[thewebguyd]

In the marketing world this is called revealed preference. This stuff is A/B tested to death. Anyone trying to sell something is best served by watching people's behavior instead of listening to what they say, as the two are often different if not polar opposites.

[4chandaily]

The perspective marketing world seems toxic. From the perspective of the "consumer", it sure does feel like we are being "ignored", "tricked", or "bamboozled" when our stated preferences are ignored in favor of "revealed preference".

It isn't that we have a "preference" for these things, it is far more likely that a user just doesn't have their guard up 100% of the time, and these psychological manipulations are designed to cut through that.

Sure, these strategies probably net clicks, but they aren't from people who "chose" your product, they are clicks from people who were manipulated into clicking.

I suppose whether you think that is okay depends on your industry and ethics.

[thewebguyd]

Yeah, it is highly toxic. I'd assume that in most cases those "revealed preferences" are specifically engineered, not organic. It's taking advantage of biological reflexes and calling it a true preference.

[Lalabadie]

It's behavioral marketing, vs status/aspirational marketing.

A stated preference isn't necessarily current or situational (I will choose to run instead of watching another 45 minutes of Youtube videos).

A situational preference is often inertia, and behavioral marketing will directly hinder the meta cognitive processes that usually give us the agency to override our default mode choices (John has been on YouTube for the last 20 minutes, what next suggestion is not likely to keep him there?)

[gryn]

Better for you(the seller) vs better for me (the buyer)

Two agents with two different utility functions fighting each other, it's an adversarial relationship/game.

The fight is for your limited attention span.

Clickbaity titles or least informative ones, 20min of rambling for what could've been a 2min video or article, spreading the meat of the info in the later half of the video for better retention instead of the beginning, highly misleading previews at the beggining, etc ... are good for the content producer but not so much for the content viewer that has to sift through it only to reliaze that didn't care about that particular thing.

Not limited to videos, but also things to buy the meat of the technical/practical description of the product get worse and worse each year and the other proxy signals for them too.

Seems like marketing is a lot like military conflict drown the enemy in lot of noise to drop the SNR.

what's that you want to buy a 4k video projector and set a filter for it? here it is for cheaper. Oh, you wanted the actual dots on the wall resolution to be 4k instead of max supported input signal, oops.

You're used to higher price meaning better quality? guess we'll flood that price point with shitier quality progressively until we find your limit

[marcosdumay]

I guess in the social sciences world this is called institutional erosion...

Youtube is a perfectly "unbiased" "democratic" repository, where crazy people shouting conspiracies and prize-winning documentaries have the same thumbnail and half-line of text for you to discover if they are any good.