The issue: In Cialdini’s book Influence, he talks about the theory of scarcity and how it affects the way we see the value in an object.
Major strength: Cialdini’s major strength in this chapter is when he talks about limited numbers. It is shocking to know that stores use the theory of scarcity in order to get us to buy more. This is a genius thing for stores to do but it greatly affects our wallets. The idea of limited numbers is that when we are told there is only a limited number of the thing we want then we are more likely to buy more and stock up in fear of it becoming scarce. Once one learns about this they can realize that they have fallen victim of the limited numbers theory. In some instances the limited number of a product is true but in most instances it is not. When we believe something to be limited then it increases the values in our eye. If more people knew of this tactic they might think twice next time someone tells them their favorite product has limited availability. They will be less likely to jump on an impulse and buy more of the product then originally intended.
Major weakness: The major weakness of this chapter is the idea of censorship. I believe Cialdini is stretching with this idea because he talks about how it refers to more then just the censorship of products but the censorship of information. We are more likely to want to know information when it is banned. This idea makes sense but he was talking about scarcity and buying products and then he jumps to banning ideas. I wish he would of went into more detail about how we act when products are banned or censored because that is what he uses as examples for the other ideas. Also, it is very hard to banned or censor a product and have people want to buy it. Normally humans are less likely to want to buy a product if it has been banned because they presume it to be bad and they stay far away from it.
Underlying assumption: The underlying assumptions of the scarcity theory are that we are more likely to buy something when the value of the product is higher in our eyes. They value of an item increases when we see it as being scarce. When items are limited in numbers or if there is a time limit on their availability we feel the need to buy more of the item so that we will continue to have the item. Finally, it is assumed that sudden scarcity is more effective then gradual scarcity and that we are more attracted to items when we have to compete for them.
Provocative questions: Why are humans more likely to buy a product when we presume that it is scares instead of finding a product that is similar too it?
If we are more likely to buy products that are banned or censored then why do stores not act on this idea and banned or censor more products?