Public Opinion Through New Media

The Issue: Cialdini applies another one of his weapons of influence.  Scarcity is the idea that people are more attracted to doing something if it is limited in availability.

Major Strength:  A major strength of this section is in how many different ways Cialdini notices this effect in his day to day actions and the explanation for the force at work.   In other sections Cialdini will sometimes get stuck on one instance of influence that is especially effective for him.  Or he provides a ton of examples but doesn’t do a very effective job explaining what happens in his examples.  However, with scarcity Cialdini focuses on both the example and the explanation with equal emphasis.

Major Weakness: I felt that the optimal conditions section was somewhat contradictory and hurt the validity of some of what he posed earlier in his argument on scarcity.  For instance, he says that the situation may have a lot to do with wether or not scarcity tactics would work.  By adding this section after the rest it makes you go back and question what is more important in the previous examples, the situation or the weapon of influence.

Underlying Assumption:  Under the right conditions, people desire something more when it is less available.

Provocative Questions: Can the Time Limits section be used to explain procrastination? One might explain procrastination using the scarcity mindset, that because people have so much time to reach a deadline that they only choose to be productive when there is less time available.  Is that thought process in-line with what Cialdini is explaining?

The Issue: Cialdini discusses the scarcity principle, which says that people are more attracted to things when their availability is limited.

 Major Strength: The major strength of this reading was that Cialdini used relatable examples like the cookie study. On paper the principle seems extreme but after thinking about it I can recall plenty of times that I reacted and experienced scarcity as a consumer. The examples Cialdini used reminded me of the frenzy that surrounds the holidays when parents rush out to stores to get the hottest new toys.

 Major Weakness: I agree with the rest of my classmates that companies who use scarcity ticktacks to market their products are ethically walking a fine line. Obviously increasing the perception of scarcity can drive sales but Cialdini failed to address the long-term negative effects that this may have on the company or business.

 Underlying Assumption: The main underlying assumption here is that people value products or activities that are limited.  Basically, this principle relates to supply and demand…the less there is of a product the more valuable it is to the consumer.  I’ve always wondered if that hot toy during Christmas is really “out of stock” or if they’re just purposely limiting the availability.

 Provocative Questions: How can the scarcity principle effectively be used or translated to help companies or brands with their social media campaigns? Could more of Cialdini’s principles be a factored into consumers decisions to buy? For example, the popularity of Michael Jordan’s sneakers could be attributed to the scarcity principle and the authority principle?

The Issue: Cialdini discusses the scarcity principle: the idea that people are attracted to items/opportunities/etc. that are less available whether there was an initial high level of interest or not.

Major Strength: From the very start, Cialdini’s examples resonate with readers (or likely do), as so many people surely identify with the ideas he brings forward. His description of the scarcity principle throughout the chapter and in different scenarios made it something that is easily recognizable within everyday life. The assumption the general public makes that less is more/better is certainly a common belief, yet simple idea. The ideas presented in the chapter really make me want to be more mindful of how approach decisions and recognize the use of scarcity as an attempt to lure me into a purchase. I have to admit, I have been victim of this tactic, so the presentation of these relatively commonsense ideas gives me more incentive to not be the sucker that so many are aim for. I also feel a strength of Cialdini’s presentation of the principle is impactful because he touches on how it is seen in other aspects of life such as the parenting model and description of the terrible twos and teenage years.

Major Weakness: It’s difficult to pinpoint a weakness because I think Cialdini’s goal was to touch on many different areas related to the principle. So in that, I think the weakness is the lack of depth on some of the topics discussed. I consider my own experiences within Yahoo! Sports/Rivals.com where we base our business on subscriptions. We used the scarcity principle by often labeling information as “exclusive” in the headlines or used phrases such as “expert analysis you can’t find anywhere else” or even “THE source for school X news.” With social media being so prevalent these catch phrases have lost some impact, so I would have liked to have seen a more in-depth breakdown of the usage in business of these tactics and how customers are impacted over longterm periods by the principle.

Underlying Assumption: The underlying assumption is that most people fall victim to the principle that we have progressively wired ourselves to believe less means better, fewer opportunities mean you only get one chance at something, etc. The assumption is almost to the point that we are a gullible society.

Provocative Questions: Where is the line drawn when it comes to ethical practices in business? Can it be viewed as anything but unethical?

How long before customers catch on and realize your approach is based on scarcity and a play on emotions? Does it leave you with a bigger PR issue down the road that in the end makes the approach not worth it?

The Issue: Cialidini discusses the Scarcity Principle and how people tend to desire something more when it has limited availability or is in scarcity.

Major Strength: I like that Cialdini gives different examples of what the word “scarce” can mean.  It isn’t only the amount of the actual item, but it’s also the limited amount the item will be present, or the barriers that prevent the person from achieving the item.

Major Weakness: One of the examples that Cialdini gives is a couple wanting to buy a car.  The couple is told that the last car was just sold, but that they might be able to find another one with that engine and that kind if they agree to purchase it.  I don’t see how anyone would agree to purchasing a car just on “the off chance” they have it.   This goes for any product.  Maybe it’s because I’m terrible with commitment, but I would never agree to buying something without physically seeing it first.

Underlying Assumption: People tend to want things more when they seem high in demand and less available.

Provocative Questions:  Can this relate to why women play hard to get? They seem like they have less available time, which causes the fellas to want them more? Why would the guys fall for that and not find a different woman just as good without the hassle of the availability issue.  If a certain car or shampoo or whatever the hell product you want is out of stock, why not go for one that is just as good but a different brand? Why is our desire for a product much stronger when it’s scarce?  How is it okay for stores to lie to their costumers about a products stock?

The issue:  In this chapter Cialdini assesses the Scarcity Principle – People assign more value to things/opportunities when they are less available.

Major Strength:  A major strength of this reading is that we can all relate to an event where we were under the influence of the Scarcity Principle.  Cialdini does a great job at using relevant examples like the cookie demonstration.  In a strange train of thought it reminded me of the green and purple ketchup that came out in the 90s.  It wasn’t any different than regular ketchup, we did not need this particular added food coloring, and it was more expensive in price than regular red ketchup; however, my sister and I still begged our mom for it because it was rare and we knew other kids in the neighborhood bought it.  Cialdini relates scarcity to the fear of missing out – something is not of necessity except when the possibility of unattainability is apparent.

Major Weakness:  Cialdini does not acknowledge that some people do not fall victim to the Scarcity Principle as often as he makes it seem.  For example, those “As Seen On TV” commercials selling products that will double if the caller dials and order within the next 10 minutes…I see these commercials and know that the seller is using a ploy (which will work on some) because within the next hour I see the exact same commercial repeat.  I wish Cialdini related his examples to every day events and ones of significance that deal with other issues than individuals willing to throw money down for things they don’t necessarily need.  

Underlying Assumption: I think a major underlying assumption is that people are not able to calm their desires or see that they are under the effect of limited numbers and deadlines.  Cialdini expresses that it is difficult for individuals to steer themselves away from scarcity pressures, hinting that the lack of freedom motivation for wanting something also inhibits the individual’s freedom to make decisions about accepting or denying the scarcity principle and techniques around them.

Provocative Questions:

1)   Why does Cialdini think that the more a piece of information is censored and rare to find, the more we find it persuasive?  In a debate or when writing a literature review we want an abundance of sources that support and back up our argument.  A scarce amount of resources tells me that a lack of research has been conducted and therefore I should focus my attention on a more prominent and publicized topic.

2)   Is there any buyers remorse or fear in possessing a scarce item in that an individual will not experience the joy in finally possessing this sought after item/it doesn’t live up to expectations or have a financial or measurable return?

The Issue:  Cialdini’s discussion of the scarcity principle: that opportunities become more valuable to us when they are less available.

Major Strength:  The examples given in the text make this a very easy principle to recognize and understand.  During the reading, I found myself thinking of times when I have purchased an item based on the scarcity principle. Cialdini provides relevant examples of the scarcity principle in sales situations, but explores the idea even further with discussion of the Romeo and Juliet story and the idea that adolescents frequently behave certain ways based on scarcity.

Major Weakness:  I would have liked to hear more about the continued success of businesses that use this idea.  I understand that salespeople frequently employ the scarcity principle when selling certain items, but does the frequent use of this principle lead to a stronger customer base? Or, do consumers catch on to this sales tactic and lose trust in the business?

Underlying assumption:  The general public (from as early as 2 years old) feels more compelled to purchase an item or partake in an activity (demonstration, law, etc.) if it has the potential to be less available.  When particular rights or privileges are lost, or are threatened to be removed, we find more value in them.

Provocative Questions: 

How does using the scarcity principle impact businesses in the long run?

How do you recognize that you are making a purchase or a decision based on the scarcity principle?

Is it right for businesses to use the scarcity principle in sales?

The Issue
In his chapter, Cialdini highlights the Scaricity Principle – the idea that we value something when it is in higher demand or when there is a challenge to obtain it.

Major Strength  
As usual, Cialdini does a great job giving “real world” examples. Between the car sales comparison and the cookie study, the reader can relate to these examples when making a purchase decision or a choice decision in their own lives. When I read Cialdini’s section on censorship, that we tend to want to receive information more when it’s banned than when it’s not, I was reminded of an example from my own experience last week. I had read about an episode of Dateline or 20/20 (can’t remember) that sounded interesting to watch, but it had already aired. I went to the show’s website to watch it online expecting to be able to see it for free. But when I pressed play, I was redirected to a screen that asked me to put in my name and password for my cable provider. Currently renting from a landlord who manages the cable, I did not have this information and thus couldn’t watch the show. Even though it was just a mini documentary, I found myself wanting to watch it more when I saw it was restricted.

Cialdini also gives an example of the scarce beef supply. It made me think of whenever there is an upcoming bad storm and people run out to the store and clear the shelves of bread and milk. Do you REALLY need bread and milk when you’re trapped inside your house? Personally, I would prefer boxed food with preservatives to milk that could go sour or bread that could mold if I’m in my house without electricity for days. It’s just the idea that people HAVE to go buy bread and milk because they will all run out that makes those products appealing to buy.

Major Weakness
Like a few before me have said, I think Cialdini could have done more to talk about the morality of these situations. Sure, telling a customer that a product has sold out in order to increase desire for it and then telling them “maybe there’s one more left” may work, but at what cost is lying worth the sell? We definitely all do it, but it would have been interesting to read more about what the moral or ethical implications of these decisions would be and get some real world examples.

Underlying Assumption
It seems like Cialdini’s discussion in this chapter is fairly black and white – we want something more when it is in larger demand or smaller quantity. It may not be something we think about consciously but whether it is a purchase decision or even a personal relationship (the Romeo and Juliet example), we want something more when others want it as well or it is unattainable.

Provocative Questions
What are the moral implications of misleading a customer in terms of scarcity when it comes to making a sell?

Would there be different results in a study like the cookie example if other factors were taken into account? What if the cookies in the jar of two were stale and the cookies in the full jar were fresh? Would the scarcity principle still be relevant?

The issue: This chapter is dedicated to Cialdini’s sixth and final Principle of Influence: scarcity. This principle claims that people are more likely to want something if they know that it is in limited supply.

Major Strength: The biggest strength in this chapter lies within Cialdini’s ability to cite relevant examples to support his claims. For instance, Cialdini dedicates a small portion of this chapter to mention that somebody bought the suit that John Travolta wore in Saturday Night Fever for $145,000. The suit is one-of-a-kind, and this example illustrates the lengths that a person is willing to go to attain something that is in short supply. Cialdini’s principle of scarcity falls in line with the idea of, “I won’t it more now that I know I can’t have it,” which becomes clear through examples such as this one.

Major Weakness: While Cialdini makes the concept easy to understand, his examples are just that—examples. They are isolated incidents: overpaying for a suit, dating an older man because your parents disapproved, or spending $1 million more than necessary to acquire The Poseidon Adventure for broadcast. Cialdini focuses more on historical examples of scarcity and less on strategy for how to effectively use the principle to your advantage (ethically).

Underlying Assumption: The underlying assumption is that we (the readers) can all relate to this idea of scarcity: wanting something because we can’t have it. In previous chapters, Ciladini explains the featured principle with a little more detail that he does in the chapter, as it is relatively straightforward concept. Instead, he shows ways in which the principle of scarcity can be applied.

Provocative Questions: What triggers this basic desire to yearn for something that is difficult to acquire? How can we ethically use the principle of scarcity to our advantage as young multimedia professionals?

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?

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?