The issue: Cialdini addresses how scarcity effects human thought process and decision making. When something is perceived as scarce, a higher value is placed upon it and are more willing to invest time/money for that thing.
Major strength: Overall, Cialdini frames the argument very well by starting on smaller topics and expanding outwards. The section on censorship made a very strong connection I would not have generally thought about. The decision to build upon the scarcity from a numerical stance to emotional and political was a wise decision.
Major weakness: There were several examples I did not find to be entirely convincing. Cialdini uses the example of answering an unknown call. I feel like this goes against the habits of most people I know who always check caller ID before answering. The terrible two argument also seemed weak as the footnote admitted this wasn’t the same case with girls. While it is hinted that some of these practices might not be ethical (i.e. car salesmen), that issue is never fully addressed.
Underlying assumption: When an item or information is considered to be more scarce, it is assigned a higher value.
Provocative questions: This section made me think of how companies or organizations will have a yearly or ‘one time event’. On that thought, how do donation drives handle the idea of scarcity? While I’ll take note of an upcoming blood drive, I always remind myself that another will be coming soon and don’t make it a priority. On the other hand, I always make sure to buy a raffle ticket during one charity’s yearly function. Do more drives automatically equal more donations or are they better off trying to promote only one opportunity?
Price gouging often occurs when there are shortages of supplies. How do the laws against this, effect opinions on scarcity? On that same idea, how does it effect sales when companies purposely do not stock enough items like on ‘Black Friday’?
How would brands without a consumer product (limited edition or 50% off) be able to use the idea of scarcity?