Bertrand Russell, "On Sales Resistance"
cscs.umich.edu
cscs.umich.edu
I never buy anything over $100 the same day I see an item in a store or online; I wait at least one day. (Then I can so some Internet searches etc).
Same thing when some service is offered to me over the phone or at my door. Telemarketers I pretty much hang up on them as soon as I hear the code word "on behalf of". For salespeople I explain that I cannot sign right now, because it's my policy and they don't find arguments against that.
Another rule of thumb is that if I haven't thought or being worried about something before, probably I don't need it.
Also for some services/products I already have an "ideal" on mind that I have already researched, so I don't have to think or make decisions about that any more. For example, for long-distance calling I use the $10/month Skype services which gives me unlimited international time. I don't think this can be beaten, and if so, probably the hassle in changing is worth more than the $10/month.
I also read books like "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini which I highly recommend, so we are aware of our irrational mind.
This is where he gets it wrong. There's a big difference between "buying what they don't want" and "buying what they don't need". Of course they don't need it. Hardly anything we buy is actually needed.
But "want" is a different story. Of course we want it. We want all kinds of things we don't need. Any good salesman will tell you that all he has to do if find that emotional want and the rest of the sales cycle becomes natural, like judo or ballet. Driven by the buyer's emotion and justified by the salesman's logic.
Funny a philosopher as brilliant as Bertrand Russell didn't understand something so fundamental. I guess that's why he was a philosopher and not a salesman.
Secondly, if you initially have no need for something and wouldn't have felt any need for it if no one had pestered you about buying it, then 'I did not want it' is an entirely acute way of phrasing the way you felt about it, before you were brainwashed into buying it.
Thirdly, your use of 'want' and his use of 'want' may be different. In 'ye olde English', "having want of something" means: needing it. For Russell, want and need may be more synonymous than for you. You could read "buying what they don't want" as "buying something they don't have want for". I'm not sure this is the case, but having read other writings of Russell, I am sure that his English and our English are different creatures, with some differences that can cause strange misinterpretations.
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, there is a world of difference between wanting something because you think you need it and wanting something because you have been assaulted with so much glorious reports on the goodness of 'it', that not having 'it' leaves you with a nagging feeling that you should want it.
As an example of the last bit: I consider a car a utility. I have an ugly and scratched car, but it serves me very well and I like it this way. However, that doesn't mean that I can avoid conversations about shiny Ferrari's or someone's brand new SUV and I can't avoid being given the feeling that I should care about my car. I constantly have to stand up to the cultural indoctrination and reconvince myself that what I'm doing is perfectly fine. I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I want one. That is what Russell is talking about and that is still something that is very wrong about our society.
Great point! I completely missed that reading the piece, but you're right: the evolution of "want" from "need" to "wish" was far from complete in 1932. A famous example of the older usage is "That soup wants salt". It also survives in proverbs like "Waste not, want not".
In this case it's not just a linguistic curiosity, but affects the meaning of the whole thing. Edit: it also provokes thought as to what the difference between the two really is.
I think you're hitting on something here. Maybe more to the point is that there is something else you want more - either to save your money for things that give you more security or enjoyment, or to follow your principles, etc. In you heart, you feel that NOT buying a shiny car will make you happier than buying it.
Much of our unhappiness comes from sacrificing our higher desires - health, security, accomplishment - for lower ones: junk food, instant gratification, laziness.
The salesman in the article is pushing his customer away from a higher desire to a lower one. And helping to make him less happy.
It is even more an extreme judgment when you are talking about what you think other people should do.
I am not saying that I disagree with you, necessarily. The problem is that human societies have evolved from smaller scale societies where "higher" and "lower" desires were well-defined by social consensus to the present large scale societies where there is no consensus definition of virtue however much it might be talked about.
I won't say that there's a solution here but we've got to take into account the problem...
No. You're missing my point. I don't mean "higher" and "lower" in terms of how other people judge them. I mean in terms of how happy they make you.
If you are overweight AND you wish you weren't, you make yourself unhappy when you choose to eat junk and not exercise. For a moment, the junk food tastes good, but then it makes you unhappy all day. (If you don't mind being overweight, fine.)
On the other hand, if you force yourself to get in shape, going running makes you momentarily unhappy, but overall you feel more satisfied with your life.
It's the same reason you go to work when you're tired, clean your house when it's filthy, etc. The reward is worth the pain.
Everyone is welcome to define their own goals in life. If your goal is to be a Level 5 Million WOW player, and you don't mind losing your health for it, fine. But if you kick yourself every day for your habits (whatever they are) and wish you could change (in any way), you've got a priority problem. You should be sacrificing lower desires for higher ones.
Interestingly, I'm in the same boat (car?) WRT utility and being happier with an ugly, scratched car.
However, I have no trouble avoiding being given feelings about my car by someone else, since my feelings are mine alone, and I am secure in them.
This means that I don't feel like I want a shiny car (how is feeling like one wants different from actually wanting?), but I don't think it's wrong to attempt to dissuade me.
In fact, I consider a good salesperson to be someone who discovers something I want, but had been unaware of, and points it out to me. I may lose some blissful ignorance, a trade-off I consider well worth it.
If you buy a timeless design and maintain it properly, there is nothing to be ashamed about, but letting your car get scratched to the point of rusting below the paint, this is sloppiness.
I believe this is what he is talking about. So much of what we purchase, what we 'want' is created by the companies selling the product. So much so that we are no longer aware of it, it's just part of life.
Maybe that's too broad of a definition for this particular thread, but I think it's a good example of how marketing and sales are truly interwoven in everything we touch. Every product on the shelf is designed in this manner, to make consumers want it, or to convince them they need it.
It's a pet peeve of mine when people conflate advertising (hiring a seductive model), and some very narrow areas of marketing (identifying that successful, young customers like sport-luxury vehicles) with marketing as a whole.
I'd agree that from a product stand point it's not so different from a BMW, Lincoln or Acura... but it's not remotely similar to a Chevy. If you're interested in a sport/luxury sedan, Chevy has nothing to offer you. They can do sport, or sedan, but not sport, luxury and sedan simultaneously.
Judo and ballet are perfectly unnatural. They take dedication and concentration and consistency, years of practice. There is no other animal in existence which will take the time and effort to perfect a set of particular movements.
Also, we should use words other than "want" and "need". Make up a few, give them definitions and that way we'll avoid any equivocation or any other logical problems.
Of course, ungrateful wretch that I was, I hardly played the piano after it arrived. Maybe they should have bought a more expensive model. :-)
You can't realize you don't need it, or won't use it, until you've bought something like it in the past, or as you say, you run out of room and think "do I really need something else here taking up space?"
The paradox is that I am now buying less as my income increases. The good thing is it puts me in a better position to buy a house, start a family, etc.
Heh, I try not to make the same mistake twice!
There must be some website where users post pictures and descriptions of ridiculous things they've bought and the money they've spent. How about calling the website: ThinkTwiceAboutThePrice.com or IOughtNotToBought.com or BuyersRemorse.com. Then with enough membership you can turn it into a swap/auction site. :D
Also, 'sales resistance' is hard to quantify. Does he not want to buy because the widget being sold carries no value to him? Or because he doesn't perceive any such value? Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?
No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.
Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?
Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.
I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate? And in this particular analogy, the purchasing decision was clearly the buyer's, so the worst you could say about the seller was that he was pushy and obnoxious. I can't see why one would 'blame' him for the inefficient economy.
Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.
That's disingenuous. What I meant was, based on the story of the pushy piano purveyor alone, without knowing what use was made of the instrument, you can't really say it was a useless purchase. Serendipity happens.
Deals are supposed to create value. For example, if a house is worth $2M to the seller and $3M to the buyer, there's $1M potential surplus to be captured. A deal at $2.5M makes that makes that surplus real, in effect giving $500K to each. If a potential deal doesn't create net value - if the buyer doesn't receive enough benefit from the good, or the seller spends too much manufacturing it - the total wealth in the economy goes down as a result, even though the buyer OR the seller might win personally.
Serendipity happens.
Yes, and statistics can tell us what credence to assign to the chance of it happening. I certainly see no reason to assign 50% or similar credence to serendipity in the described case, or indeed any credence high enough to dominate the certain loss of value. Do you?
I read nothing about a gun being held to this poor old man who was obviously crippled by his lack of a back bone.
Why was this man talking to the salesman about a piano in the first place? He must have wondered into a piano store, thinking it was a travel agency in hopes of booking his summer vacation. But right at the moment he realized he had stumbled into the wrong store, the salesman caught him with his tractor beam and would not let this poor man leave.
I agree with most comments, there is something wrong with society, but I'm not so quick to judge the salesmen. Why not blame the guy shopping for a piano when what he really wanted was a vacation?
(Anecdote: My dad ended up buying a set of the World Book encyclopaedias by a pushy salesman - ended up tremendously enriching my life over the next couple of years.)
I realise that anti-consumerism is viewed as a Good Thing, but some of the onus is on the consumer - his 'duty' is to think and buy. The producer will gladly cater to the second half of that, and manipulate the first bit to the fullest extent he can to enable the buying. This hardly makes the producer (and his agents) a 'bandit'.
It was clearly meant tongue-in-cheek, or at least that is how I took it.
Of course nobody buys a piano because of a pushy salesman if their house can not accomodate it, but it is a nice analogy to describe some of the process that goes on when people buy stuff they don't need or have the ability to use.
Have a look at this for how far the 'salespeople' are willing to go:
'Pester power' is a well-known soft spot exploited by marketing droids. Personally, I feel this is a shady trick. but IMO, this doesn't make them evil. Kids being a soft target is all the more reason to try and take a personal involvement in educating your kids, and not letting the ridiculously marketing-driven society do it for you. (not you personally, jacquesm..)
Well, he is. He is pushed to buy something he neither wants nor needs but runs out of a will to resist. This happens every day at the doorsteps of tens of thousands of older people that get salespeople to visit them at their homes.
> Would you say uppity restaurants that focus more on the presentation of the food and the ambience than the bland quality of their fare are to be faulted for positioning themselves thusly?
I take it that they do not go door-to-door or have people standing in the street in front of their restaurant to push people in the doorway. If the choice is truly free then it's fine with me.
> If people see fit to pay for the snob value, more power to them..
We are in agreement on that.
> Personally, I feel this is a shady trick.
Personally, I feel it is criminal.
> but IMO, this doesn't make them evil.
And we disagree on that.
> Kids being a soft target is all the more reason to try and take a personal involvement in educating your kids, and not letting the ridiculously marketing-driven society do it for you.
As the proud father of a 15 year old son I could go on for days about the enormity of the assault on young impressionable minds. It goes so far that I feel some sympathy for those parents that eventually give up.
Also, while (again) I completely agree that because they are driving over-consumption that this is a problem, it's very difficult to tell how much of problem it is. Maybe some people really enjoy owning useless shit and are taking advantage of an opportunity while it's made convenient by the sales person. Has anyone attempted to do some science to understand this? What proportion of purchases "induced" by pushy salespeople are customers unhappy with X weeks later, as compared with "other" purchases - ones made with previous intent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
It documents (with gripping style) the activities of Edward Bernays and others in their efforts to manipulate people's subconscious - to make them buy stuff.
The essense is of this entire, and apparently 80+ years old, movement is that "the little man" spends his money and otherwise prioritises in ways that we, the holders of truth, find odd, even repulsive. We therefore conclude that the error must clearly lie with salesmen and advertisers pushing unvirtuous products and service.
That said, there's a line being crossed when apt salesmanship and glossy advertising becomes threatening, harassing or are downright scams.
Russell's complaint is not that "the little man" prioritizes in ways Russell dislikes. It's that he prioritizes in ways that (a) he doesn't like when he can think it through clearly, and (b) produce results that he doesn't like when he experiences them; and that what salesmen and advertisers are doing is to interfere with his ability to think it through clearly and anticipate the likely results of his actions.
Or, to put it differently: the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole.
I've no idea what's supposed to be "holier-than-thou" about that, even if it turns out to be dead wrong; perhaps you could explain?
(It need hardly be said -- but I'll say it anyway -- that the sneer at "the little man" here is mseebach's invention, and doesn't e.g. occur anywhere in Russell's piece. Russell introduces his victim as "some hard-working professional man", and if mseebach sees that as patronizing or insulting, so much the worse for mseebach.)
> the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole.
Obviously there are scammers out there, but the average advertisement/sale caters to the average consumer, and by declaring that the actions of these consumers make them "sillier and stupider" (than what?) and that they don't act in their own interest or "those of the community / nation / world as a whole" is "holier-than-thou".
How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? To take a very current example, the current financial crisis is caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home.
In my experience your "targets" in consumer sales are comprised to two categories: Smart people, where you drop the act and give them the data they want (they probably wont buy unless you do a fine job at NLP or "Liking") and the rest. With "the rest" it is recommended as "best practice" to use the techniques of NLP, Reciprocation, Consistency, Social Proof (the salesman's favourite), Authority, Liking and Scarcity. ALL of these tricks are tricks. They are all ways that make the target more likely to buy the product without improving the product. You can play on someone's emotional weaknesses to make them buy shit. Fact. There is no "they're not being forced to buy". If you know the tricks and they don't you will be able to influence them.
Hell, I might even be able sell to you (someone smart) if I could place you in a Consistency trap and you're on a first date with someone you're trying to impress.
These are the kind of sales the article is talking about and I completely agree with the writer. They don't generate wealth and they probably don't improve the economy.
Except -- I wasn't pushing a piano at the cost of a family vacation. I was selling a $5 for three issues ($25 off cover) re-subscription to a computer magazine. Experiencing how hard it actually was to push this offer gave me quite a bit of faith in humanity. 5 our of 6 said no and hung up before I got through my scripted pitch.
There's a certain sentiment against sales here. But where is that anger when someone is talking about their latest A/B test here? An A/B test is a test to find out which of two alternatives is better to make a visitor do what we want that visitor to do. Since the need for the A/B test, we can conclude that the visitor doesn't take that action be default. Thus, we're doing this design to manipulate the visitor to take an action that's not in his best interest? Because if it was in the his best interest, he should be doing it anyway, without the optimization, right?
If you do an A/B test you aren't actively disrupting me when I am doing things totally unrelated with what you are selling and impinging on my time. Telemarketing does.
With A/B testing at best you are trying to optimize your website (and indirectly and mostly unobtrusvely impinging the time and energy I choose to put into using your website). The difference is between trying to optimize layout in your store for when I do walk in vs calling me when I am playing with my children.
Telemarketers are active nuisances and in my (politically incorrect) opinion should be lined up against the nearest wall and shot out of hand.
What I'd pay money for is an Eliza like "voice bot", clever enough to waste telemarketers time to the point where the whole idea of telemarketing becomes economically infeasible.
"Here, practice your English."
Hilarity ensued.
However if you're going to "sell a grand piano" your margin is higher and thus you can employ someone who has better sales techniques.
I agree that it is the same game as A/B techniques but there are degrees of viciousness at play here and the classic "piano salesman" is well towards the devious end.
You don't say... I think it is an excellent analogy of the process that goes on between producers, salespeople and consumers.
> How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"?
That's a tricky one, but I suspect that the maximum by any definition does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them.
> caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home.
There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials in the US that together brought about the crisis, equally culpable are the people operating the banks, the people that took on mortgages that they knew up front they would not be able to pay for ('ninja' applicants), foreign banks buying up the debt packages etc.
Indeed, no-one gets away clean.
Well, I don't. Care to elaborate?
> ...does not include large amounts of funds spent by people on things that do not benefit them.
That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone?
> There were many more 'actors' than just a few government officials
Of course. I singled out the government, because that's an entity we often look to in search for a definition of the common best interest.
Consumers would be informed about the available products in a neutral way, would know about the ins and outs of all the products they could choose from and would have an idea of the long-term benefits of the products if purchased.
Clearly, we do not live in an ideal world.
Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis, at least it is in most parts of the world.
But even there advertising is shaping consumers decisions more and more. Branding and marketing are gaining a bigger foothold than ever before even when it comes to buying everyday needs items such as drinking water, bread, rice, clothing and so on.
For other goods 'regular consumption goods and luxury goods' the situation is even more extreme.
> That's circular. How do you define what objectively benefits someone?
It's not circular, it is recursive ;)
But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. Most income spent on useless stuff (for instance to feed addictions) goes at the expense of a real need (for instance to feed or clothe children). By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle.
Nobody is able to make their decisions about what they need with any degree of impartiality.
The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness.
So all other things being equal, if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat somehow then your happiness will not be as high as it would have been had you gone through with what would have been the most rational decision.
If you look for a definition of what is in the common best interest I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart. In theory it does, in practice I don't think there is a single government on earth that would be able to make that claim and withstand an investigation into the veracity of that claim.
Maybe I'm old and cynical, but where ever I've lived I did not have the feeling the government had my interests in general at heart.
These choices need not have anything to do with money. In Russell's example, it would seem that there was something about the (contrived) piano purchase that made the buyer prefer buying that piano to using the money for some the other possible choices. And per Mises, we really can't know what those reasons are. Maybe he's lazy and thinks the cost of thinking things through exceeds the monetary value of the piano. Perhaps it was worth more to the buyer to preserve his politeness and civility, rather than giving the salesman the bum's rush. Perhaps he genuinely values giving his daughter the musical education that the piano would enable.
But in a society that we like to claim is tolerant of all values, who are we to say that any of the buyer's values -- his motivations for making some choice -- are wrong in any objective way?
In the bigger picture, it's incorrect to think of transactions as "pushing" or "pulling". In a free market, every transaction is by definition both a push and a pull. Both parties believe that the net result is a net gain to their total utility. The farmer's got tons of wheat and all his capital is tied up in it; the family's cupboard is bare, and you can't eat dollars. Trading a pound of wheat for a couple of dollars is advantageous to both.
These problems of advantage for one side or the other occur in distorted markets where one side doesn't want to execute the transaction, but is coerced into doing so because it's necessary to continue their overall business.
The thread is mainly about marketing, not about economics, marketing changes the dynamics of why people make choices.
> Economics is the study of why people make choices: why they forgo one opportunity in favor of a different one.
Economics involves much more than that:
- production of goods
- logistics
- consumption
And plenty of people would include
- the services branch of commerce
- utilities
- government
> In Russell's example, it would seem that there was something about the (contrived) piano purchase that made the buyer prefer buying that piano to using the money for some the other possible choices.
Indeed, he valued the absence of the salesman more than his money.
> But in a society that we like to claim is tolerant of all values, who are we to say that any of the buyer's values -- his motivations for making some choice -- are wrong in any objective way?
Such as: Buying drugs ? Spending a lot of money to keep up with the Joneses ? (arms race on a small town level)
Teenagers spending a fortune on ringtones, phone applications ? (and they're buying this stuff on credit)
Some choices are simply objectively wrong. There are even some laws to protect consumers against this kind of thing, for instance in some countries if you buy something on-line you have a right to a refund within a certain period.
> The farmer's got tons of wheat and all his capital is tied up in it; the family's cupboard is bare, and you can't eat dollars. Trading a pound of wheat for a couple of dollars is advantageous to both.
The farmer is not 'pushing' his wares though, he makes them available at a fair price on a market. The family is free to buy their wheat from another farmer based on the objective criteria of quality, price and convenience. He's not going to go out of his way to try to get people to buy his produce at the expense of his neighbour.
Farmers are a particular bad example by the way, most individual farmers (at least those that I'm familiar with, there are probably plenty of counterexamples) are held by the throat by 'buying consortia' that consist of large supermarket chains. They set the price, not the sellers.
Hardly any consumers go and buy their food from the farmers directly, unless you live near a 'farmers market' in a rural area.
This is one reason why plenty of farmers go out of business, only to have their bankrupt farms bought up by fronts operated by those consortia.
Transactions on the free market have a 'middle ground', unfortunately the free market is an illusion, no transaction is completely free.
A 'free market' for instance assumes that parties do not collude.
Well, in the extreme cases there are things that society agrees are wrong, such as murder, theft, etc. Whether or not those are objectively wrong is a topic of much discussion in philosophy classes but society in general agrees they are.
What we can often say objectively is that certain actions are detrimental to that person's stated goals. If your goal is to save enough to buy a new car with cash as quickly as feasible, then buying that piano at all is probably not smart, and doing so in the name of politness and civility is certainly contrary to his stated goal.
If he regrets his decision, we're not judging him, but sympathizing with him. The salesman would have been more helpful to say, "I think what I'm offering is great. Here is all the information on it. Why don't you take some time to think it over?"
Then the man could take the time to separate his momentary emotions from his actual priorities. And he would be happier in the end.
Any salesman who is willing to do this earns my respect. There are salespeople who genuinely want to help their customers. The one described in this article does not.
I'm not sure that would be ideal. Well, yeah, sure -- but it's so abstract that it doesn't make sense. Even the simplest product has dozens of properties, which again are complicated to understand. There will always be some level of not understanding something, and then you fall back to rely on trusting someone, and that's the end of pure-to-the-core pull.
> Most consumption of 'primary needs goods' is still on 'pull' basis,
I don't agree. There has been advertising long before the ordinary consumer could afford anything luxurious. I'm talking about stuff like this: http://www.advertisingantiques.co.uk/
> But the recursion bottoms out where you run out of funds to buy something that you really need. (...) By having individuals compete with companies that have meanwhile spent upwards of a century honing their skills we are creating a completely uneven battle.
Never the less, in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the individual wins that battle. When that doesn't happen, there are usually a general inability to prioritise resources behind it. And if it happens, if someone prioritises making a payment on a huge plasma TV rather than feeding their children, I would find it morally bankrupt to blame advertising for that failure.
> The best way to describe 'to benefit someone' is to say that their lives have a maximized sense of happiness (...) if you buy the 'wrong' car because a salesman pushed it down your throat
Sure, and that's fine on the individual level. On the other hand, most people are notoriously aware of especially car salesmen for exactly this reason. And sometime someone needs to get burned, that's how this awareness is kept alive. It's a feedback mechanism, and it's working fine. One of the reasons I bought my last (used) car from the guy I did, was that he insisted that I should take it to a third party mechanic to check it out before signing. The car I got was not the one I initially though I'd get. I'll never know if I'm happier or not (oh well, I'm happier, this one is faster :) ).
> I would suggest you look everywhere but to your government, almost by definition it does not have the common best interest at heart
I agree. My point, and basic premise, is that the greater common best interest can't be defined.
In this ideal world, how do I find out about the existence of new products?
Ever seen an ad for google search ? Do you know it exists ? Do you use it ?
the average advertisement/sale caters to the average consumer: Very likely. I'm failing to see how you get from there to saying that those advertisers and salespeople aren't trying to make their targets sillier and stupider. Does being an "average consumer" somehow confer immunity to being fooled or manipulated?
than what? Than they would have been without the advertising, of course.
holier-than-thou: I'm wondering whether you mean by this something different from what I would. To me, calling someone h-t-t means saying that they think too highly of their own virtue; that they're either trying to promote themselves or criticizing other people for faults they have themselves. I don't see that in Russell's piece, nor in the attitude of other later people who dislike advertising. (Nor, in case this is what you mean, does it look to me as if Russell thinks that he himself has especially strong "sales resistance" or that he should be admired for it if so. Though I wouldn't call that "holier-than-thou" in this context even if he did.)
How do you objectively define ...: of course I don't, or at any rate I don't claim the ability to know for sure whether any particular action is going to work out well. But if that's a reason for never saying anything of the form "X seems to me not to be in Y's best interests", then I don't see how anyone can ever say anything of that form, and that seems like, well, rather a nuisance.
the current financial crisis is caused ...: you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act, yes? If so, then I'm afraid you have been taken in by propaganda: (1) most subprime loans were not made by lenders subject to the CRA, and (2) CRA loans did not produce a whole lot of foreclosures. See, e.g., http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives... and the other things linked from there.
He may not claim that it's realistic, but on the other hand it's not exactly presented as fiction. My point is that I don't think he'd be able to arrive at the same conclusion without exaggerating like that, because the subtle effects of advertising doesn't have such damaging effect.
> (2) the more subtle effect is usually in the other direction.
What you're saying is that most people more often than not are influenced to make decisions that are not good for them or their families? I don't agree. Most consumers might make sub-optimal decisions (to the extend that it's even possible to define the optimal decision, which I don't agree it is) some of the time, but the question remains if there's any evidence at all that they'd make better decisions without advertising.
> Does being an "average consumer" somehow confer immunity to being fooled or manipulated?
No, but empirical evidence suggests that people at large don't systematically make bad decisions. Since the charge against advertising is that it causes that, my conclusion is that the average consumer isn't being fooled or manipulated on any significant scale.
> than what? Than they would have been without the advertising, of course.
I think advertising on a grand scale sharpens the awareness that there might be a better (for however you define better) solution for a problem you have than the one you're currently using.
> h-t-t
When someone claims that advertising makes consumers act against their own interest, they necessarily concluded that there is a better choice for the consumer in the given situation that the consumer should have picked over what he did, and that this lapse of reasoning was caused by advertising.
I do think that yes, that is thinking "too highly of their own virtue". I don't think anyone has any right to tell me that the good feeling I get from buying expensive brand-name clothes from a fancy store in a fancy location from a staff that "manipulates" me into feeling good about my purchase (case in point, the Ralph Lauren store in Georgetown, DC). I know I can get perfectly functional clothes cheaper other place, but I like the experience.
> But if that's a reason for never saying anything of the form "X seems to me not to be in Y's best interests", then I don't see how anyone can ever say anything of that form, and that seems like, well, rather a nuisance.
There's nothing wrong with saying that, but there's something wrong with picking a fight on behalf on someone else, saying that. And there's something wrong with legitimising reckless actions by blaming it on advertising.
> CRA
You may very well be right (even though the business week column isn't exactly unbiased). I don't have my facts sufficiently in order to debate that point.
What you're saying is that most people more often than not are influenced to make decisions that are not good for them or their families? Yes. Not, of course, because every advertisement anyone ever sees is pushing them in a bad direction -- of course sometimes you'll see advertisements for something that really would benefit you -- but because the overall effect is bad. Seeing or hearing an advertisement does two things to you. (1) It provides you with some new information: such-and-such a product exists, you can get it in such-and-such a place, it has features X and Y and Z, it costs $P, etc. (2) It attempts to make you want to buy the product by other means besides merely informing you about it. It's an empirical question how these two balance out. Take a look at some advertisements, look at their actual information content, and see what you think the ratio between the two is: I reckon probably 10:1 in favour of those "other means". So, now, if I'm exposed to a bunch of advertisements then I get some extra information that helps me make a more informed choice, but I also get manipulated in ways that advertisers think effective enough to spend billions on. And it looks like there's much more of the latter than the former. Sometimes the manipulation will be towards things that really benefit me. Sometimes, not so much. There isn't likely to be much correlation between the manipulation and what's actually in my interests. (Actually, what would be needed for the ads to benefit me would be a correlation between the manipulation and the difference between what's in my interests and what I'd guess for myself without the ads. Very, very unlikely, I think.) So, basically I get a whole lot of noise injected into my decision-making process. Or, in other words, I get made sillier and stupider.
empirical evidence suggests that people at large don't systematically make bad decisions: I would be interested to see this empirical evidence of which you speak. I am skeptical of its existence.
advertising on a grand scale sharpens the awareness that there might be a better solution: yup, I expect it does, and that may be a benefit. It seems to me like a benefit that's heavily outweighed by the dangers of being made "aware" that something is a better solution when it actually isn't.
I do think that, yes, that is thinking "too highly of their own virtue": Well, that's very strange to me, since the thing you're describing in that way says precisely nothing at all about the virtue (or cleverness, or anything) of the perseon who's making the claim.
I don't think anyone has any right to tell me ...: Er, I wasn't suggesting that anyone should be complaining at you about the decisions you make. Nor that paying more money for brand-name clothes from fancy shops is a decision you shouldn't be making.
there's something wrong with picking a fight on behalf of someone else, saying that: Why? Here's a concrete counterexample (as it seems to me) that may help us work out where our disagreement is coming from. Consider someone engaged in outright fraud -- a 419 scammer, let's say. Suppose this person is new to the job but very good at what they do. At the moment they have hundreds of victims whom they're stringing along, bleeding money from; but all these victims are happy about what's being done to them because they expect to get rich. Now, suppose you discover this scam. Is it wrong for you to publicize it, and denounce the scammer to the police or other relevant authority? I say: no, of course it isn't, even though it involves picking a fight on the behalf of other people on the grounds that they're being fooled into doing something that isn't in their best interests. How about you?
legitimizing reckless actions by blaming advertising: Neither I nor Bertrand Russell (it's not often that one gets to say that...) is "legitimizing reckless actions" here, so far as I can see. And perhaps I'm being dim, but it seems to me that you're now making exactly the sort of complaint about what others do that you earlier called "holier-than-thou".
If a person needs or even just wants a thing, then they just go out and buy it. The purpose of advertising is to persuade people to buy things they don't need and had no preexisting want for. The latter is the interesting case. Sometimes advertising can be used for good to inform people that new solutions to their problems are available, e.g. a new technology (no-one wanted say a microwave oven before they were invented). But often it's not.
I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of value that people might not think they want currently?
We have seen a decade or more of intense innovation in which many new things were created that people had to be convinced to buy, but that did ultimately provide them with great value. At the same time, we still have MacDonalds marketing junk-food to kids. Was it "Supersize Me" that showed an interview with a fast food sales/advertising type brazenly describing how they can convince kids/parents to buy just about anything, whether they need it or not, whether they previously wanted it or not? [1]
I have an experiment to suggest to you and anyone else on HN who might be interested: sell your TV, cancel your cable, and don't watch anything that you didn't specifically choose, for one year. (i.e., DVD's, etc. that you make a conscious choice to buy/rent are ok). When the year is up, start watching TV ads again. My guess is that a lot of the advertisements will look ridiculous and cynically manipulative [2], and you'll wonder how they could convince anyone to buy the product they promote. But you know they work, because people pay for them.
[1] If you recall the scene I'm referring to please feel free to correct me if I got the details wrong.
[2] If they don't already seem that way to you.
The world of B2C marketing (especially FMCG) is generally a murky affair, but then again you can hardly expect the purveyors of such products to say "Here's my toothpaste, see if you feel the need to try it out, then continue to do so, if you like it. K thanks."
Most basic marketing courses in college lay the foundation to "convince kids/parents to buy just about anything, whether they need it or not, whether they previously wanted it or not?". McDonald's does it because they have the pockets to do so - Old Poppa Joe's deli across the street would do so too if they could, and you can be assured they wouldn't warn you of the health hazards.
There's little to no point in bad-mouthing the sellers - that's precisely their business. Caveat emptor, though. That's his duty.
> I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of value that people might not think they want currently?
There are two parties to this, the sender and the receiver. The receiver needs to process and act on this information for the sale to take place. I see this movement as extremely condescending because it all too readily assumes that because consumers make "wrong" choices, they don't have free will. The line goes where people chooses to make a purchase. McDonalds: it's not healthy, and everyone, including kids, know this, still consumers want the product, because they like it. I like it, and no-one else provides the convenient package of fat, protein and sugar I need at 3 am returning from a night on the town, and no-one else can give me that small energy kick as fast as a cheeseburger can to get me through the last hour of a long drive. (I haven't seen Supersize Me, but I'm familiar with it's conclusions)
Regarding your experiment, I've all but stopped watching programmed TV, but yeah, I find ads obnoxious. Manipulative? It's not like they lie about their purpose.
I got upsold to an inside cleaning as well. It certainly needed the cleaning, but if I didn't have to tell someone, "No thanks" (implying that I'm OK with the very dirty carpets in the car), I wouldn't have paid for the more expensive wash. If I really didn't want the inside cleaning, it wouldn't have affected me, but I was just conflicted enough to be vulnerable to the sale. Did the sales guy do me any favors?
:-) that's true, and I am partial to the odd drunken cheeseburger myself, but I'm not a 6 year old nagging my Mum to take me to MacDonalds because I just _have_ to have the latest piece of cheap plastic that I can only get if I can convince her to buy it for me with the special promotional meal deal. I do my late-night run maybe three times a year (maybe yours is more frequent?), but how often does the 6-year old want to go to MacDonalds? How often does her mother give in? Of course that varies by case, but I think on average more often than me. So, I would guess that MacDonalds' bottom line is significantly affected by their ability to manipulate children into manipulating their parents into doing something that they might not do otherwise, and that almost certainly is not good for their health (although possibly their wallets would be better off than with the home-cooked-meal option, a point that should give everyone pause for thought). The fact that their advertising is strongly biased in that direction supports that hypothesis.
> Manipulative? It's not like they lie about their purpose.
Being manipulative does not require lying. That doesn't mean that it is morally acceptable.
You said that you believe the story to be hyperbole "because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make". I don't really see myself as part of the movement you refer to, and I didn't mean to appear so. I also don't want to give the impression that I think I have everything worked out, with a plan for how to make it work in the real world. However, I do think the real world gives ample evidence supporting his point. From what you say above I think we probably agree on how the world actually does work, so I hope you'll forgive me the liberty of suggesting that you actually meant to say that the real world doesn't lend itself to any alternative, at least, no alternative that wouldn't end up in an equivalent situation.
I understand your point and I agree that in a great many situations, consumers make choices that, viewed objectively, aren't in their "best interests", for some paternalistic idea of whatever they are. Should we accept this as justified or moral, just because it is an inevitable outcome of a game set up in this way? I don't think we necessarily need to, and that doesn't mean passing negative judgment on the consumer's choice in the process.
Interestingly, PG's writings support this view in many ways, and I think there are even some examples in real life that suggest this as well. For instance, the MPAA and RIAA are engaged in a campaign to convince people that they have natural rights that are being violated by people choosing the no-cost option of downloading digital media. Firstly, their rights are in no way natural. But more importantly, new technology has shown up their business model as antiquated and inefficient. The digital media downloading phenomenon can be viewed as equivalent to a black market; black markets always arise when the legal market prices are kept artificially above what the fair market price would be in a free economy (viz iTunes Store). The whole economy, including the media companies, would be better off in the long run if the media companies reconsidered their business models to take advantage of the efficiencies offered by new technologies, rather than fighting to defend their existing, inefficient investments. However, the media companies' best short-term strategy is to try to maintain the status quo.
A company's attempts to manipulate the attitudes and purchasing habits of consumers don't have to be accepted simply because they are the logical consequence of the way the game is currently structured. It is always possible to change the game.
Thanks for your reply, it really made me think about this in detail.
Edit: sarcasm fail?