My sense is that those types of people who aren’t in the movement would not be the readers of the kind of venue where such things are published—i.e. Huffington Post, etc. Besides, I would question whether appealing to emotions is unethical—that’s a much longer discussion and I don’t want to have it here, just want to say it’s much more complicated than “appealing to emotions = unethical”
Without using words like “unethical” or “evil”, let me point out that deliberate emotional manipulation of your target is a risky move and can backfire. For a certain type of people (well represented on LW, I think), trying to emotionally manipulate them for marketing purposes is unproductive because if they detect it, they will kick you out and never invite you back in (and you’ll suffer a severe reputation hit in the process, too).
The emphasis here should be on “deliberate”. You’ll always be having some emotional effect on your “target”, whether you want it or not. But there’s nothing ethically wrong with ensuring that this emotional stance is sufficiently aligned with both your express message and your target’s broader goals.
Yes, which is why I talk not about effect but about manipulation.
I also agree that this is a spectrum at one end of which is an innocent desire to be nice to a potential customer and make the interaction a pleasant experience.
Manipulation is a loaded word. Instead, we can use the word “marketing”—we know that it works, because we have data from thousands of companies and non-profits, who have tracked the effect that marketing has on their brand. Marketing with an emotional message is almost always more effective than marketing without.
The problem here is with aesthetic preference. What you instinctively label the negatively connoted “manipulation”, another demographic labels ‘a good message″ or ‘human’. What you may label ‘evidence based’ may be seen as “ignoring the human element’ or ‘boring’.
I really do think it’s an aesthetic preference thing. So basically, I agree with your conclusions—the problem is, how do you deal with it?
I don’t think my problems are aesthetic in nature. I think they have to do with my autonomy preferences. I don’t like to be manipulated in general, not only by advertising.
the problem is, how do you deal with it?
How do I deal with it? I arrange things so that I see little advertising and what I see is mostly static and silent images (e.g. on billboards), as well as things like product placement in movies. On the web I… deploy technical countermeasures :-)
How would a marketer deal with it? In the usual way—by tailoring the message to the intended audience.
Do you mind if I taboo “manipulated”? I’m having trouble modeling what you feel as anything other than an aesthetic preference. Do you mind if someone gives you data that supports their argument?
The problem as a marketer of EA, is that you have two intended audiences with clashing preferences. Essentially, you’re trying to convey two diametrically opposed brands. You can tailor the message to the medium that you’re advertising in, but then you have the problem that your overall brand is still muddled.
Do you mind if I taboo “manipulated”? I’m having trouble modeling what you feel as anything other than an aesthetic preference.
“Aesthetic”, outside of high art, generally means the position on the ugly—beautiful axis. Do you mean that some people object to e.g. photos of starving African children because they are “ugly”, that is, upset the people’s contentment, confer agita, and harsh their mellow? That doesn’t apply to me.
As to modeling what I said, let’s try another… image :-) There is a quote which made its way around LW: “You are not the king of your brain. You are the creepy guy standing next to the king going, ‘a most judicious choice, sire’” Let’s run with it.
So, my conscious mind is just a toadie standing next to the actual decision-maker. Fine. Does the toadie have any power? Sure. He is the gatekeeper, controlling access to the king, in particular, the information flow that reaches the king. You can do a lot with that :-)
Now, if I’m the gatekeeper, what does the marketer do? He tries to go around me and directly influence the king. Do I like it? No, I do not like it at all.
The problem as a marketer of EA, is that you have two intended audiences with clashing preferences
It’s a very common problem, I think. So you segment as much as you can—marketing loves segmenting, anyway :-)
My sense is that those types of people who aren’t in the movement would not be the readers of the kind of venue where such things are published—i.e. Huffington Post, etc. Besides, I would question whether appealing to emotions is unethical—that’s a much longer discussion and I don’t want to have it here, just want to say it’s much more complicated than “appealing to emotions = unethical”
I’ve rallied against the “emotions are unethical” thing elsewhere on lesswrong—like you I have experience in marketing, and I don’t see it as evil.
But—I think I’m in the minority on LW, and I suspect on that issue LW is representative of the EA early adopter crowd.
In terms of your other point about different advertising mediums, I’m not really sure… it seems like it would be relatively easy to test.
Without using words like “unethical” or “evil”, let me point out that deliberate emotional manipulation of your target is a risky move and can backfire. For a certain type of people (well represented on LW, I think), trying to emotionally manipulate them for marketing purposes is unproductive because if they detect it, they will kick you out and never invite you back in (and you’ll suffer a severe reputation hit in the process, too).
The emphasis here should be on “deliberate”. You’ll always be having some emotional effect on your “target”, whether you want it or not. But there’s nothing ethically wrong with ensuring that this emotional stance is sufficiently aligned with both your express message and your target’s broader goals.
Yes, which is why I talk not about effect but about manipulation.
I also agree that this is a spectrum at one end of which is an innocent desire to be nice to a potential customer and make the interaction a pleasant experience.
Manipulation is a loaded word. Instead, we can use the word “marketing”—we know that it works, because we have data from thousands of companies and non-profits, who have tracked the effect that marketing has on their brand. Marketing with an emotional message is almost always more effective than marketing without.
The problem here is with aesthetic preference. What you instinctively label the negatively connoted “manipulation”, another demographic labels ‘a good message″ or ‘human’. What you may label ‘evidence based’ may be seen as “ignoring the human element’ or ‘boring’.
I really do think it’s an aesthetic preference thing. So basically, I agree with your conclusions—the problem is, how do you deal with it?
I don’t think my problems are aesthetic in nature. I think they have to do with my autonomy preferences. I don’t like to be manipulated in general, not only by advertising.
How do I deal with it? I arrange things so that I see little advertising and what I see is mostly static and silent images (e.g. on billboards), as well as things like product placement in movies. On the web I… deploy technical countermeasures :-)
How would a marketer deal with it? In the usual way—by tailoring the message to the intended audience.
Do you mind if I taboo “manipulated”? I’m having trouble modeling what you feel as anything other than an aesthetic preference. Do you mind if someone gives you data that supports their argument?
The problem as a marketer of EA, is that you have two intended audiences with clashing preferences. Essentially, you’re trying to convey two diametrically opposed brands. You can tailor the message to the medium that you’re advertising in, but then you have the problem that your overall brand is still muddled.
“Aesthetic”, outside of high art, generally means the position on the ugly—beautiful axis. Do you mean that some people object to e.g. photos of starving African children because they are “ugly”, that is, upset the people’s contentment, confer agita, and harsh their mellow? That doesn’t apply to me.
As to modeling what I said, let’s try another… image :-) There is a quote which made its way around LW: “You are not the king of your brain. You are the creepy guy standing next to the king going, ‘a most judicious choice, sire’” Let’s run with it.
So, my conscious mind is just a toadie standing next to the actual decision-maker. Fine. Does the toadie have any power? Sure. He is the gatekeeper, controlling access to the king, in particular, the information flow that reaches the king. You can do a lot with that :-)
Now, if I’m the gatekeeper, what does the marketer do? He tries to go around me and directly influence the king. Do I like it? No, I do not like it at all.
It’s a very common problem, I think. So you segment as much as you can—marketing loves segmenting, anyway :-)
Good point EA early adopter crowd, will have to think about that.
Yup, will experiment with different mediums and see.