I find the techniques used for some internet advertising to be despicable. For instance, Verizon’s IQ game. This starts out as an unbranded challenge by an individual chosen to seem like a friend, a challenge for you to take an IQ test, and compare your score to theirs. You go through ten different screens or so, to find out that the only way you can get your score after answering the questions is to sign up for a Verizon account. I don’t know what the numbers show, but I am actually so demotivated by this technique that I am more likely to NEVER sign up for Verizon because of their wasting my time and showing so little respect for the customer.
Since when did “tricking” the prospect become a valid technique for advertising?
‘”Tricking” the prospect’ has always been a “valid” technique for advertising, albeit not an ethical one. The examples are endless: perpetual “Going Out of Business” Sales. “Clearance Sales” on merchandise that was never in the store to begin with. Bait and switch techniques. Car dealers advertising great prices on vehicles that got “sold” just before you got to the lot (government regulations have pretty much ended the practice). Weight loss advertisers showing “before” pictures of women just after giving birth and “after” photos following 6 months of rigorous, paid for and supervised workouts. Cigarette manufacturers who used to show doctors in their ads recommending smoking. “But wait…there’s more”. How about “Publisher’s Clearing House” and its clones? State lotteries? “Free” seminars on real estate or investing? The list goes on and on.
All valid points, Drew. Let’s not forget snake oil salesman, P. T. Barnum and my latest fab, Prosperity Ministries. God will provide everything you desire if only you believe and by the way, send me my 10% for bringing you this message. As the saying goes, whatever works, but as Frank points out, such ruses tend to backfire, especially when used upon those able to think for themselves. Advertisers HOPE you will let them think for you.