Where is the border between inferring what I want and deciding (for me) what I want? How about an artificially created tilt toward certain consumer or political brands in the process of inferring what I want?
> If I'm manipulated into buying something that I genuinely want, then I'd be happier for it.
But do you genuinely want it? or were you _influinced_ into wanting it? It's the same principle that makes fast food advertisements so profitable for the food industry. The ads are already targeted (most people like to eat tasty food).
Furthermore, if you're truly indifferent with being influenced like this, to what extent will the "influencing" remain acceptable to you? where would you draw the line?
> So we can't trust what consumers say they want, but we can trust what you say they wan't?
I’m not saying they want anything. I’m saying that what they want is revealed by their choices and not how they might answer any particular question when prompted. In economics this is called a revealed preference.
> Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently.
People do not make Perfect Decisions based on Perfect Information, and this is a fine example of the wrong conclusions drawn from implicitly assuming they do.
> If you reduce the idea that much, it becomes meaningless.
Conversely, the idea that consumers fundamentally don't know what they want is reducing consumers so far down to their lowest common denominator that it becomes meaningless.
Do consumers want it, or is it merely taking advantage of some more subconscious human behavior patterns. And if the latter, is this something that is bad for humankind?
What about collecting statistics to make better decisions? Let's say, you go to your favorite jeans store, but find out that current collection is disgusting. Does it sound ok for you if some sort of system would analyze your attitude to the product to improve it in later versions?
>Is that manipulation of his preferences for good skateboarding shoes, the ad making him impulsive and changing his desires and making him buy a worse product?
In your example, yes.
>Or is the ad informing him he can buy access to a spirit that will accompany him on his self selected journey and help his own desires?
No.
One shoe is better for its purpose, the other has stronger associations with positive ideas and feelings.
The quality of the shoe you buy is the necessary determinant of how well it will perform.
Conversely, the brand you buy from is not necessary to having certain thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations, etc.
The notion that buying X product with Y association in some way supports Y is exactly the deception. Flowery language about buying access/hope/a way of life is romanticizing the deception.
Yeah, it's a phrasing error... although there are species of inferred behaviors (he went into a room for an hour and then came out and walked to a store. I don't know what he did in that room but I can infer that he breathed while in it, although as with all inferences that may be untrue.)
I'm not arguing against revealed preferences as useful aggregate information regarding the probabilities of someone choosing X, I'm saying that you both can't know their intentions regarding those choices and more specifically those preferences are untrustworthy in predicting any single opportunity to choose X.
The idiocy of many current products, be they physical or informational, is replacing the user's ability to make a choice with what the product designers believe... especially without explicit agreement. In most cases the user didn't opt-in to outsourcing or subordinating their decision-making to product X and every time their intent conflicts with the product's decision-making the user will become more discontented with the product.
> It is useful primarily for converting someone who is on the fence and is considering deferring a purchase decision on the assumption that the decision can be later with no cost (other than delay in getting the product).
That's the main argument I was expecting, (and I called it out somewhat at the end of the paragraph you quote). I'd be very curious to know what percentage of people do make that purchase at a later time. I'm under the impression that the in-person sales industry has a derisive term for this sort of person: "bebacks", meaning someone who says they'll "be back" later to buy, but rarely does return. That leads me to believe that someone who was "on the fence" and would have deferred the purchase, but is swayed by the scarcity argument should be considered a "do not want". We can argue on this one all day long though, I'm sure.
> Its pretty much a major part of what sales and marketing are about. Engaging on a rational level may be part of that, but its never been the major part.
See, that's the problem I have with all of this. The fact that we seem to condone psychological manipulation in marketing as okay because it's not outright lying and most of the time it's not that bad (whatever that means!) is kind of crummy, imo.
I mean, I get it. People can never make perfectly-informed decisions. Sales and marketing are a necessary evil in a world where they have to choose between seemingly-equal options. It's just weird to me that statements like:
> Its also potentially useful for converting someone who is on the fence but subject to being swayed by the perception that other people are buying.
Aren't viewed as...gross? "Don't buy Acme Laundry Soap for its form or function, buy it because everyone else is!"
> If people completely stop buying product A and switch to product B then the model should do that as well because the model should try to match reality.
Yeah, but it doesn't and it cannot. Because it's hard to measure if people reallt "switch" and if so, why and what it means to them.
> There is no meaningfull way to understand why people pay many 1000$ for a pair of shoes without first establishing that humans build societies with a culture that is largely decoupled from biological imperatives.
Status seeking would likely be the biological imperative. Of course the specific desire is going to be culturally dependent.
> Do you assume that humans in the past were incapable of creating desires?
I assume that desires are not created but rather channelled or cultivated within their cultural context based on what's available. Sure, someone with a new product is going to use advertising to try and influence consumers to buy their product. But this assumes their product is something consumers would desire, or something that can be associated with something consumers desire, such as status or convenience.
"So, for instance, expose someone to a lot of advertising and if they don't seek out the thing they are exposed to, then this theory (at least on this basic level) might be false."
I think the article was saying given person A has a goal of G and choices B,C,D with subtle(subconscious) previous exposure to option B they would choose B over C and D. all other things being equal.
Not that you can get them to go after goal G in the first place.
> should I, the consumer, be able to choose what I want to do
There is a whole field dedicated to engineering choices of individual humans, it's called "marketing". Oh, and also "recruitment". The choices are entirely yours, sure, and yet they're still malleable and largely predictable. I bet there is even statistics "such% of population is susceptible to this tactics, and such% of population is susceptible to that trick, and there is this negligible % of those who pretty much can't be swayed in a reliable way, but they don't matter (too few of them)".
The thing is, government prohibition is just one of the least effective methods, but it is also the laziest and easiest and most obvious one which is why people come up with it all the time.
In many industries, the customer will feel punished for using the product - the opposite of what I'd want, as someone proud of the value their product provides.
Therefore disagree, depending on the existing mentality in the niche.
Is this the demand of the market, or the demand of the marketer? And in either case, why should the rest of us care? After seeing their work, I have a rather negative view of their decisions.
Where is the border between inferring what I want and deciding (for me) what I want? How about an artificially created tilt toward certain consumer or political brands in the process of inferring what I want?
reply