Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How e-commerce sites manipulate people into buying things

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by reroute1 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #94
reroute1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fair enough, though I'd say discounting a raised price is a borderline case for regulation. That is obviously deceiving and dubious at best. As I said you might feel good getting that discount, but it's an illusory savings which if people knew about they'd never choose that over actual savings, but no not illegal. So I agree with him I'd feel cheated.

The FTC does hold advertisements to their claims and that's getting dangerously close depending on their exact language

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

#102

Post by whycombagator »

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".

Are you sure it's not a reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times

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

#103

Post by drukenemo »

Toine wrote: post #87
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #52

There goes that nasty evil capitalism, "It wasn't my lack of will power and cognitive short falls that caused me to buy these things ... it was capitalism's fault. I'm completely innocent and would never make bad decisions of my own accord ..."

Humans are humans. Living creatures driven by emotions and irrational behavior. Each person has his/her own psychological weaknesses. You included. Hardcore capitalists included. These kinds of marketing techniques take advantage of those weaknesses to increase their revenue. I would argue that similar weaknesses drive sick people to do horrible stuff to increase their wealth and power. Blaming consumers for their la…

Btw, I also rationally require opportunities to learn, live in a nice neighborhood, travel sometimes, buy a good musical instrument, maintain a car etc. You are oversimplifying things, but I get your point.

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

#104

Post by lotsofpulp »

zrobotics wrote: post #97
lotsofpulp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I never implied a consumer should be expected to keep track. Not having perfect knowledge of every transaction in the marketplace is a risk for all buyers and sellers. Holding a seller liable for another seller's price is ludicrous though. That's the buyer's job to do, by not giving business to a seller who isn't in line with the market (other sellers). No reason to get lawyers and courts and regulatory bodies involved.

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

#105

Post by sizzle »

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-...

I've pondered this for a while, if this disingenuous design pattern is biasing people to sign their names, in addition to their shady user engagement email spam with click bait polarizing email subject lines and targeted spam "Sizzle, the discussion keeps evolving..."

How they promote petitions after you sign one by showing you 'trending' high shock value petitions is pretty scummy way to grab your attention and stay on the site signing more petitions. There has to be a better way to drive engagement than shoving polarizing clickbait petitions in my face.

Don't believe me? Sign up for the site and sign a petition, enjoy the flood of petition spam in your inbox.

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

#106

Post by gnicholas »

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

I think at least some of these options were added because CA law made their prior (phone-only) cancellation process illegal.

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

#107

Post by RandomInteger4 »

yifanl wrote: post #96
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Lootboxes aren't a form of dishonesty. It's a form of gambling. Gambling needs to be regulated, because that specifically does abuse psychology, whereas when you're buying a product, you know exactly what you're getting. There's no deception there, unless there is, in which case we have laws against it, because it's called false advertisement. We have laws against gambling, because we know how math works and the human mind doesn't by default.

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

#108

Post by mcv »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #82
mcv wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not talking about what the law says, we're talking about whether it's misleading. If the amount from which it was discounted is utterly meaningless, then why mention it at all? Because the seller wants the buyer to believe the item is more valuable than it really is. That's why it's misleading. The fact that the deception is legal, doesn't mean it's not deceptive. It is deceptive. It is very clearly, obviously,…

Real life shows there exists a population of buyers that would prefer store A than store B in the example below: Store A: sells item X at 80% off for $10 Store B: sells item X for $10 It's Kohl's and Bed Bath and Beyond and JCPenney's entire business model. Some people love waiting for their coupons at home and figuring out where they can get the most "%" off. Should we outlaw store A?

That's exactly my point: what store A does is very clearly misleading, and many people fall for it. People are being manipulated. That makes it not a free, informed market. If it was, store A would have no advantage over store B.

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

#109

Post by mcv »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #74
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say elsewhere in the thread; you and others use discounts because it's a psychological trick that makes buyers feel good - and thus more likely to buy. > If I'm a seller, I can raise the price 100% at 10AM, and then put a sign that says 70% off. And then the next day, I can reduce the price 100%. Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitiv…

>Sure, you can do that. Or, you could simply list the price that lets you have some margin while still being competitive. Why would you do the former rather than the latter? Only because of a clear intent to abuse the customer. JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount". See my other comment for source…

> JCPenney tried it, lost a ton of business, and had to reverse course. Turns out, buyers like being given a fake marked up price and then buying at a "discount".

Is it that the buyers like it, or simply that the deception is effective? If you point out to buyers that the marked up price was fake and that the discounted price was always the real price, do they actually like that?

Nobody is denying that the deception is effective. But it being effective doesn't make it any less deceptive.

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

#110

Post by jenvalentino »

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".

Hi! I know this thread is a day old at this point, but I'm the reporter on this story and just wanted to say thanks for noticing that I put that in. I write a lot about privacy, online advertising and so forth, and I think it's important to readers that reporters at the NYT cover the same issues within our own business.

(Also, I acknowledge that perhaps you were being facetious and I just can't tell. But I still want to take this opportunity to point out the general principle.)

Post reply on HN