I also think 'scumbag' is going too far, but marketing of this sort flirts with dishonesty and often leaps right into bed with it. If the consumer goes looking for, say, a bag of apples, I'm fine with the sort of marketing that says 'we have lots of apples' or 'our applies are super tasty' or 'Mmmm, crunchy tasty apples, yum!'. It's OK to reflect some version of the consumer's desire for your product in hope that the consumer will identify with that desire and make a purchase.
But if you say 'OMG, running out of apples' or 'study: apples cut cancer risk' or 'everyone's eating Valar_m's apples', then you're no longer addressing the consumer's desire to eat apples, you're playing on the consumer's latent anxiety about missing a good deal, or eating the right food, or fitting in with peers - things which have nothing to do with the apples themselves, but with the consumer's socioeconomic position and the desire to maintain or improve it. It's as if you bait them with a picture of the apple they desire, then switch to making them feel anxious about the consequences of not following through with a transaction.
I don't mean to imply that you or anyone else who practices this sort of marketing is some sort of cartoon villain, cackling as you part anxious consumers from their money. But if you think it through, I think you'll agree that there is a fundamental difference between the two styles of communication, and that the latter one involves a semantic turn.
But if you say 'OMG, running out of apples' or 'study: apples cut cancer risk' or 'everyone's eating Valar_m's apples', then you're no longer addressing the consumer's desire to eat apples, you're playing on the consumer's latent anxiety about missing a good deal, or eating the right food, or fitting in with peers - things which have nothing to do with the apples themselves, but with the consumer's socioeconomic position and the desire to maintain or improve it. It's as if you bait them with a picture of the apple they desire, then switch to making them feel anxious about the consequences of not following through with a transaction.
I don't mean to imply that you or anyone else who practices this sort of marketing is some sort of cartoon villain, cackling as you part anxious consumers from their money. But if you think it through, I think you'll agree that there is a fundamental difference between the two styles of communication, and that the latter one involves a semantic turn.