Thanks for the compliment ;-), regarding your feeling of manipulation: I think it's impossible to block all persuasive tactics in general. Let's take for example social proof: a set of positive reviews and their respective number of stars mentioned at let's say a product listing is a form of persuasion that, if taken out, makes the listing far less valuable. Is that something you would see that the persuasion-blocker would remove from sites? ;-)

Fair enough :). The problem of manipulation is something I can't really wrap my head around completely. To add another example supporting your point, I do at times care about scarcity information (especially when I need something within next week or two and I can't risk shop running out of a product and not restocking it fast enough) - but your comment reminded me that those can easily be gamed (especially if seller is less than honest).

I honestly don't know how to reconcile my own ideals with day-to-day capitalism. Brick&mortar stores all around not only manipulate, but sometimes blatantly cheat people. I realized recently that I probably couldn't open a store myself - my own conscience would run me bankrupt pretty quickly. I'm not made for this age ;).

If a persuasion blocker removed reviews from sites nothing of value would be lost, at least to first order.

For any book on Amazon, for example, 90%+ of the reviews are zero-information, because they either are entirely about the reviewer ("I thought this book was great/sucked/whatever" in various long-winded guises), are paid shills, compare the book unfavourably to another one by the same author (will will also have reviews comparing it unfavourably to another one by the same author) or are incoherent.

I've long thought that a review-sanitizer wouldn't be that hard to build that filtered out large numbers of reviews using what amount to anti-span techniques. Con-artists like you suggest that a more general counter-measures approach would be worthwhile.

You may object to being characterized as a con-artist, but you are precisely using algorithmic techniques to gain the mark's confidence so you can manipulate them to your own ends. That is the definition of a con-artist, and it's quite different from ethical salespeople do, based on my own experience in sales.

So here's a question: how would you deploy your algorithmic knowledge in a way that focused on qualifying rather than closing? The goal of an ethical sales-person is to qualify people in the channel, because a fully qualified lead is a closed sale. It may be a quite similar process, but you're asking a fundamentally different question. Not "how can I manipulate the lead to close" but "how can I identify the lead's needs and ability/willingness to pay?" Maybe it's not possible, but if websites focused on this rather than confidence tricks (which is what you are using) people would probably be much more willing to part with their money (the book "Getting Into Your Customer's Head", which is probably somewhat dated now, gives a fair idea of the approach I'm talking about.)

Thanks for your comment, and yes, I object to your qualification of a con-artist.

First, manipulation in my view is an unethical forced change of behaviour (buying something you don't want). We don't manipulate people with our tool (I'll come back to that later).

Secondly, con-artists are people that mislead and manipulate other people to have a (personal) gain, either financially or otherwise.

So, imagine an online shop. That shop has some usps (best widgets in town, fast delivery) and some information on each product (number in stock, number of buys etc etc). That information is usually 'embedded' on the site (frontpage, product details, checkout page). To communicate all those pros you would have to guess where in the user journey the customer has the need to read one of those perks (or you could just repeat them over and over again which hurts the user experience).

Our tool takes those usps and information and targets those at the right customer at the right time. You hate social proof? Fine, we won't bother you with that. You need a confirmation about the trustworthiness of the store? Fine, here's why the shop is to be trusted (reputation, expert in field etc etc)

We know what is important to you (qualifying) and communicate that. That's not manipulation or a con-artist's MO because it's true and we don't mislead you. We know, based on your data, what your needs are. (if a shop owner wants to communicate false claims, that's fine, but in the long run people are not buying there anymore. See my other comment on this subject).

Persuasion is everywhere, whether you like it or not. We just try to make it more effective by removing all the random persuasion messages (which are sometimes screaming at you) and finding out what works for whom and when.

> Secondly, con-artists are people that mislead and manipulate other people to have a (personal) gain, either financially or otherwise.

That appears to be exactly what you're doing. Unless, of course, you're trying to claim that your company is some kind of altruistic non-profit that manipulates people for the greater good.

I fail to see how he is misleading as his tool is meant to provide facts that "persuade". Of course scumbag sellers could use it with falsified data. However, that doesn't make him the con-artist.

Did you even read my comment?

I did, and I agree with the criticism. The fact that you're offering factual information doesn't change the fact that you're:

1. Deliberately manipulating buying decisions for profit.

2. Concealing the fact that the information you present is intended to manipulate, not to inform.

3. Ignoring whether or not a buying decision will genuinely benefit the customer and not just the seller.

Put simply, you seem to have zero interest in the customer except as financial prey.

Do you really not understand how shady this is?

It's true that persuasion is everywhere - but so what? Germs, pollution, poisons, politicians, and other bad things are everywhere too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate their damaging effects.

If you don't understand why this is a problem, consider how customers would feel if you explained your manipulation up front.

How much damage would the brand suffer?

Now, if you had customers who were happy with your presentation after an open explanation ("Yes - tell me when you're about to run out of stock so I don't have to wait until you restock") that would be different.

But instead of giving them that choice you're using textbook psychological exploits to push their behaviour around in ways that benefit you, potentially at their expense - and IMO that's certainly not a cool thing to be doing.

Let me touch on each individual point of your criticism:

1) Doesn't every single shop/business try to convince (I'm not using manipulate because of it's incorrectness and the negative association some people may have, see other comment) you as a potential buyer through the same principles? Is that a bad thing? Why isn't it 'allowed' in your eyes to emphasize your strong points (usps) or factual info about a product? What's the difference between our tool and mentioning these facts on the site it self?

2) We inform people about a product shop with factual information so that they can make a better decision. Example: A customer is worried if this shop is legit. Letting them see a message with the number of positive reviews the shop has got can make that worry go away. Social proof also helps in this process (just like we do in the real world when seeing an empty restaurant versus a crowded restaurant).

3) See (2). Our main goal is trying to convince customers of buying at a shop. Helping the shop with communicating their sales pitch to customers isn't about ignoring the interest of the customer. It's in the interest of the shop owner that he guards the interest of the shopper or else his retention or returning rates are going to be very bad.

Your comparison of germs (etc) with persuasion misses every point...

If I would tell customers that if they feel insecure about something (is this shop legit?, is this a popular product?, how long do I have to get it tomorrow?) our tool would provide them with the answers to that at the right time (using our algorithms and data-analysis), then I'm sure no one would object.

Lastly: people are intelligent creatures. If stock info on a product doesn't have your interest but you see it anyway, you'll ignore it (like we do all day with other inputs/noise). But if you are interested in a product and need it fast, than a scarcity message at the right time will certainly help you.

By your logic, 419 scammers aren't trying to manipulate people... just "convince" them.

You should read Cadlini's book Persuasion. I am sure it discussed what to watch out for in general life at the end of each chapter.

Thanks for the tip. I read it years ago, maybe it's time for another pass :).

It was a while ago I read it so I hope it was that one I am thinking about.