Can marketers really get people to buy what they don't want

[Augustine2004]

Tfbandie in another thread asserted that marketers manage to manipulate people into buying what they don't want.

Now if that were true, eventually the people would catch on - or are they altogether idiotic - and refuse to buy more. Say you bought a lemon car because you fell for a great ad bought for millions by Zoom Automobile Works, Inc (ZAWI, pronounced 'Zowie', tra la la). Would you buy from ZAWI again?

GM and Ford are great marketers, but they are falling behind the Japanese and Korean automobile makers and into snares of bankruptcy.

[Sparko]

Bruteforce Marketing. Creating a Need and Filling it.(tm)

[Zeluvia]

Also, associative marketing,

taking a need for one thing, such as popularity, and associating it with
the product, such as TOOTHPASTE in a subtle way.

[Vigilante]

I'm still pissed the super hot girls and swimming pool didn't appear at my house after I bought the cologne on TV.

But there is always next time.

[Tfbandie]

Here's a whole scientific journal on using Pyschology to influence marketing

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/35943/home

[Gabby]

Make it a "beauty/cosmetic" product and yeah, they can sell anything.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200803301550.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23455899-663,00.html

http://www.switched.com/2008/03/31/silicon-head-implant-adds-two-inches-to-measured-height/

[nomad]

But the question was, can marketing force people to buy things they don't really want?

I think in your example, that's clearly something that some (probably a very few people :) want, and will buy, not something they were convinced of by marketing.

Scientific studies aside, advertising is notoriously ineffective at making people buy what they don't want (Michael Schudson makes this case in _Advertising, the Uneasy Persuasion_, which I haven't read yet but it's sitting on my desk. soon.). As the old saw goes (source was John Wanamaker, quoting one of his clients): 'I know half my advertising dollars are wasted, I just don't know which half.'

Well, his argument is that advertising is good for getting people to switch brands. But if people don't already want shoes, you're not going to get them to buy shoes by advertising. If they buy it, they want it. That is the central rule of the market.

There are certainly other forces that are very effective at creating those wants (peer pressure for example), and advertising can feed into these, but usually it's just luck if it does.

There was once thought to be a 'scientific' method for advertising, but that went out in the 50s.

A couple good books covering this are 'Nation of Rebels' by joseph heath and andrew potter ('rebel sell' in canada) and 'The Conquest of Cool' by thomas frank.

[nomad]

Now if that were true, eventually the people would catch on - or are they altogether idiotic - and refuse to buy more. Say you bought a lemon car because you fell for a great ad bought for millions by Zoom Automobile Works, Inc (ZAWI, pronounced 'Zowie', tra la la).

Only half right. It depends on what you are buying. Change the motivation from being a gread ad to something else, and then cue up Harley-Davidson, who (from the reports I've heard) really don't make that great bikes (at least as far as reliability goes). But they sound great, and they exude the attitude of a Harley rider. Which is what the Harley rider is buying, not merely a bike. (those who don't care about the attitude and want a hard riding bike can go with BMW, which has a similarly rabid but less well known cult with it too).

James Twitchell made the statement that the problem, or the source, of American capitalism is not that Americans are too materialistic, it is quite the opposite: Americans are not materialistic enough. Though he means materialistic in its philosophical meaning.

Most Americans really do not have any basic needs left. I.E.: Most americans have clothing on their backs, a place to live, and food to eat. So what's left?

When someone pays $60 for a shirt at Abercrombie & Fitch, they're not just buying a shirt. If they just wanted a shirt, they could go to any Goodwill and buy a shirt for $2. OK, granted, it's not exactly the same shift. Maybe the A&F shirt is better made, will last longer, whatever. But more importantly, it's _stylish_. Image is what you are buying when you buy a shirt from a place like that. And that is why the logo is on there - if you are 'logo-averse' like me, you wish you could buy decent clothing without annoying logos, but most people _want_ the logos on there, to show off their style.

A successful advertising campaign will accomplish one of two things: One, convincing the buyer that your product is a good example of the product you are displaying. The difference between 'generic' and branded food is a good example of this; the cheaper generic packaging does not indicate quality as much as branded food, so it's a way to differentiate those who are willing to pay more from those who are not (those who just want some pasta can buy the generic). Often taste tests will show people can't even tell the difference. But the packaging gives off the image of quality. That's not really just buying image, that's intelligent risk management in some ways (less important now than when branding first became popular, as a promise of quality that often wasn't there).

Second, establishing a USP, or associating yourself with a popular style. The first of these (the unique selling proposition) is just establishing a reason why a person who wants, for instance, a pair of shoes, should buy my Nikes instead of those Adidas. The easiest way is to associate yourself with a popular style or culture; rebellion has been the culture of choice since the 50s at least. This may marginally make people buy it who wouldn't otherwise (maybe I didn't really want a gold necklace, but everyone else in my culture wears the bling so I need to too; maybe I didn't really want an apple, but I have to appease DeeDee :), etc.) but all those cases are the selling of style, not the item itself. And most of the time, it's things people would buy anyways... everybody needs shoes after all. Just now I might pick a different pair.

This goes way past just branding of items... it goes for where people live. Where their kids go to college. Where they went to college. What denomination they are. It's a wide ranging field that I have just begun to get interested in.

If people bought only what they need, consumer culture would die overnight. Of course, I can't just go buy 'a shirt', I have to pick out some specific shift, so there's still room for branding here. But if I have 40 pairs of Umbros (like my wife's cousin's ex-husband did) you're not buying shorts anymore. You're buying the satisfied feeling of looking at a closet full of Umbros :)

(the twitchell book I read is called 'Lead me into temptation', and it's a very good read).

[Sparko]

Make it a "beauty/cosmetic" product and yeah, they can sell anything.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200803301550.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23455899-663,00.html

http://www.switched.com/2008/03/31/silicon-head-implant-adds-two-inches-to-measured-height/


:twitch:

That's like sticking a breast implant on top of your head. How stupid would you look?

52960

[Zeluvia]

Only half right. It depends on what you are buying. Change the motivation from being a gread ad to something else, and then cue up Harley-Davidson, who (from the reports I've heard) really don't make that great bikes (at least as far as reliability goes). But they sound great, and they exude the attitude of a Harley rider. Which is what the Harley rider is buying, not merely a bike. (those who don't care about the attitude and want a hard riding bike can go with BMW, which has a similarly rabid but less well known cult with it too).

James Twitchell made the statement that the problem, or the source, of American capitalism is not that Americans are too materialistic, it is quite the opposite: Americans are not materialistic enough. Though he means materialistic in its philosophical meaning.

Most Americans really do not have any basic needs left. I.E.: Most americans have clothing on their backs, a place to live, and food to eat. So what's left?

When someone pays $60 for a shirt at Abercrombie & Fitch, they're not just buying a shirt. If they just wanted a shirt, they could go to any Goodwill and buy a shirt for $2. OK, granted, it's not exactly the same shift. Maybe the A&F shirt is better made, will last longer, whatever. But more importantly, it's _stylish_. Image is what you are buying when you buy a shirt from a place like that. And that is why the logo is on there - if you are 'logo-averse' like me, you wish you could buy decent clothing without annoying logos, but most people _want_ the logos on there, to show off their style.

A successful advertising campaign will accomplish one of two things: One, convincing the buyer that your product is a good example of the product you are displaying. The difference between 'generic' and branded food is a good example of this; the cheaper generic packaging does not indicate quality as much as branded food, so it's a way to differentiate those who are willing to pay more from those who are not (those who just want some pasta can buy the generic). Often taste tests will show people can't even tell the difference. But the packaging gives off the image of quality. That's not really just buying image, that's intelligent risk management in some ways (less important now than when branding first became popular, as a promise of quality that often wasn't there).

Second, establishing a USP, or associating yourself with a popular style. The first of these (the unique selling proposition) is just establishing a reason why a person who wants, for instance, a pair of shoes, should buy my Nikes instead of those Adidas. The easiest way is to associate yourself with a popular style or culture; rebellion has been the culture of choice since the 50s at least. This may marginally make people buy it who wouldn't otherwise (maybe I didn't really want a gold necklace, but everyone else in my culture wears the bling so I need to too; maybe I didn't really want an apple, but I have to appease DeeDee :), etc.) but all those cases are the selling of style, not the item itself. And most of the time, it's things people would buy anyways... everybody needs shoes after all. Just now I might pick a different pair.

This goes way past just branding of items... it goes for where people live. Where their kids go to college. Where they went to college. What denomination they are. It's a wide ranging field that I have just begun to get interested in.

If people bought only what they need, consumer culture would die overnight. Of course, I can't just go buy 'a shirt', I have to pick out some specific shift, so there's still room for branding here. But if I have 40 pairs of Umbros (like my wife's cousin's ex-husband did) you're not buying shorts anymore. You're buying the satisfied feeling of looking at a closet full of Umbros :)

(the twitchell book I read is called 'Lead me into temptation', and it's a very good read).

But you see, the whole thing is still about "needs" just not direct survival needs.

It is hitting the "need" to belong too and be identified with a group, the "need" to project an image, the "need" to display status, the "need" to feel superior.

This is where they get really tricky, when they tap into psychological needs and reaction triggers.

[nomad]

I don't think we are disagreeing. That's why I specified 'basic needs'.

I would like to differentiate between two kinds of 'failed shopping': One is when I buy something I really didn't want, and second is when I bought something I thought I wanted, but didn't live up to my expectations.

Because, for example, for the great majority of the person who buys Nike shoes to be 'part of the gang', for the style, etc., the shoes actually deliver. The person who buys a Prada handbag does get the satisfaction when they show it off. The person who buys a Harley to hear that rumble is satisfied by it.

So even if they could have filled that psychological need another way, the truth is that what they bought also fills that psychological need. Buying things gives us spiritual attachment. In fact, that was one thing that struck me when I was reading Twitchell's book (and he recognizes it and makes the point): Consumer culture is competition for religion, not because things are bad, but because the kinds of attachment religion used to fill is now being filled by Apple, Starbucks, and NASCAR.

The best an advertiser can do is suggest that their product will supply a psychological need. If it, in fact, does supply that need, I would suggest that is a _good_ kind of advertising. There are lots of things I might want to buy, if I only knew they exists, and am forced to settle without them and/or choose a less capable version because of my ignorance. Advertising in that case just lets me know that the product exists, and doesn't have to convince me of anything because I already want to buy it.

It's possible that the product claims are false. And this is hard to manage - You can call something 'false advertising' if it advertises that, for instance, a phone supports call waiting when it actually doesn't, but how do you call 'false advertising' when it advertises rebellion, subtly?

For example, you buy a new dress at a specialty store, sure that its dazzling brilliance and unique style will be a hit at the next party. When you get to the party, you are shocked to see your nemesis has chosen the exact same dress as you! (thankfully, it looks better on you).

So, were you really buying a dress? No, you were buying the right to stand out from the crowd. Was it the shop's fault that it was insufficient to the task? Hard to blame them.

Most of the people I see complaining about consumer culture are like the first woman buying the dress. Consumer culture lessens their status. They thought they found something unique, and another consumer buying it (even if it really was just because they liked it and never saw it before, not out of any wish to emulate that person) cheapens the experience. So then they have to go buy something else to stay ahead. It's tiring and expensive.... but it also drives the consumer culture by continuous supplying it with new items to be aware of and to buy. It couldn't survive without this fringe element.

There are two conflicting needs: One is to fit into the group (connection), and one is to set your self apart from the group (distance). The first encourages blandness and sameness. The second encourages shopping. Of the two, the second is the stronger force.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Tfbandie in another thread asserted that marketers manage to manipulate people into buying what they don't want.

Your statement is a little off. It isn’t that marketers “force” people to buy, it is that marketers create a NEED for their products. They do this by building value for their products. Sales techniques differ on a one-time purchase versus a purchasing relationship.

For one-time purchases, sales people can engage in pushy selling, overcoming objections, and creating a sense of urgency. Many people will buy just to escape the sales person.

However, for purchasing relationships these same techniques will cause the sale to fail. A purchasing relationship is purchases made over a long period of time. The buyer is not just getting the product, but is also acquiring a relationship with the seller (e.g. support after the sale). Most of the decisions about the product are made when the sales person isn’t there. Putting the buyer's interests first will win the sale.


Now if that were true, eventually the people would catch on - or are they altogether idiotic - and refuse to buy more. Say you bought a lemon car because you fell for a great ad bought for millions by Zoom Automobile Works, Inc (ZAWI, pronounced 'Zowie', tra la la). Would you buy from ZAWI again?

In the past, all car dealers used the hard sell techniques. However, several car dealers have backed away from the pushy sales techniques because they want to have a continuing relationship with the customer and make more than one sale to them.


GM and Ford are great marketers, but they are falling behind the Japanese and Korean automobile makers and into snares of bankruptcy.

I don’t believe this is a result of marketing, but of manufacturing. The American companies have ponderous R&D departments, onerous regulatory environments, union wages, and bloated pension liabilities. They are not nimble, lean, or mean. Until they can produce better cars than the Asians, they will be consigned to the margins of automobile production.

[nomad]

I don’t believe this is a result of marketing, but of manufacturing. The American companies have ponderous R&D departments, onerous regulatory environments, union wages, and bloated pension liabilities. They are not nimble, lean, or mean. Until they can produce better cars than the Asians, they will be consigned to the margins of automobile production.

I should point out that by now, almost all foreign car companies are actually building cars in the US - Honda in Ohio, Alabama, Illinois, and South Carolina; Toyota in Alabama, Indiana, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia (including what appears to be an R&D site in Kentucky); Nissan is Tennessee's 10th largest employer. Even BMW has a huge plant near me in Spartanburg, SC.

I don't think you are off with your analysis of why they are falling behind, however you can't blame American culture overall for the difference. It was fairly shrewd of the foreign car companies to do this - they were worried (and rightly so I think) about Detroit passing tariffs against imported cars. But now, they are no longer imports; they are made here.

[Tanakh Keeper]

I should point out that by now, almost all foreign car companies are actually building cars in the US - Honda in Ohio, Alabama, Illinois, and South Carolina; Toyota in Alabama, Indiana, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia (including what appears to be an R&D site in Kentucky); Nissan is Tennessee's 10th largest employer. Even BMW has a huge plant near me in Spartanburg, SC.

I don't think you are off with your analysis of why they are falling behind, however you can't blame American culture overall for the difference. It was fairly shrewd of the foreign car companies to do this - they were worried (and rightly so I think) about Detroit passing tariffs against imported cars. But now, they are no longer imports; they are made here.

You're right. Do you think American car companies can regain their prominence?

[Zeluvia]

I don't think we are disagreeing. That's why I specified 'basic needs'.

I would like to differentiate between two kinds of 'failed shopping': One is when I buy something I really didn't want, and second is when I bought something I thought I wanted, but didn't live up to my expectations.

Because, for example, for the great majority of the person who buys Nike shoes to be 'part of the gang', for the style, etc., the shoes actually deliver. The person who buys a Prada handbag does get the satisfaction when they show it off. The person who buys a Harley to hear that rumble is satisfied by it.

So even if they could have filled that psychological need another way, the truth is that what they bought also fills that psychological need. Buying things gives us spiritual attachment. In fact, that was one thing that struck me when I was reading Twitchell's book (and he recognizes it and makes the point): Consumer culture is competition for religion, not because things are bad, but because the kinds of attachment religion used to fill is now being filled by Apple, Starbucks, and NASCAR.

The best an advertiser can do is suggest that their product will supply a psychological need. If it, in fact, does supply that need, I would suggest that is a _good_ kind of advertising. There are lots of things I might want to buy, if I only knew they exists, and am forced to settle without them and/or choose a less capable version because of my ignorance. Advertising in that case just lets me know that the product exists, and doesn't have to convince me of anything because I already want to buy it.

It's possible that the product claims are false. And this is hard to manage - You can call something 'false advertising' if it advertises that, for instance, a phone supports call waiting when it actually doesn't, but how do you call 'false advertising' when it advertises rebellion, subtly?

For example, you buy a new dress at a specialty store, sure that its dazzling brilliance and unique style will be a hit at the next party. When you get to the party, you are shocked to see your nemesis has chosen the exact same dress as you! (thankfully, it looks better on you).

So, were you really buying a dress? No, you were buying the right to stand out from the crowd. Was it the shop's fault that it was insufficient to the task? Hard to blame them.

Most of the people I see complaining about consumer culture are like the first woman buying the dress. Consumer culture lessens their status. They thought they found something unique, and another consumer buying it (even if it really was just because they liked it and never saw it before, not out of any wish to emulate that person) cheapens the experience. So then they have to go buy something else to stay ahead. It's tiring and expensive.... but it also drives the consumer culture by continuous supplying it with new items to be aware of and to buy. It couldn't survive without this fringe element.

There are two conflicting needs: One is to fit into the group (connection), and one is to set your self apart from the group (distance). The first encourages blandness and sameness. The second encourages shopping. Of the two, the second is the stronger force.

Fortunately, the NEW way to stand out from the crowd is to reject the "religion" of consumerism = )

But I like your analysis, and I do agree with it.

But how many people that buy things realize at ANY level what is driving their purchasing?

[nomad]

Fortunately, the NEW way to stand out from the crowd is to reject the "religion" of consumerism = )


Well, that's been true since the 50's. Nothing new about that at all. In fact, it may go back farther than that, probably at least to the 1920's (Loren Baritz reports that in the 1920's "$6 billion worth of consumer goods was bought on credit: 85% of furniture sales, 80% of phonographs, 75% of electric washing machines, and most of the vacuum cleaners, pianos, sewing machines, radios, and electric refrigerators", quote from Richard Shenkman's 'I love paul revere, whether he rode or not', quoting Loren Baritz, _The Good Life_, 1989).

Unfortunately, it usually works out to be... just another kind of consumerism. Cue up something like Adbusters, where you demonstrate your superior ability to not fall for deceptive advertising and buying things you don't need by... buying a subscription to a magazine. Or Real/Simple. Etc.
Mainstream advertising in itself has a long history of promoting itself as different, of commiserating with the reader about how most ads are deceptive (but since 'we' know that, 'we' obviously aren't right?)

There are occasional real withdrawals from consumerist society, the kind of guy who drives a beat up old volvo and wears shabby clothes they got from goodwill, but they are rare, and not what most people really want anyways. And they are sort of looked at like that weird guy who is always reminding you how he doesn't own a television.



But I like your analysis, and I do agree with it.


Thanks. Now we have to come up with solutions :)



But how many people that buy things realize at ANY level what is driving their purchasing?

That is a very good point. People are very good at creating stories about their motivations that, when looked at closely, are just plain wrong :)

I'm curious.... can anyone personally tell a story about something they bought because of an ad that later they couldn't figure out why they bought it? I can't think of any.

[nomad]

You're right. Do you think American car companies can regain their prominence?

I don't really know that much. I think some of the problems you posted (pension liabilities, union control of the company, etc) may be a problem. But Chrysler, if not making a turnaround, has at least made some interesting and popular cars recently (the ever popular PT cruiser, which I can't stand and two other members of my family bought; but also things like the plymouth prowler). At least they are trying. Ford seems to be trying as well; they've had some interesting hybrids (I believe the hybrid Escape was the first SUV hybrid) as well as some success in the compact market.

Some of the problem is probably image. But more of the problem is just cash flow. GM actually makes more money off of their actuarial services (i.e. auto loans) than they actually do off the sales, IIRC. Ford sells a lot of low-end cars (the Escort/Focus has been a top seller AFAIK, as well as the ever-popular Explorer), but at the expensive end where the profit margins are higher, I don't know how well they are doing (would you rather have an Excursion or a 4Runner? Brand consideration wise, there isn't even a comparison, so then it just comes down to if you absolutely need the larger vehicle). That's image I guess too.

OTOH, what does it really mean to be an american car company anymore? There's so much crossover - GM owns Saab and Subaru, Ford owns Jaguar, Mazda, and Aston Martin (IIRC) among others, Chrysler is/was owned by Daimler Benz (in the truck world, the same is happening... the famous Mack truck, which had the slogan 'built like a Mack truck' for years, is now owned by the French government through Renault). And as was already said, most 'foreign' car companies actually have a large US presence. If Ford or GM go down, it won't just be US car manufacturing that suffers.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Brand consideration wise, there isn't even a comparison, so then it just comes down to if you absolutely need the larger vehicle). That's image I guess too.

How do you purchase a car?

Personally, I use more logic and less feeling. First, I make a list of at least 10 cars that fit my style and price range. Then I test drive each one. During testing, I make revisions to my list as sales people might steer me to other models. Then, I use Consumer Reports to look up repair history and durability of each car. I pare down my list. Hmmm …I guess emotionalism enters at this point to decide between alternatives. Then I go to the dealership and give the sales person the easiest sale they’ve ever had (since my research is complete and I came in to buy). Of course, during the testing phase, every sales person hates me since I’m single mindedly in testing mode, not buying mode. So far, I’ve bought all my cars using this method. I've kept each car at least eight years.

Funny thing, each time, my list starts with cars from multiple countries. But after testing, all the American cars drop off my list. I don’t set out to buy Japanese, but their cars always perform better for me.


OTOH, what does it really mean to be an american car company anymore? There's so much crossover - GM owns Saab and Subaru, Ford owns Jaguar, Mazda, and Aston Martin (IIRC) among others, Chrysler is/was owned by Daimler Benz (in the truck world, the same is happening... the famous Mack truck, which had the slogan 'built like a Mack truck' for years, is now owned by the French government through Renault). And as was already said, most 'foreign' car companies actually have a large US presence. If Ford or GM go down, it won't just be US car manufacturing that suffers.

This is true. Each component of the car is subcontracted out to different manufacturers. To determine the percent of each car that is “American” is a really difficult accounting task. I’m unaware of any car that is 100% pure sourcing from just one country.

[Augustine2004]

A point needs to be made about the notion that logic and emotion are in a yin-yang relationship. Not so. We are both logical and emotional. Sure, some people may be more emotional than most, and some others may be more logical than most. However, when we make decisions, we use both logic and emotions to pare the lists of possible choices. In the end, however, there are always at least 3 choices to make.

1. Stop paring the list of choices and finally make a choice.

2. Choose A

3. Choose B.

How do we choose? I don’t know the specifics. All I can say now is, we just choose, somehow.

(Note: this is not necessarily sequential nor conscious. Two or more things may occur simultaneously, on a unconscious level.)

[nomad]

How do you purchase a car?

Personally, I use more logic and less feeling. First, I make a list of at least 10 cars that fit my style and price range....


'Style' is the first place where emotion comes into it. Unless by 'style' you really mean 'I need a 4 door because I have 2 kids and need somewhere to put them'. 'Style' is the reason that drove minivans nearly off the market in the late 90's, because SUVs had more 'style' and were of about equal utility (for most people).

But then.... I drive a '96 Saab 900 SE. It's certainly not the most reliable car out there, or the fastest, or the most cargo room. But I like it, it has style. It's a good combination of space, speed, and agility. (and it should start being reliable, now that nearly everything that can break already has :( And it reminds me of my cousin, who took for my first ride in a Saab when i was 15 (this in the mid 80s when they weren't well known at all). So i'm not the best person to ask about this :) Then again, I bought it used (paid about $8k for it in 2002), which makes it not such a crazy thing.



Then I test drive each one. During testing, I make revisions to my list as sales people might steer me to other models. Then, I use Consumer Reports to look up repair history and durability of each car. I pare down my list. Hmmm …I guess emotionalism enters at this point to decide between alternatives. Then I go to the dealership and give the sales person the easiest sale they’ve ever had (since my research is complete and I came in to buy).


That's a good way to buy a car. I think you are probably in the minority though. Of course, when you come down to 4-5 cars that are roughly identical, except for small differences, style isn't a bad thing to choose on IMHO. Our other car is a Mazda5, and really there isn't much similar to it. It's smaller than most minivans (a full foot shorter than a Honda Odyssey, and a lot cheaper to go with the smaller size), but still has ample room for 6 people (we have 3 children, two still in car seats, and so fitting them in the back seat of your average sedan is very tight), and gets decent gas mileage (I think 22-25 mpg). They call it a 'space wagon' or 'micro van'. It's relatively easy to park it, because of its shorter length (easier even than the Pathfinder we had before it). And we do occasionally want to cart big stuff around, and it has a lot of cargo room with the seats folded down. So there wasn't much else we looked at.

I could say it was a completely logical decision, but I could have gone with something else. The Mazda5 also has reasonable power, takes curves with not much less finesse than my saab (!), and is pretty fun to drive for a little van. And it looks cool :) If these weren't all true as well, even though it was the best choice for other reasons, I probably would have gotten something else instead (probably a used wagon, like a volvo V70, with the third row seat, or waited a few months and got something larger like the aforementioned Odyssey).

(as a side note, this is a case where knowing what you want can hurt you... we wanted the version with leather seats (cloth seats + fruit snacks = sticky uncleanable mess) and there was only one dealer that had one we could look at within 200 miles of us. So we couldn't haggle it down as much as a very common car. )



Funny thing, each time, my list starts with cars from multiple countries. But after testing, all the American cars drop off my list. I don’t set out to buy Japanese, but their cars always perform better for me.


You know, this is one case where you have to be careful about your assumptions. I've found many cases that I really wanted one choice out of a few to 'win', and I always found good reasons why it should (say, a vacation destination). I could easily say I was being perfectly logical... but possibly I was admitting perfectly logical reasons to go to one place, while ignoring perfectly logical reasons to somewhere else, skewing the data so to speak. Not that you are doing this, just that it's something to keep in mind.




This is true. Each component of the car is subcontracted out to different manufacturers. To determine the percent of each car that is “American” is a really difficult accounting task. I’m unaware of any car that is 100% pure sourcing from just one country.

Maybe a Yugo? :)

[nomad]

A point needs to be made about the notion that logic and emotion are in a yin-yang relationship. Not so. We are both logical and emotional. Sure, some people may be more emotional than most, and some others may be more logical than most. However, when we make decisions, we use both logic and emotions to pare the lists of possible choices. In the end, however, there are always at least 3 choices to make.

1. Stop paring the list of choices and finally make a choice.

2. Choose A

3. Choose B.

How do we choose? I don’t know the specifics. All I can say now is, we just choose, somehow.

(Note: this is not necessarily sequential nor conscious. Two or more things may occur simultaneously, on a unconscious level.)

I think you are seriously veering off into philosophy here :)

But I won't address this too much, except to say: Logic can only get you so far. For example, suppose to go to the grocery store, and are looking at two brands of pasta (let's say, rotini, just to make it specific). Both boxes are $1.19 per pound of pasta. You've tried them both, and you like them both (*). So there's no logical reason to choose one over the other. How do you choose which one to buy?

The natural next step is the appeal to emotions - which box do you like better? It's not unreasonable to shop by your emotions in this instance. After all, it really doesn't matter which one you buy, they are identical for all practical purposes, but you do have to pick a box to take to the cash register.

This is the fundamental problem marketers face - there is really very little to differentiate products. So adding the style element is often the only way they can.



(*) - In practice, studies have found that people often can't distinguish between brands, even brands they are rabidly addicted to. James Twitchell found a person was more like to switch from being a Democrat to a Republican, than from being a Coke drinker to a Pepsi drinker (and vice versa) (**). Yet almost every time it's been tried, people can't tell them apart, even longtime addicts of one or the other. This has been tried in all different fields, and in general, for most of the groceries people buy, double blind taste tests show that people in general have no preferences. It's been tried for coffee, jam, cereal, and many other things. Even when you think you have a good reason for choosing one over another, you could be deluding yourself.

Even more interesting are the studies that compare blind to open testing - I.E. taste tests for jam. In one test, they allowed a group of people to taste test the jams, not knowing which jam was which (they knew who was included in the test). Then another group was allowed to taste-test jams, and they could see the jars. The results were very different, with the group who could see the jars strongly skewed towards the more expensive brands, whereas the blind group didn't show any clear preferences at all. (They've done similar experiments, where the jars were blind, but in one case each person chose in isolation, and in another they did them as a group, where each person saw what the person before them chose. In the group case, patterns did start to emerge, something like peer pressure).

(**) - Remember the New Coke debacle? Here's the weird thing - in blind taste tests between Classic Coke and New Coke, New Coke was chosen by a large margin. It was 'obvious' people liked the new formula better, and Coke was sure they had a clear winner. The story of the new coke release is well known, and Coke was stunned by the response, rabid denunciations and all. It worked out well, and the 'Coke Classic' thing was genius. But clearly they didn't know what they were selling - not just soda, but tradition. And you don't mess with tradition. James Twitchell actually thinks a lot of the difference is in how you drink it... sweeter drinks taste better on a quick test, but if you take a few minutes you taste some of the other flavors and may change your mind.

[Augustine2004]

de gustibus; no accounting for taste. Bon appetit!

[nomad]

are you a gary becker fan?

[Augustine2004]

are you a gary becker fan?No, in fact I had to google the name. Why, did he say something like that? Or suggest that one can own a view? Gary Stanley Becker

[nomad]

He actually wrote a book called 'Accounting for tastes' :) I believe he is the economist that actually found ways to assign values to things like goodwill, brand awareness, etc. I haven't read the book yet, because it's 'expensive' (around $40, and I can't find it used). it's on my list though.

[joel]

(**) - Remember the New Coke debacle? Here's the weird thing - in blind taste tests between Classic Coke and New Coke, New Coke was chosen by a large margin. It was 'obvious' people liked the new formula better, and Coke was sure they had a clear winner. The story of the new coke release is well known, and Coke was stunned by the response, rabid denunciations and all. It worked out well, and the 'Coke Classic' thing was genius. But clearly they didn't know what they were selling - not just soda, but tradition. And you don't mess with tradition. James Twitchell actually thinks a lot of the difference is in how you drink it... sweeter drinks taste better on a quick test, but if you take a few minutes you taste some of the other flavors and may change your mind.
I haven't tasted New Coke, but I've heard people say it was sweeter--closer to Pepsi. And I like Coke better than Pepsi (even in a blind test). Coke has an extra tangy flavor I like. And I have to say that no amount of advertising has got me to tolerate the taste of (let alone purchase) Diet Pepsi. :smile:

[Augustine2004]

He actually wrote a book called 'Accounting for tastes' :) I believe he is the economist that actually found ways to assign values to things like goodwill, brand awareness, etc. I haven't read the book yet, because it's 'expensive' (around $40, and I can't find it used). it's on my list though.I searched mises.org for a review of that book. There was one mention or two, but apparently nobody connected with mises.org cared enough to review the book.

[Tfbandie]

Here's a timely article getting at what my main contention : marketers can make the majority of people buy or spend money above what they would rationally do

http://biz.yahoo.com/hmoney/080401/032708_big_idea_moneymag.html?.v=2&.pf=banking-budgeting

[xtreem5150ahm]

Tfbandie in another thread asserted that marketers manage to manipulate people into buying what they don't want.
.



Sure....

one way they do it, is by saying it's on sale.... jewlery and clothing (esp. women's clothing) and food .... ok, sometimes they even go so far as ACTUALLY putting it on sale :wink:..... but either way, tons of that stuff is unneeded and unwanted until after the manipulation to THINK you want it.


Sometimes, the reverse is used..... RAISE the price, and then it is assumed that it is a better piece of crap (that you didn't need or want in the first place.... but, hey, everyone on your block has got two, so you must need at least one)

[nomad]

Here's a timely article getting at what my main contention : marketers can make the majority of people buy or spend money above what they would rationally do

http://biz.yahoo.com/hmoney/080401/032708_big_idea_moneymag.html?.v=2&.pf=banking-budgeting


Sure....

one way they do it, is by saying it's on sale.... jewlery and clothing (esp. women's clothing) and food .... ok, sometimes they even go so far as ACTUALLY putting it on sale :wink:..... but either way, tons of that stuff is unneeded and unwanted until after the manipulation to THINK you want it.


Sometimes, the reverse is used..... RAISE the price, and then it is assumed that it is a better piece of crap (that you didn't need or want in the first place.... but, hey, everyone on your block has got two, so you must need at least one)

All this may be true (and I don't disagree with it), but I should point out that neither of these have anything to do with marketing, or advertising. You could walk into a place, never having seen a single ad or marketing material, and fall for the above 'tricks'.

[Augustine2004]

Here's a timely article getting at what my main contention : marketers can make the majority of people buy or spend money above what they would rationally do

http://biz.yahoo.com/hmoney/080401/032708_big_idea_moneymag.html?.v=2&.pf=banking-budgetingTfbandie, I don’t dispute the fact that people spend too much money. I myself think I do. I don’t think this is mainly the result of successful marketing, though. I think I’m more wise to marketing tricks than most people, yet I still regret spending more money. Why would that be? A reason is that I don’t know all the bargains out there. Other reasons are laziness and lack of time. Yet another reason is that I want to enjoy shopping, not have to work hard at keeping prices low. Also, fraud may be involved, such as ‘free’ offers.


Finally, Don Ariely who is the guy that suggested we spend more than we want to blames irrationality. However, didn’t you see my argument that we are in reality both rational and emotional? Also, our final decisions seem to be neither rational nor emotional.

[xtreem5150ahm]

All this may be true (and I don't disagree with it), but I should point out that neither of these have anything to do with marketing, or advertising. You could walk into a place, never having seen a single ad or marketing material, and fall for the above 'tricks'.


But isn't that a form of marketing?,,, how to arrange the store, where to put certain items, items with similar packaging, the colors and the lighting, etc. these marketing tricks are used in casinos very effectively, i might add.

[Tfbandie]

All this may be true (and I don't disagree with it), but I should point out that neither of these have anything to do with marketing, or advertising. You could walk into a place, never having seen a single ad or marketing material, and fall for the above 'tricks'.


I'd agree with extreme that this is a form of marketing, product placement in stores, packaging, is all designed to make you purchase that which you would otherwise not. Whether it is irrational or emotional, is not my contantion, rather it is only that marketing is specifically designed to make people buy products that they normally would not.

[Tfbandie]

Here is an article on the marketing of diamonds, from ordinary gem to the status symbol they are today. The diamonds never changed, what changed was the cultural manipulation through markrting to assign a higher value to diamonds, and it succeeded.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/16/diamonds.html

[Augustine2004]

I'd agree with extreme that this is a form of marketing, product placement in stores, packaging, is all designed to make you purchase that which you would otherwise not. Whether it is irrational or emotional, is not my contantion, rather it is only that marketing is specifically designed to make people buy products that they normally would not.But, what is normal? What do you expect absent 'marketing'? A much duller world I guess.

[nomad]

But isn't that a form of marketing?,,, how to arrange the store, where to put certain items, items with similar packaging, the colors and the lighting, etc. these marketing tricks are used in casinos very effectively, i might add.

Possibly. But let's remember one important - when you became exposed to these 'marketing tricks' - you went into that store, with the intention of buying something. Usually, that's why you are in the store in the first place. (Possibly, it is a display out front). So you are already close to spending your money. I don't think we are necessarily talking about the same thing. But maybe we should define exactly what we mean when we say that we are making people buy what they wouldn't otherwise. More info in my next reply to tfbandie.

If I knew that putting something in the front of the store would sell more of them than in the back... what do I do if it's already in the front of the store 'by accident'?

[nomad]

Here is an article on the marketing of diamonds, from ordinary gem to the status symbol they are today. The diamonds never changed, what changed was the cultural manipulation through markrting to assign a higher value to diamonds, and it succeeded.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/16/diamonds.html

I have read that before, it's certainly an interesting story. And I'm not going to say you are completely wrong.

I think we need to be clear on what we are talking about. So, many people bought diamonds for their engagements, where they might not have before. But does this mean they wouldn't have spent the money? Not necessarily. Let's come at this from two points of view.

First, the engagement is a tradition where you give gifts to your beloved. In this case, the man was going to spend the money on something. He just has to choose what to spend it on. We do know advertising can be good at that... changing the relative values between several possibilities. Let's remember again that most of what we buy is not material, but spiritual and symbolic. The diamond companies expended a lot of effort to change the cultural value of a diamond. The question is: Why did the diamond companies succeed? Certainly other companies have tried to insert their products into cultural tradition and failed to make any difference at all. In any case, most of the women who received the diamonds were very happy with them. So, the diamond was an effective conveyance of the message that 'you are important', which is what the men actually bought. (And, of course, the message 'I'm taken and my man thinks I'm important' to other women and other men as well, and status if your diamond is bigger than theirs).

I could go into this more, but the short version is: The diamond companies got lucky. Lots of companies have tried to do with their products what the diamond companies did, and most failed. Let's also be clear in that people WANT cultural definitions like this. They also got lucky in that there wasn't a clear tradition there.

So the other side was that no cultural tradition of giving anything exists, and the man would not have spent anything otherwise. And now he is spending something he wouldn't otherwise. But you also have to consider this: If the man gives something 'extra' that no one else is giving, he looks better in his woman's eyes (and his woman can brag to her friends about how much more wonderful her man is than theirs.. ok, that part is usually unspoken, but some do that for sure). But what to give? Remember, the gift isn't what he's buying, what he is buying is this unspoken message.

And here we get into some controversial but important points: The assertion is usually that marketing adds no value, and just convinces people that they need (or want) things they really don't. But I believe that the De Beers advertising campaign actually added value to the diamond. How can this be? Isn't the diamond still just a stone? Not exactly. People saw movies where the hero gave his lady a diamond. This created a cultural reference for diamonds that didn't exist before. A diamond now means much more to the lady than it did before, because she understands it in this cultural reference. The first people to give diamonds were doing something 'unusual' that had some status because of that alone, but also because of that scene - you were recreating the movies right there in her life, and creating romance. That wouldn't be as true if the cultural context weren't there. So you could say: We have just shifted it, from the man to the woman. Why does the woman want it? Well, she is going to show it to all her friends, and they are going to see it in the same cultural context as well. It actually is worth more to both the man and the woman than it was before. She isn't just wearing a diamond, she is wearing the proof of her man's love.

Most of the time, things we buy that we didn't plan to, are things we wanted, we just either couldn't afford them (or thought we couldn't) or didn't think they were worth the cost. I think that advertising can do this, especially the 'tricks' you mentioned. Something saying 'sale!' is a message to you that, since you want this but didn't think you could afford it before, look again because you can now. Or free extras say that it might not have been a good enough deal before, but look again, because now maybe it is. This isn't forcing us to buy what we don't want. We are already looking to buy. They just tell us now is a good time.

Americans are always on the lookout for a good bargain. Sometimes the stories told about the good bargain may be more valuable than the bargain itself. And most people are constantly weighing the costs of this or that not really to decide if they want it, but if they are willing to pay for it or maybe buy it another time instead of now.

Advertising sometimes lets us know about items we never knew about that we want, but this is hardly making us buy things we don't want. The only reason we never bought it before is because we didn't know it existed.

These kinds of new information may frustrate our carefully laid plans, but I don't think marketing can ever make us buy things we really don't want.

Marketing can, however, let us lead ourselves astray, if our decision making process is faulty. That article about the car buyer being 'led astray' by the offers of free oil changes etc? Let's start out with the fact that he was already looking to buy a car. He just thinks he bought the wrong one. Is this marketing talking him into buying something he didn't want? Only if you think the most basic kind of advertising that says 'Here is what the item is, and here is the cost' is wrong. He judged its value higher than he should have. Was it right for him to do so? Obviously not. The fact that many people do misjudge the value doesn't mean we should blame the advertising necessarily.

The same with the restaurant. Why do the changing prices work in the restaurant's favor? (And they usually work more the more expensive the restaurant is) If you are eating at Burger King, you are probably in a hurry or on a budget. Putting a $10 hamburger on the menu is probably not going to get you to buy a more expensive item. But in an expensive restaurant, eating with other people, you are not just buying food (how could you for $45), you are also trying to demonstrate style with what you order. A restaurant with more expensive prices is saying something about itself, and in turn it is saying something about you since you eat there. Going into an expensive restaurant like that and then just ordering an $8 salad also says something about you (notably, that you are cheap). They have changed the cost of the style (it costs more to get the most expensive item, or to buy something 'not too flashy, not too cheap), but they also have given you something in exchange, notably the reputation for eating at a nicer restaurant than it would have been otherwise.

You could say that marketers 'made' you do that, but usually they are just tempting us. We do the wanting ourselves. Maybe temptation is bad enough, it probably is, but no one is usually being forced to do anything.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Possibly. But let's remember one important - when you became exposed to these 'marketing tricks' - you went into that store, with the intention of buying something. Usually, that's why you are in the store in the first place. (Possibly, it is a display out front). So you are already close to spending your money. I don't think we are necessarily talking about the same thing. But maybe we should define exactly what we mean when we say that we are making people buy what they wouldn't otherwise. More info in my next reply to tfbandie.

If I knew that putting something in the front of the store would sell more of them than in the back... what do I do if it's already in the front of the store 'by accident'?


Well, to be honest, most of those tricks i noticed when i was a kid, with no money, and actually in the stores trying to check out or pick up the young ladies.

Among other times i've noticed the tricks, was while shopping (against my will) with my first wife.
I noticed the difference between the way women shopped and the way guys shop.... and granted, this is an over generalized statement..... but guys tend to go, almost immediately, to the where they need to be in the store (need car parts, you either go to the car parts store, or the mega-hardware store, in the carparts section--- around here it's a store called Fleet Farm--- anyway, the auto parts are in the back, and you pass several different sections to get there.... interestingly, clothing and shoe happen to be in the front, on the same side of the store,,, also, kitchen appliances.... could this be incase the little Missus comes along on the shopping trip?
On the other side of the store, in the back, there are things like cabnets, and bathrooms, do it yerself projects that might be on the hunny-do-list... but to get there, the guy needs to go past the tools and the lawn tractors, etc.)

Now, look at how the womens clothing store is arranged..... no rhyme or reason, but they can walk to the doorway, and can tell if that store is worthwhile to go into. Women will go to 800 stores, remember colors, patterns, styles, location in the store (and which store out of the other 80 that they didn't go into...)... to find the exact outfit.....

sorrry, my brain is just smoking, thinking about it. :dizzy:....


and don't even get me started about shopping for "bedroom sets" :ahem:


Well, anyway, check it out the next time you're in the grocery store... things are put in places for more than just the convienience of not having your ice cream melt while your shopping..... snacks about 3/4 the way through your shopping trip has two purposes... one, your starting to get hungry and bored, and two, for you to fill your cart with junk before you get the meat and dairy stuff that you came in for, that has pork chops on sale... oh, and then, look at the stuff they put at the checkout line (if you have small children then you've already noticed.)

[nomad]

Yeah, I guess you guys are right, when it comes down to it. I don't think we are talking about exactly the same thing (after all, if you didn't want snacks, you wouldn't buy them, but that's not the same thing as 'would have bought them anyways'). And I do have small children, but they know by now not to bother asking (i am lucky, I know :)

I've spent a lot of time reading stuff about advertising, from the perspective of ad campaign's effect on people's buying habits. And the data there is confusing, and mostly points to it having no effect. (*)

But this is different than what you are saying. You are talking about one of two things: (1) Someone misrepresents their product as better than it is. (2) Someone only shows the product, or gives completely factual information about it, but in a way that means you will be more likely to buy it.

(1) is a problem, moreso because some of those claims aren't even about the actual product (like my answer to Zeluvia, or someone else's comedic comment about not getting the dancing girls with his six-pack of beer...). But I don't know what to do about (2). It is a fact that the most effective advertising campaigns appear to be those which are purely factual - this product is on sale for this price, which is less than our competitors. And this is a good kind of advertising, I would argue. Anything that helps me get what I want, I have trouble complaining about. Even the placement of snacks... I'm getting hungry and, well look at that, here are the snacks. The problem is that we have trouble avoiding temptation - and they know it. The snacks are there and - don't get me wrong on this - we WANT them. We just know there are other, less immediate pleasures we also want, and need to manage. If it did not cost us anything, we would be happy there were snacks there.

(*) - One example you might give where advertising made a 'huge' impact (and it was definitely perceived so at the time) is the classic DDBO campaign for the Volkswagen beetle. Certainly at the time of the campaign the car was unknown, the campaign was highly unusual, focusing on the cars 'flaws' instead of proclaiming its greatness, and the car went on to be a cultural icon.

The campaign was designed to flout conventions of the time. (you can see some of their classic ads here http://www.cartype.com/page.cfm?id=135&alph=all&dec=ALL ). Most car ads were pompous affairs, touting all the improvements of this year's model over last year's model and giving all the buzzword features. (compare this to the 'Theory of Evolution' ad from the above).

But the truth is... they got lucky. The VW was already taking off without DDBO. I don't have the book here (pulled from 'Advertising, the uneasy persuasion' by michael schudson) but in the 3 years before the DDBO ad, the company made small numerical but huge percentagewise gains - as much as 50% two years before the ad. In the year before the ad, they increased 27%, and the year after the ad, about 27%. Even though the ads were associated with its eventual success, they really didn't have as much to do with it as was previously thought.

[Gabby]

If your interested and in a similar vein this is a book that I found quite interesting. http://www.mindlesseating.org/ Mindless Eating by Brian Wansink. In it he talks about how restaurants can get people to spend more, eat more ect.

about the author ->http://mindlesseating.org/author.htm

[Augustine2004]

Just read this from Reader's Digest via Beliefnet:
--Contributed to "Life In These United States" by Kathy Zellers
AFTER MY HUSBAND asked me to help him shed some unwanted pounds, I stopped serving fattening TV snacks and substituted crisp celery. While he was unenthusiastically munching on a stalk one night, a commercial caught his attention. As he watched longingly, a woman spread gooey chocolate frosting over a freshly baked cake. When it was over, my husband turned to me. "Did you ever notice," he asked, "that they never advertise celery on TV?"

[Augustine2004]

Can menus be designed so that you eat & drink more than you would otherwise? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/ready-to-order-how-to-decipher-a-modern-menu-836353.html

[Augustine2004]

Rothbard’s review of Galibraith’s book The Affluent Society proffers many criticisms relevant here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard189.html