.

this is turning into cnn style article columns...

Is writing articles to entice readers to click affiliate links also in this book? (not that anything is wrong with that)

Speaking of affiliates, I wonder if there will ever be affiliate programs for selling ads on other sites (instead of selling products that is), for example for stackoverflow to start an affiliate program for selling ads on stackoverflow. How about it Jeff, maybe time for an experiment? ;)

>"We feel compelled to preserve options, even at great expense, even when it doesn't make sense."

This sentnce perfectly apply to software design (at least for me).
If I have a feature in one of my applications, and I realize that no user really uses it, I fight hard to mantain it (at least hidden).
I cannot force myself to eliminate it completely. Maybe because I invested some time in designing and programming it, and the loss seems intolerable to me.

You obviously don't like marketing "weasels". Good, neither do I. But you also think that every software engineer should know how to market.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001177.html

You say in that post, "Just because you're a marketer doesn't necessarily mean you're a marketing weasel."

So I'd be interested in how you distinguish between the two. At what point does good marketing turn bad?

predictably irrational? look at these people who still come back after all the useless article this blog posted. i just get amused each time reading these comments even after a down-right meaningless blog. lol

"Don't fall prey to the "moneymoon"; just because you paid for something doesn't mean it's automatically worthwhile."... Good thing this site is free =)

Captcha "behaves Wieland" - act like a heroin addicted frontman

Thanks, Jeff, you have compressed the actual useful info from a long book, and I don't have to read it anymore - well done (although I don't think mr. Ariely would agree :)).

I dont fall for marketing BS. I know its all lies and manipulation. If I need something (and I know the difference between want and need), I go and purchase it. I will try to get the best price but if I dont, I dont care. My time and sanity has a price too.

More compelling arguments for why #4 appears to be the case is that a discounted rate a, reduces the subjective value of full fee offerings making them more difficult to internalize, and b, provides difficult but discounted clients the idea that because they are paying, they can be, well, clients. Providing these services for free strips the recipient of the moral authority to be a prick.

And of course, as stated, c. If services are offered at a discounted rate, not only are attorneys collecting fees 'beneath' them, they can't fulfill their pro bono requirement (if their firm has them) or brag about their community involvement on the cocktail circuit.

Ok, I just felt like mentioning I've seen these exact quoted points somewhere else a few months ago, and it wasn't from the linked site at the beginning of this post, nor ITS linked site. And they're both newer than the one I read.

Also:
"6 is silly, when people say they will buy something for $X and sell it for $Y>X they are including the "cost" of sleeping out for weeks to get it. This is a statement that they would sleep out for weeks to get $2,230"

Obviously, the people buying don't think (at the time) sleeping out is much of a cost to them. People who would only sell them for a 2,230 dollar markup aren't ever going to get that price for them -- since you need the other side of the view too. "Buyers" aren't willing to pay that much at first because they don't realize that the whole sleeping out business is nearly worthless. A $170 ticket that ends up "costing" them $2,230 more; they should definitely act on the whole 'walking away' bullet point. The irrational decision is freakin sleeping out for a ticket that obviously isn't worth the 2,230 dollars of sleeping out.

What does this have anything to do with coding? This blog used to mostly about software and programmers and coding. What happened?

Excellent review!
It is a real plaisure to read you, always learning new stuff.
It is very impressive how you succeed on precisely presenting ideas and concepts. Very clear to the point and always with elegance.

Good Job Jeff, see you next post!

hmm. A book about common sense? Then again that's marketing for you. Only, those weasels can spin falsehoods about free software. I assume that's what you are talking about. I can't think of anything else that is "free".

I thought this post was interesting, but it was not immediately obvious to me what conent was Jeff's and what came from the linked page. I actually had to open the linked page and compare to see.

Great post...if you like this book, you'd probably like Freakonomics as well. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is good if you're looking for something more foundational, too.

You can see #6 in action throughout online reviews everywhere, especially on higher ticket items. The reviews are often justifications for that person making the purchase more than an honest review of the product ("falling in love with what they already have"). I feel much more confident in the accuracy of bad reviews for this reason.

Ok this is only the second article I have read on your blog. I am now feeding you. You are keenly aware in so many ways.

I didn't like the headline at all, could be because I have to market to sell my product and I am so challenged to do it authentically and within my core values because apparently people don't understand what you are saying above and if they do they just don't care. I look forward to your next insights tremendously.

"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."

"[advertisement] Interested in agile? See how a world-leading software vendor is practicing agile."

hehe funny...

3 explains Linux adoption. All the downsides it has would be considered horrible bugs in Windows (or any OS you pay for), but are completely acceptable from a "free" OS.

About the Truffles vs. the Hershey Kisses, I *think* we're supposed to understand that the price for a Truffle was a great bargain. Let me translate the situation in that vein:

Given the choice between a dual-quad-core 3.76GhZ server with 4TB RAID-10 disk for $1,000, or a dusty old 386 PC for $50, 73% chose the server. But when offered the old dusty 386 PC for free, 69% of the people chose it over the server.

(Free junk is still junk.)

The lawyers refusing discounts in favor of pro bono look pretty rational to me.

First, they're giving up most of their fee anyway. They're not losing much*.

Second, they don't want to be perceived as $30/hour people. By not charging anything, they're expensive professionals doing pro bono (a lawyer term, and even in Latin) work. Image is important to a lawyer, probably quite important in dollar terms.

Third, they're probably being taken more seriously pro bono. If a client pays $30/hour, they won't take the work as seriously as if they were paying $240/hour. If it's a high-priced lawyer waiving a fee, the work will still be seen as worth the fee.

Fourth, they're avoiding any sense of client entitlement. A client that's paying what looks like good money will take on a "cash customer" attitude, and feel entitled to more work if they pay the $30/hour. A client getting pro bono service will be less likely to try to push the lawyer into more service, or at least will be more understanding when the lawyer refuses. It's easier socially to put limits on volunteering.

Fifth, there's the already discussed matter that lawyers get significantly more soft rewards for pro bono work than discount work.

*The discussion of absolute vs. relative dollar values is applicable when we're spending money. When we're making money, the ratio is far more important. $100 is much more significant to the guy who needs to work twelve hours to get it than the guy who gets it in two hours. To a $240/hour lawyer, the difference between $30 and pro bono isn't $30/hour; it's the difference between seven and a half minutes per hour, and zero minutes per hour.

I would grab all the kisses and punch him in the face. Win!

> We're not perfectly logical Vulcans, after all.

Speak for yourself, Dr McCoy.

It is amazing how little people know that they are being manipulated.

Open Source is one example. It is 'free' so viewed as crap. When in reality Open Source software is often times many times better. Because, it has no price tag, people assume it is crap software.

It is the MEDIA that crame Advertising in 25% of 1 hour of your TV show, and in ALL forms of Media, most have become BRAIN WASHED.

A good sales person, that makes you feel bad for saying NO to him, gets you to buy crap you would NEVER have on your own...

Some 'KEY' marketing terms to look out for, while watching TV or viewing ANY Ad are the following... and it is deception at its best.

1) _YOU_ will benefit
2) LIMITED TIME OFFER
3) Money Back Guarantee
4) Be the first 100...
5) As a free gift...
6) 2 for the price of 1

All of these things can be debunked as NOT added value, but simply deception tactics.

The point about whether or not to buy sometimes, is to buy it if you feel like YOU want it... not because of what the AD or sales pitch is saying... FORGET the sales pitch entirely.

Also, if it is too good to be true, than it is too good to be true and most likely a scam.

If you let your 'feelings' rule your choices, you will be working many extra hours slaving away because of your stupidity.

Marketing people know what YOU need... give me a break.

Changing from $1 to free is not a price reduction. If there actually are any economists baffled by the distinction, they're not very good economists.

"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."

"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."

These two seem to be exact opposites. How do you apply them both?

I think a lot of the advice you give looks good on paper but really doesn't contribute much in the real world. For example:

- "Try comparing all the alternatives, even those from other vendors."
- "Try to objectively measure the value of what you're buying; don't be tricked into measuring relative to similar products or competitors."
- "Research these claims; don't let marketing set your expectations. Rely on evidence and facts."
- "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."

These are all practically the same and obviously, this is what we would all do if we had the time, knowledge, and motivation to constantly do it. In the real world, however, most people don't. I'm a computer geek and a programmer, but that doesn't mean I can find enough insight to decide for sure whether a certain application suits my needs—and even if I did, there's only so much time I can spend researching before the couple of dollars I could earn don't matter anymore.

It's easy to blame bad purchases on "predictably irrational" behavior, especially when you're the one judging and somebody else is the one who actually has to make a decision amidst a jungle of products, with no reliable way to find out "the truth"—especially not in a reasonable amount of time.

"Thanks, Jeff, you have compressed the actual useful info from a long book, and I don't have to read it anymore - well done (although I don't think mr. Ariely would agree :))."

He wouldn't agree openly, of course, but ask yourself this: If he compressed all of his information into a four-page pamphlet or 2,000-word blog post, would he ever be able to sell it at the same price as his book?

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]

This is specifically in regards to the example of the truffle and the kiss (or Tim's example of the two iPods). I think what these examples show is that people make their decisions based on value (enjoyment per dollar/cent in this case) rather than price. The net enjoyment of a particular product does not change with the price.

So let's assume a truffle has a net enjoyment of 16 (whatever that means) and the kisses have an enjoyment of 1. Now with the prices of 15 cents for the truffles the values is 16/15 = 1.07 and the value of the kiss is 1. So in this case the truffle offers a better value.
However, let's change those prices. Now the truffle has a values of 16/14 = 1.14 and the kiss has an infinite value.

Obviously these examples are simplified as things such as time need to be taken into account and the relative enjoyment will differ per person. It does show that there may be rational thought processes behind these decisions though. Humans simply aim to maximize value rather than look at net differences.

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

I don't know what "standard economic theory" they're using, but in actual economics we have this thing called the Law of Demand. The magnitude of the change in consumption caused by the shift from "low price" to "zero price" is certainly an oddity, but that there was some change is definitely not unexpected.

What a boring post.. Sure, propably very relevant, but are you going to be a sociology professor or something?? You should talk about code and programming, not marketing...

[political]
Oy, I hesitate to go here, but this is just too inane. If you're saying that the public option is necessarily bad because it's free, you're dumb. It's not free. The public option is a _public insurance program_. Those who get it still have to pay premiums! The only people who will get free healthcare will be those who fall under the expanded medicaid program. If you're making less than $14,000/yr ($30,000 for a family of 4) that's you, and God help you, living on that. See this simple chart: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2009/09/3907223778_1d54d0ed1f_o.html

And even that isn't "free". The gov't plans to recoup the costs by rolling back Bush tax cuts on the most wealthy. See here: http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/08/11/economic-scene-%E2%80%98tax-me%E2%80%99-some-rich-americans-tell-obama/

This is the equivalent of saying, "Well, our roads are free to drive on, so they must be bad!" or "The US Military defends me from invaders for free, so they must be doing a bad job!" Duh: you pay for this stuff! It's called taxes.
[/political]

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

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

The free vs. 1 cent kiss, is not specifically about a free item, but also about the friction of paying any money at all. There is a considerable effort in paying even 1 cent but the effort is similar whether the item costs 1 cent or 15 cents. An item that is free has no such effort required, and effort also matters. There are quite a few "free" things that I pass up when "free" means I have to sign-up, or fill out something.

stopped reading at "•Scale your purchases to your needs, not your circumstances or wallet size. "

What a bullshit. Many americansspend more then their wallet allows. Seems to be typical

Stopped reading at "•Scale your purchases to your needs, not your circumstances or wallet size. "

Seems to be typical american stupidity to spend more then the wallet allows

I've always thought "free download" was hilarious (for some trial shareware or crapware). Is anyone really impressed that they are letting you download trial software for free?

Jeff: Did you implement similar reward systems on stackoverflow.com.

You can also write a blog of what you have noticed from human behavior on SO. I know once a while you mention some aspect on the podcast but a blog which consolidates your findings can be helpful.

These are interesting examples but I think many of them fail to account for all the factors that go into someone's decision.

In the case of the $7 difference between a $25 pen and a $400+ suit, you're talking about something that's a relative commodity vs. an investment. Most people own far more pens than suits, so the value must take into account the utility which includes the purchase itself. How friendly is the staff at either suit store? How reliable or informative are they? What is their return policy, etc.

In the example of the 3 doors, it's really hard to guage what's irration and rational in this made-up example. If the students stood to make more than a few dollars then I bet they always optimize for price regardless of the loss of the other doors. Being that they were in a study, it's quite possible that their decisions were based on attempts to try to figure out what the study is trying to uncover. Maybe the introduction of the disappearing doors led people to believe there would be some benefit to keeping all three doors available, as if perhaps the values would change and they would miss out on something. If those students truly beleived that the disappearing doors had consistently less value than the other door, I don't think you would see the same behavior.

And regarding the Budweiser, I suspect you could add a lot of things to that beer to make it taste better. ;-)

@Josh
"And regarding the Budweiser, I suspect you could add a lot of things to that beer to make it taste better."

Cheap tequila. And if it tastes worse, at least you get hammered faster, or does standard economic theory say otherwise?

Tried the vinegar trick with Nobelaner. True, it's no Budweiser (i.e. it has some taste on its own), but I don't notice any difference in the taste. It is slightly darker, which is usually perceived as good.

"I dont fall for marketing BS."

Believing that's possible means you have fallen for some of the most basic marketing BS possible.

What does this have to do with programming??? The quality of your posts is steadily going down. If you don't have anything relavent to post, don't post anything.

This is exactly the sort of thing when I hear 'Roadrunner with Powerboost'. What is powerboost anyway?

When I read "Predictably Irrational", one thing I couldn't help but wonder is how different the web would be today if, years ago, the initial ad sellers had picked a much higher price for web ads and put effort into 'justifying' that anchor.

Sometimes I find it worth it to recognize I'm being manipulated yet go along with it. The most obvious example to me and the most iconic is Coke/Pepsi. I know that the typical person in a blind taste test prefers Pepsi and the general preference for Coke is simply years of marketing weasel success. I happen to have tested myself and can distinguish the two by taste, but that's not essential to my point here; if I'd never seen a commercial for either odds are I'd prefer Pepsi, it's just that I can't be "blinded". Anyway, I know I'm being irrational usually choosing Coke, but there's just no payoff for me to fight it. Coke and Pepsi usually cost the same, and even if they didn't Coke would be worth the premium to me because I do enjoy it more, my reason for enjoying it more notwithstanding. Basically, the marketing weasels won, and there's no reason for me to fight it.

Reminds me of Edward Bernays' manipulation in the early 20th century.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

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.

@James: [political] Do a direct number correlation between the "millions" uninsured and the "millions" unemployed along with the "millions" of (get ready PC term here) undocumented workers.
This issue is not necessarily access overall only a very small percentage, it is one of cost per value when the overall costs have to aggregate the cost of the pro-bono work that is legally required.

Factor in the cost of preventative measures that are again, legally required and you see why the costs are what they are. Not to mention the high price of legal settlement in the society of John Edwards types who make millions bilking doctors and insurance companies off lawsuit intimidation.

By definition "insurance" is a "just in case something bad happens" hedge against the risk. It is gambling plain and simple. Requiring the house to stack the deck in your favor via mandates of coverage only increases the premium to play.

A "public" option is a joke in the sense that it would, yes as you point out be paid for by taxes, yet who is paying those taxes if those who are unemployed (paying no taxes high cost to access) or undocumented workers (no access and/or high cost to access, also no taxes) or laid off workers are the beneficiaries that the system is meant to address?

I know, I know, I am omitting the hourly employees who may not have coverage at their job offered. They are at least paying taxes yet their issue to access is merely a cost factor as you do not have to get your employer provided or in their case non provided benefit.
This is a hoodwink by the political class to have more control over people's lives and you are falling hook line and sinker for it.

Fix the prices in the market by dropping mandates, stiffer penalties for lawsuits like "loser pays" and other tort reform measures, encourage more competition like selling policies over state lines etc. would be the better reform. Offering yet another money pit program (SSN,Medicare,Medicaid,Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc..) at the cost of the taxpayers to address an issue where the issue itself has been too much government involvement in the wrong way in the first place is quite a ridiculous proposal.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over an over again expecting a different result. Having government stick their nose in to where they have stuck their nose in to fix a problem that they created is well.. crazy.
[/political]

Great post Jeff. I think the lawyer item as others discussed is focusing purely on the economic factor of the charge vs. the soft money factor of the perception. In the end to the lawyer with their "image" the pro-bono is more cost effective than the greedy do anything for a buck image the discounted rate suggests. Provides validation to their already high rates. It in itself is a weasel marketing ploy and very rational.

Why are you only referring to the marketing weasels? There's all sorts of weasels out there...

I'm not sure what is wrong with number two. Pretty much everyone want the best accomodation they can get, but they also have a fixed amount of money they are willing to spend on that. That creates a situation where adapting what you can get before you adapt what you will pay is more rational. So a bit of a bad example I'd say.

I feel manipulated every time I come here. Is that because I'm waiting to see if the blog will revert to its former glory. Seeking counseling...

From the linked article...

"In contrast to the recommendations for offering something for free, be aware that users who get your product/service for "free" will place less value on it than those who've worked for it or bought it themselves."

I wonder how much this contributes to the prevalence of poorly-designed software?

One may stick with a poor product because considerable effort has already been expended figuring it out, making it work, and overcoming its limitations with workarounds. It then becomes painful to embrace another product, even though it is better, because all that effort will be thrown away (and the effort of evaluating another product seems all the more unbearable when added to the effort already expended).

With badly documented freeware that will not work "out-of-the-box", being in the exclusive club of "those who spent days or weeks figuring it out" (even if it meant reading through the source code) might contribute to a certain pride that excludes (and mocks) new users who "just want it to work". Several corporate products that have license fees in the 10's of K's seem to suffer from the same problem, but they are still widely used.

It would be sad if incompetence turned out to be a deliberate strategy for success.

@Clinton

Recently saw a US-made documentary which claimed that the US free-market medical system costs far more per capita and provides lower-quality care for fewer people (even for those who can afford it) compared to countries where medical care is provided by the government for all.

"Don't fall prey to the "moneymoon"; just because you paid for something doesn't mean it's automatically worthwhile."

Not only is this correct, but the exact opposite is true: the moment you buy something, it is *monetarily worthless* until you decide to on-sell it. The only value you can place on a product you own and intend to retain is how it affects your life, comfort or living conditions. It can still have been a poor purchasing decision, but that will inevitably be in the past.

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation

You are not using OL tags for that list. HTML failure!

@(those picking on Jeff because of the lack of coding articles): It is Jeff's blog, he can write what he wants. I would suspect that means that he will write about what interests him at the moment. It's obvious that his current interests involve learning more about the business aspects of software development rather than the technical aspects. While I personally am still interested in the coding/development/technical aspects I can certainly appreciate that he shares some of the interesting articles he comes across in doing his *business* research.

@Dana - Pepsi better than Coke? Are you trying to be a troll? Pepsi tastes flat. Coke has some zip in its taste. Although, I'll try to be fair. I think the taste preference depends on where you grew up. Northeasterners prefer Pepsi. Southerners prefer Coke. Thus, these blind taste tests you mention depend entirely where the test takes place. As for me, when I go to a restaurant and ask for a Coke, and they say we only have Pepsi products, then I have to opt for the Root Beer. There is that big of a taste difference IMO:)

I read this book months ago at the reccomendation of Steve Yegge. He wrote a blog post about it a while back: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html
You are a bit behind on the reading there, Jeff! :)

Here's a similar experiment:

People were asked to take part in an experiment. They were given two choices.

Option number one: They get $20, right now, there's nothing they have to do for that. If they choose this option, all the other people taking part will only get $5.

Option number two: They get $50, right now, more than twice the amount from option one! However, if they pick this option, everyone else will get $100.

If you look only at the money you (personally) will get, everyone will rather take $50 than $20, right? Why would you settle for less than half the money you could get? The outcome is surprising: The big majority took the $20. How can this be?

If you take $20, you get more than everyone else. You are the winner, you are the champ, you are the king of the hill! Everyone else is only a loser. If you take the $50, you got more than twice as much, but as everyone else got more than you, YOU are now the loser, everyone else is the winner, everyone else "scored better" than you. People always want to be the winner. They always want to get a better treatment than everyone else. And for getting such a better treatment, they are willing to accept any real loss. As giving $100 to everyone else looks like a virtual loss to them (they lost $50 compared to everyone else), but taking $20 means they made $15 more gain than anyone else. Every gain is better than the smallest virtual loss.

This is important if you work in support business. Giving people the impression they are treated in a special way makes them feel so good that even the fact that they just lost a big opportunity won't bring them down. Just turn the experiment around: People are willing to pay twice as much as everyone else, as long as that means they get something that nobody else gets! On this simple idea bases a whole industry of luxury goods.

"WAAAH WRITE ABOUT WHAT I LIKE OR I'M TAKING MY TEARS ELSEWHERE WAAAH"

#6 is so true, especially with real estate. Anyone ever watch "Property Intervention?"

Now, to exploit these when I list my home in the future. Premium paint through-out home & exterior...upgraded crown molding...

Very interesting I enjoyed this post a lot. I don't really think the truffle vs. kiss example is irrational though. I know I've done similar things myself. If I'm going to spend money anyway, I'd rather buy the high quality item. If I don't have to spend money then I usually won't. In some cases I'd take the pricey item over the free item if the free item was just bad, or more trouble than it's worth.

@Mecki - I totally get that study. Why should other people get more than the person in control?! Kinda sounds like how every "modern" society ends up working.

had to share my captcha..
captcha: Harrlot bearded

Aversion to loss is what makes me suck so badly at RTS games. :P

"* 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?"

Someone should send this to the Mono devs...

$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.

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.

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

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.

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".

I've long been a fan or Dan Ariely and this is a great post as it applies to marketing.

Ariely's own analysis of how his work applies to financial markets is also a must read at the Ted Blog: http://blog.ted.com/2009/05/dan_ariely_2008.php. Here and in his last TED talk, Ariely discuss his work as it applies to our financial breakdown - specifically the contribution to our crisis from those (notably Greenspan and his disciples) applying to free market fundamentalism that is based on a treatment of actors as fully rational economic decision makers.

This statement from Ariely is worth noting - and like this post - recognizes there are lessons to take from this research for anyone designing systems.

"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 understand 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."

@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

"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...

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

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?

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

@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.

;-)

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.

(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.

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

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

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.

i haven´t read this book

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

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!").

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

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

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.

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

so no new posts for 15 day?

and why is this?

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

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

I hope Jeff's okay...

"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.

@second:

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

Can you elaborate?

@second:

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

Can you elaborate?

@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.

So ...

Jeff is dead then ?

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.

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!

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

Those two things are mutually inclusive.

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

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

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".

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

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

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

spoilsky approach spoils the blog.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

nice post...

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.

I think most are not aware of false comparisons.

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.

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

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

agree with you

One of the best blog on the net thanks.

valuable information, thank you very much for sharing with us

thanks for the quality of your information

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?

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?

ortam dinleme cihazı cep telefonu uzerinden ortam dinleme ..

Thank you for the informative post...

Ok 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.

Yes 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?

En küçük mikro mini ses kayıt cihazlarses kaydediciler. Thanks

I found you trough Google really reat information here....

Yes they feel that their paycheck comes from their honest work thus giving them a sort of moral high ground.

Thanks.. Ses kaıt cihazı ses kaydediciler en küçük ses kayıt cihazı....

Thank you vey much admins . very useful post..

Vey very thanks for the very nice informations....

Hi admin Thank you for very informative post.