[jordanchan]

Indeed. Everyone has their sensitivities, vulnerabilities and emotional/other needs. A company that has figured out how to push the right buttons in its sales pitch/ad has found its subset of "gullible people" - who will be driven more by animal passions than by reason. Humans are very well capable of overlooking potential long term harm in favor of short term pleasure, or even convincing themselves that the ill effects won't apply to them.

That being said, I wouldn't agree that every single human being is gullible when attacked from the right angle. Example: there are many stressed out people who don't smoke, it doesn't matter how or how much you try to convince them. One can peddle snake-oil on the streets, but only a subset of passersby will stop by and an even smaller subset will buy it - this does not imply that only the most afflicted are the ones making the purchase.

[TeMPOraL]

> Example: there are many stressed out people who don't smoke, it doesn't matter how or how much you try to convince them.

I wonder if it isn't because companies are severely restricted in their means of convincing people. Consider historical figures[0][1]. Between 1950s and today smoking rates in US dropped from around half of the population to around one in five person. Have the citizens of US suddenly became less gullible, or did their lives became less stressful? Or maybe as smoking changed from being a social custom to something despised (which can be partially attributed to regulations, though some would say[2] they were just following the social trend), 90% of smokers quit.

Manufacturing a social custom is hard, but if you can pull it off, it's basically a superweapon. People will buy not because it's good or needed, but because it's expected. De Beers has managed to do that for diamonds[3] decades ago, and guess what people are still buying for engagement rings.

That's only one, albeit an extremely effective way to trick people into parting with their money. There are others. Different people have different needs so if they avoid one trap, they'll trip on another. Sometimes the traps are less obvious. Let me give you an example.

I can honestly say there's no advertising that could convince me to chose the grocery store on my street over the one little further but much cheaper. And yet I often shop in the former one because they employ mostly nice, pretty students, and I love to chat with them. Simple as that. I've bought many things I didn't need only to have a pretext to go there and talk with the crew. I've made friends with the entire staff, hell, I met my SO there. But the point still stands that I've been tricked into economically worse option by a simple management decision of hiring nice girls. Everyone has their weak spot.

[0] - http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig...

[1] - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html

[2] - http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

[3] - http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.ht...

[jordanchan]

Agreed - everyone has their weak spot, but not for everything. Its like everyone has their price, but not the fellow considerably richer than you.

As for smoking, if companies were allowed to actually misstate it is good for you, there would be myriad other organizations working to prove it isn't. A reasonable person might well do his own/independent fact finding.

Someone can say eating an octopus is yucky [it is actually used with salad in many places] but for a large amount of money you can convince/bribe them to try it. But if Warren Buffet says no, good luck bribing him. You can try another [practical, not theoretical] incentive, but I'm sure he could buy that too. One can say rich people must live certain lifestyles, but Steve Jobs lived an almost monastic life [save the Mercedes and a couple of other things maybe].

That inherent need has to be present for an advertiser to target/exploit it. And the person has to actually buy the premise of the proposition. Many have the guts to go against the crowd and some even take it as a badge of honor.

Valentine's day is a manufactured custom too. Many are religious about it, many others abhor it - despite the concerted, and mostly successful, efforts to create a romantic custom out of the day. Diamonds, I agree - in many cultures, especially the US. But in many other cultures, such as the Nordic, it is less common [1 - a forum thread]. That doesn't mean de Beers doesn't try its level best to manufacture the same kind of social custom in Sweden. That need for extravagantly showing off a romantic pre-commitment just doesn't exist in that market.

Now let's reasonably assume your SO is well aware of the hiring-pretty-girls-policy, and does not prefer you buying from that store given that there are better economic alternatives, and add in a touch of reasonable jealousy. Do you still frequent that store, given that you are happy with your SO?

Could I sell you an extravagant snake-oil panacea if I were a hot bird?

[1] http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=32620

[TeMPOraL]

I don't think people like Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs are safe from being manipulated. As you say:

> That inherent need has to be present for an advertiser to target/exploit it. And the person has to actually buy the premise of the proposition.

The needs of people safe in monetary ways are often more nuanced and complex, but they are there. Some rich people are still insecure about status, and you can attack that. Others want to do good for the world, so they're perfect targets for various "charitable" organizations (thankfully, GiveWell / Effective Altruist movement tries to do something about that).

> Many have the guts to go against the crowd and some even take it as a badge of honor.

Yeah, I know. But you know how nonconformists strangely look alike? Capitalism has managed to go meta - being anti-capitalist has also been packaged and shipped to stores.

> Now let's reasonably assume your SO is well aware of the hiring-pretty-girls-policy, and does not prefer you buying from that store given that there are better economic alternatives, and add in a touch of reasonable jealousy. Do you still frequent that store, given that you are happy with your SO?

You got me here :). Now that my SO no longer works there, I neither feel the need to visit the store that often (though I still pop in from time to time, because I like buying in a place that is friendly to me, but not for extended chats), nor would I like to give her reasons for being jealous :).

I guess we're still dancing around the point, so let me restate my assertion. You say:

> everyone has their weak spot, but not for everything. Its like everyone has their price, but not the fellow considerably richer than you.

I say: everyone may have a different set of weak spots, but everyone has them and market economy does and will exploit all of them. By saying "everyone is gullible if you attack from the right angle" I didn't mean that angle is universal for everyone. Different people respond to different strategies, but there is a way to get to everyone.

> Could I sell you an extravagant snake-oil panacea if I were a hot bird?

If you were and I wasn't in a relationship, I'd encourage you to try :). Hell, I might buy if it would make you talk some more :).

[jordanchan]

The idea of selling to people based on their needs assumes that everyone has needs/insecurities which, if correctly targeted, will result in a successful sale.

To this extent, we're fully aligned. Take a step back. To the theory of needs, one of the earliest and best known variants of which was proposed by Maslow. (There have been numerous updates to Maslow over the years [1]. A common theme in all variants of the theory of motivation/needs is the concept of self-actualization.)

If individuals' needs are the foundation of selling to them, someone motivated by love and belongingness needs ought to be motivated by things that will help him feel closer to others. Indeed, this is the base of the couple of examples we discussed (pretty girl selling snake oil, and the supermarket with good looking sales girls). Similar arguments can easily be put forward for each and every kind of need - doesn't matter what the actual product is, what matters is what the buyer thinks/believes it will help him achieve, ergo, what need(s) will it is perceived to fulfill.

The crux of my counter-argument is based on the exceptions - the self-actualized individuals, who admittedly form a very small fraction of the population. You're right in the general case, of course. I'm saying there is a proper subset which is an exception to the rule. Going by the theories of motivation/needs, the self actualized people are driven solely by what they believe their "purpose" in life to be. It is also supposed, in these theories, that self actualized individuals either do not have needs (what you rightly phrased as insecurities), or aren't driven/motivated by them.

In the general case: As long as there is an illusion that need x will be met by a product y, people who are motivated by x can be sold y. In the case of self-actualized individuals, it is harder to sell an illusion - which won't be sustained in the face a logical/rational analysis. Since there is no underlying need/insecurity to target, all that remains is a factual analysis of what material benefits the product confers vis-a-vis what the self-actualized individual's goals are.

So I guess it boils down to: what's your take on the theories of motivation and the notion of self-actualized individuals?

[1] I found a good summary + a new approach at a Medium blog post, which seems reasonably well researched and presented. https://medium.com/@faracrosstherubicon/rethinking-maslow-a-...