I always like to think that I'm not unduly influenced by tricks like these .... so maybe the way to get to me is to tell me how clever I am to not be unduly influenced by tricks like these (thereby pushing my "pride" button) and then try to sell me something LOL
Caleb Kraft Intent is certainly part of the sales calculus, but I believe that some of these manipulations are usually over the line. For example, appeals to pride or vanity are not the basis on which I want my products sold. Yes, these techniques can be effective, but should they be used for sales of indusstrial parts?
When I first started work in the semiconductor industry as an applications engineer, I learned from writing comparison articles about competitor's parts to make the comparison "intrinsically fair." The wisdom of that guiding principle has stood me in good stead throughout my career.
@mvea75101 Indeed, the whole "subliminal advertising" was a fraud. The original experimenter made up the "data" and finally confessed to falsifying the data after many researchers were unable to duplicate the experimental results.
Perhaps the idea *might* work on a local scale trying to influence people - but only to do the things that they already want to do. But among other flaws, the experiment was based on cultural bias.
But there are social triggers that work on buyers' behavior. For example, running a split test of an advertisement with only a change in the person featured in the ad can yield some unexpected results. An ad that features a pleasant, good looking, woman outpulls the same ad featuring a pleasant, good looking, man. I was surprised that the ad worked better regardless of the genbder of the viewer - unexpected.
Hi Max, that is always the question isn't it :-) I have never fallen for a scam/spam that's come by email or post, I feel the hairs on my back going up as I read it. Flattery gets you no where with me, always raises the eyebrows. I did almost by an apartment for investment after a "strong" sales presentation, but the same evening I did an analysis and decided that the "too good to be true" was too good... and cancelled. I think the crux of the matter is whether you're impulsive or not, if you sit back and ponder the the whole thing I think you come up with the right choice. Also they say fate favours the prepared mind, so none of us should fall for technobabble after a few years on the job. Basically the more you read about different subjects the more likely you are to recognise baloney when you see/hear it, and a good baloney detector should prevent bad decisions.
The only sales people I've come across that are sheisters in general are used car, real estate, HiFi/TV etc. and on TV products. Probably because either the time between purchases is so long and the gains so high for a generally unsuspecting mark. With proferssional products I've seen nothing but professionalism over the years, because as they say reputation is everything.
The only thing that I sometimes wonder about is benchmarks in processors because the target code has a big impact. As apinful as it is, I think CPU benchmarks should be done in assembler to be really fair. Sadly that requires the test suite designer to understand what special features are available that can influence the outcome.
One of the most pushed aspects MCU perfomance these days is power consumption and I have a Microchip supplied demo board that shows off RTC behaviour and low power yet it only ran for 3 months on a alkaline battery where as I've done this with other MCU's and got a couple of years which is contrary to a Microchip benchmark app note. Of course the ancilliary components like the LCD display and pullup resistors have an impact so maybe that's it? If I ever have time to get to the bottom of it I'll write an article for EEtimes :-)
@Henry Davis: Laziness: There are a great many ways of sugar coating this, but people in general like to automate routine stuff, so they don't have to think. With more than 20 years of being urged to "work smarter, not harder" behind us, it's easy to avoid the central fact that people are lazy.
It's not just laziness.
In my more cynical moments, I think that while we trumpet "freedom of choice" as a desireable feature, most folks really want freedom from choice. They want to reduce the number of things they must consciously consider and make decisions about.
What I'm cynical about isn't the desire to reduce the need to make decisions, it's the inherent hypocracy in claiming one thing but doing another. There are good reasons for wanting to simplify our lives and reduce what we must think about.
An increasingly technological environment with attendant increasing levels of stimuli can overload us. We get too much information, and get asked to make decisions about too many things, to the point where truly critical information and decisions can get pushed aside by lesser matters.
As an example, I'm a sysadmin among other things. I installed Ubuntu as my Linux distribution because it did the best job I've seen a Linux distro do of figuring out what it was running on, setting itself up, and Just Working, with minimal interaction with me. I'm a tech. I know how to answer the questions other distros ask on installation, and can pop the hood and tweak things, but it isn't how I want to spend my time. I want to spend my time using the system, not fiddling with the OS to make it usable.
So yes, I automate. If I find myself doing something more than once, I think about how it might be automated, so doing it again is pressing a button of clicking an icon.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.