The Issue: This principal of Cialdini’s six describes how things are more attractive the less that is available. If we are told something is the last one available or it’s for a limited time only, we’re more apt to purchasing that item compared to if we knew it was going to be there longer.
Major Strength: Cialdini not only talks about how scarcity affects our purchasing habits but in other aspects of our lives as well. He talks about the ‘Romeo and Juliet Effect’ with teenage relationships. The more parents dislike their child’s boyfriend or girlfriend, the more likely it is to push their child into a deeper attraction to their significant other. I think by not only showing how scarcity effects our purchasing habits but our personal lives as well, Cialdini hits home with the principal.
Major Weakness: While Cialdini gives advice on how to be aware of this tactic he doesn’t really touch on using this principal morally. Scarcity, more so than any of the other principals I believe, can be used against the general public for sales schemes or to make more money. I think it’s very easy with this principal to teeter on the moral line when using it for sales tactics.
Underlying Assumption: Cialdini touches on censorship having the same affect as scarcity by saying “information may not have to be censored for us to value it more; it need only to be scarce.” I think through out, he does a great job of various examples, not only through purchasing habits. He compares a fisherman to marketers, chumming the water or stores to draw in customers (or fish). I think this basic theme depicts Cialdini’s argument with scarcity and it’s powers.
Provocative Questions: Is it immoral for department stores to lie about the amount of product they have? Is “chumming” stores immoral? What would Cialdini say about Black Friday? I know the “Romeo and Juliet effect” is proven to be true but is it worth parents acting like they don’t disapprove of their son or daughter’s older boy/girlfriend fling?