How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things • Hacker News Board

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#91

Post by reroute1 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #86

reroute1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses can set prices however they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to buy it. But when shady pricing and sales come in the consumer feels better because they think they're saving and don't realize they are being deceived. Certainly there are lazy people, but that's entirely different no one would willingly pay more for the same service. They're only "happy" because they're being lied to. Why should we rein…

We shouldn't, but the more efficient, cheaper, long term, structural way to fix it is to create more educated consumers. Teach children in school how to make proper comparisons, how to avoid sales tactics, how to figure out the bottom line for them. How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amo…

Never said anything about policing PRICES... The sales pricing is dirty not illegal. Businesses should be free to price things however they want, but that doesn't mean certain sales pricing isn't a dirty trick. And it's DEFINITELEY not in the same category as these other practices.

Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and this discussion not a nebulous discussion about %50 sales.

It's shitty and takes advantage of people. Dark patterns and automatically raising prices and making it near impossible to cancel accounts... this is what people are talking about legislating. Ff you are defending those dark patterns and deceptive tactics from being legislated against you are basically taking the position of a con man or someone who stands to profit from that behavior. They aren't providing a better service they're providing deceptive business practices.

Why would you try to implement some nationwide educational campaign instead of outlawing by definition a deceptive business practice? That would be a giant misallocation of resources and not even guaranteed to help. How are you going to educate the old and succeptible? They are the ones most prone to these attacks.

What you're saying isn't just late night TV ads can use $99.99 to appeal to customers, no one has a problem with that. You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#92

Post by jjulius » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

SippinLean wrote: post #71

2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote: post #18

> About 30 sites made it easy to sign up for services but particularly hard to cancel, requiring phone calls or other procedures. The Times requires people to talk with a representative online or by phone to cancel subscriptions, but the researchers did not study it or other publishing sites. Nice that the editor was at least allowed to point out that their own employer employs many of these "dark patterns".

Strange that an NYT got facts about NYT wrong: * You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window * You can cancel with an email to unsubscribe@nytimes.com * By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period

>You don't have to "talk" with a CSR online, it's a chat window

You're just splitting hairs - you still have to have a conversation with someone, and the rep in the chat box makes it just as difficult as if you'd called in. When I canceled, the rep kept asking me if I was sure, reminded me multiple times what I would be missing out on if I went through with it, etc.. It took more than 5 minutes to get them to pull the trigger on canceling my account.

>You can cancel with an email to unsubscribe@nytimes.com

But I, and many other users, just want to click on "My Account" and then click a button that says "Cancel Account".

>By disabling auto-renewal the subscription will automatically be canceled at the end of the subscription period

NYT doesn't tell you that that's a method you can use to cancel your account, and not everyone is likely to think of it.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#93

Post by jjulius » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

dangerface wrote: post #50

digitalengineer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad lawmakers must first experience the problem themselves, before they spring to action. I believe support for healthcare problems and modern-day solutions (such as s embryonic stem cell research) would benefit from showing more passion towards others.

The pointless popups became acceptable again because of the pointless cookie law forcing developers to implement dark ui. By the way did you know browsers use a thing called cookies? Scary i know.

>By the way did you know browsers use a thing called cookies? Scary i know.

Not sure why you're being snarky - how entities utilize cookies can be unsettling/'scary' to some.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#94

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 5:52 PM UTC

reroute1 wrote: post #91

lotsofpulp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't, but the more efficient, cheaper, long term, structural way to fix it is to create more educated consumers. Teach children in school how to make proper comparisons, how to avoid sales tactics, how to figure out the bottom line for them. How would you even police something like 80% off a "fake" retail price? Create a database of all transactions for all items and compare to the historical average in x amo…

Never said anything about policing PRICES... The sales pricing is dirty not illegal. Businesses should be free to price things however they want, but that doesn't mean certain sales pricing isn't a dirty trick. And it's DEFINITELEY not in the same category as these other practices. Dark UI patterns and deceptive tactics are definitely grounds for legislation though, and those are the particulars of the article and th…

>You're saying sure go ahead and use Dark UI patterns and straight up deceiving pricing contracts to my elderly grandma, and you have no issue with that? She shoulda been better educated? OK then... Do you also think Kevin Trudeau is a stand up guy who deserves to be in business?

I'm not saying this at all. My original comment was a reply to vmurthy whose comment was specifically about discounting a raised price, and my response to him states that I'm commenting about that specific sales tactic.

For the record, I am against any practice that unnecessarily hides the price one is paying or makes buttons confusing and other "dark" UI patterns. However, if the price one is paying is clearly visible, I see no reason to regulate anything else regarding that price, such as x% off or limited time offer or that nonsense.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#95

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #29

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those seedy furniture stores that have "going out of business" sales that seem to last for years, are often running the same scam. Grocery also stores do this, with their shoppers cards discounts. Consumers are the other half of the problem though. At least some of the scummy tactics are psycological hacks to get around real irrational behaviors that actually work against both the consumer and the business. The rest…

> real irrational behaviors that actually work against both the consumer and the business Do you have examples of such behaviors?

Look up JC Penny sales. Their CEO got rid of sales and marked the products down so the normal cost was the sale price. They almost went out of business.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#96

Post by yifanl » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #61

i_am_nomad wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is somewhat unfair. Most of the time, it’s a naive consumer on one side, and an army of UI experts and behavioral scientists on the other. That consumer is hopelessly outmatched, and the company will absolutely find a way to hack his or her psychology.

Citing human psychology is a sad excuse to excuse one's self from personal responsibility. You are the final arbiter of all decisions that you make. Nobody else. You are the one that is ultimately responsible. If this were loot boxes, then maybe we'd be having a different discussion, but unless they're tricking you into something other than what is advertised, then the onus ultimately falls upon you to control your d…

Um, what makes one form of dishonesty acceptable and loot box dishonesty unacceptable?

Personally I lean on the "I am the final arbiter of my purchasing decisions" side, but surely this principle would have to be applied consistently (and what this looks like is I have bought almost nothing online ever)

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#97

Post by zrobotics » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #79

reroute1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People care more about feeling like they save money vs. actually saving money? If they found out they were just given the illusion of saving money vs. actually saving money who would choose the illusion? I sure as hell wouldn't it seems totally illogical.

People can search the price on their phone and compare, but many don't. There does exist a significant population that feels better getting a discount.

From your comment above: "It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place."

So if the seller can't be expected to know their competitors prices how can the consumer be expected to keep track of all that information for all the products they buy? Additionally, sellers evaluate competitors' prices and compare them to their own all the time.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#98

Post by sieabahlpark » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

readbeard wrote: post #57

Not just e-commerce sites—change.org shows "### have signed," where the number is programmed to tick upwards at a somewhat randomized rate. This is simply dishonest—a lie designed to make you feel like you'll be missing out unless you sign. Example: https://www.change.org/p/target-stop-filling-the-world-with-...

Couldn't that just be attributed to a log that is compacted to a count? I would imagine a system like change.org needs to handle plenty of people all of a sudden signing that a append-only log would be sufficient for.

As for the randomness I'd leave that up to the randomness of people signing up.

Of course I could be entirely wrong but I can see if a technical reason why it wouldn't go up cleanly, similar to YouTube views, they're not realtime.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#99

Post by exergy » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

nicudad wrote: post #33

exergy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, I'd actually been considering a Times subscription for a while. That's going to be a hell no from me now.

The hack I use for subscriptions is to pay with a money order, mailed to their location. This makes it impossible for them to autorenew. I started doing this after discovering to my dismay that one subscription used my checking account routing number to auto debit a subscription renewal the following year, at a significantly increased rate, direct from my checking account! I don't see how this isn't larceny or bank r…

It's also the principle of the thing. I USED to have a subscription, but they would never give Bernie any print time which pissed me off and I gave up on it.

Re: How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

#100

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Tue, Jun 25, 2019, 7:09 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #51

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are way overcomplicating it. People are not talking about comparing the discounted price with some fictional “intrinsic utility” price and your comments about the utility of the item are tone deaf and missing the point. Advertising that you are selling something at a discount is information that your price might be lower than a competitor. Nobody likes getting a discount at store A then seeing the same item for l…

I think expecting a seller to make sure they have the lowest price compared to other sellers is ridiculous. It’s not a seller’s job to make sure the buyer is getting the lowest price. It’s not possible for a seller to know every single other seller’s price so I don’t see how anyone has a reasonable expectation to that in the first place. People like to THINK they are getting a discount. They don’t care that the actua…

> “I think expecting a seller to make sure they have the lowest price compared to other sellers is ridiculous.”

It’s fine for you to think that, but it means you’re just arguing with yourself, because most everyone agrees it is a fair expectation of sellers, and that when seller behavior deviates from this social norm, it is proper to view that as a manipulative or normatively condemnable seller behavior.

Sellers can’t have it both ways. You can’t act like your prices are lower by hyping them in a discount, but really be coyly saying you have no obligation to provide competitive prices and the discount reference point is purely fictional. That’s disingenuous and such a seller knows full well they are banking on tricking or manipulating people.