The debate over “white hat” vs. “black hat” tactics in SEO seems to resurface every few months, followed soon after by a debate over whether those labels or the debate itself are even worth having. I thought it would be useful to step back a bit and look at the broader issues of ethics in marketing.
As marketers, our job is to persuade people, whether it’s to choose a certain product or buy it from a certain vendor. It’s not always clear, though, when persuasion becomes manipulation. I’m going to explore 5 scenarios in a white-board style format (read that: “crudely illustrated for your amusement”).
Scenario 1: Simple Alignment
The first scenario is what I’ll call “simple alignment” – the Customer wants X, your Client (employer, etc.) sells X, and you work to facilitate the process:
The Customer is on one side of the wall, dreaming of a new car, and your client is on the other side, trying to sell that car. You (the green arrow) come in to bring the wall down. Alignment could just be the act of bringing Customer and Client together (like driving relevant traffic to a site). The end result is win-win.
Scenario 2: Simple Choice
In the “simple choice” scenario, the Customer wants either X or Y, but hasn’t made up their mind. So, you nudge them to make a choice that fits your objectives:
Is it unethical? On the one hand, the Customer wanted X or Y, so nudging them toward X is hardly a heinous crime. If you persuade them with features and benefits, this could be completely win-win. If you outright lie to drive them toward your Client, it’s a very different story.
Scenario 3: Competitive Choice
Scenarios (1) and (2) are based in an imaginary world where only one person actually sells anything. What if the Customer wants X, but your Client has a Competitor, and you steer the Customer toward buying from your Client?
Obviously, the ethics of this situation can get complicated fast. Let’s say your Client makes 98% of their revenue selling pirated Justin Bieber CDs to al Qaeda, while their Competitor makes its money selling double-rainbows to puppies. I’d probably rather buy from your Competitor. On the other hand, as long as we’re not lying about our Client, the Competitor, or the products, this is still essentially an act of persuasion. The Customer wanted X and they ultimately bought X.
Scenario 4: Unknown Desire
Sometimes, Customers have no idea what they want – not in the sense of choosing between 2 or more options, but in the sense of not even knowing that an option exists:
In some ways, this is the essence of much of modern marketing – it’s less about pushing us to choose from alternatives, and more about persuading us to want things we didn’t know existed. The iPhone is a great example – I didn’t know I wanted one until I tried it out. Until then, I had been suffering the delusion that my LG clamshell phone with no internet was all that I needed.
In all seriousness, this is a tough one. It’s the heart of modern consumerism, which many people would certainly say has gotten out of control. Is fulfilling an unknown desire inherently bad? No, of course not. Is manipulating people into wanting something by playing on their envy, fear, doubt, and uncertainty unethical? That’s a very different question.
Scenario 5: Altered Decision
Finally, what if we sell someone something they didn’t originally want at all? The Customer is looking for X and you convince them to buy Y:
In some cases, this may be like Scenario (4). The Customer thought they wanted the blue car until they saw it in red and loved it. In other cases, you may be aggressively pushing them to make a decision they later regret. Somewhere in between is the boundary between persuasion and manipulation.
It’s All About Intent
My point is simple – the ethics of marketing get complicated fast, and a lot of it boils down to intent. This is what makes Google’s job so hard – they can’t reach into our brains to see what we’re scheming, so they have to infer intent from action.
Take paid links, for example. Buying an ad to drive traffic to your site is perfectly acceptable to search engines. Buying an ad to build a juicy link back to your site and manipulate your ranking violates Google’s guidelines. If no one ever bought an ad just for SEO purposes, there would be no need to nofollow links. Since Google can’t judge our intent and paid links were abused, they have to assume that all paid links are suspect.
I’m not defending Google’s stance or claiming that Google’s guidelines are the same as ethical behavior. I’m simply saying that these situations are a lot grayer than we sometimes like to believe, especially when you consider the entirety of the internet.
Why Does It Matter?
So, why should this matter to you? Even if you’re not that concerned with ethical marketing, I think there’s something else at play here, and it directly affects your bottom line. Look at the 5 scenarios again:
- Simple Alignment
- Simple Choice
- Competitive Choice
- Unknown Desire
- Altered Decision
What’s the easiest type of sale to make? Usually, it’s going to be Scenario (1). You just need to help the Customer find your Client, or maybe you need to improve your CRO to bring down a few walls within your site. The Customer already wants what you’re selling.
On the other end, getting someone to completely change their mind may not just be unethical – it’s also extremely difficult. If you find yourself constantly having to change people’s minds, even to the point of manipulation, you may be targeting the wrong market.
It’s funny that Scenario (4) seems to be the current Holy Grail of marketing. Apple is the poster child for selling us things we didn’t even know we wanted. There are, admittedly, tremendous advantages – being the first to market means you get a great head-start and can put up barriers to entry. For most of us, though, it’s just not necessary or cost-effective. There may be plenty of Scenario (1) and (2) clients out there, and your money could be better spent finding them.
This post was inspired by a conversation with a UX colleague, Harry Brignull, and his work on what UX folks have come to call “Dark Patterns”. This post isn’t really about dark patterns, but it’s a pretty cool concept (and very cool name), so I’d encourage you to check it out.
"Let’s say your Client makes 98% of their revenue selling pirated Justin Bieber CDs to al Qaeda, while their Competitor makes its money selling double-rainbows to puppies." LOL
I loved that bit.
If your comment gets more thumbs up than my post, you're going on my list, Patrick. ON MY LIST! ;)
Of course, then I had to thumb you up, just for the fun of it.
You've basically just guaranteed this will happen.
I read Dr. Pete's reply and my immediate next thought was "thumb up Patrick...".
Much laughing was enjoyed.
Sorry Doc, didn't mean to be a thumb stealer... just stating your awesomeness.
PS - Whew - Guess I didn't make your list! Was getting worried for a second there.
That's a really lucrative market I hear.
Along the lines of "I love cute kittens. You wouldn't hurt cute kittens would you? Vote for me." I love it.
Food for thoughts Peter. I really liked this post.
But, while rereading point 3, a question - surely provocative - has come to my mind:
Isn't Google (and Facebook) trying to make real that imaginary world with its all including Universal Search?
Then, about point 4, I don't think that are existing unknown desires. Instead I believe that people have desires that still is not aware of, but that in reality people desire. It is a subtle variation, almost byzantine, but it can justify the reason of the success of a product a the iPhone you used.
In fact, if you were happy with you LG and just sending SMS (as I was with my old prehistoric Nokia), maybe you were also thinking from time to time about how it would have been nice to check your inbox or Google while out of home or not to have to rely on a 11 pounds heavy laptop...
I'm sure Google and Facebook would love to make that a reality. That idea should probably scare the crap out of the rest of us.
I know what you mean on #4. I agree that these products do fill a real want, even if we can't picture the product itself. I think, in most cases, those products are rare (and almost always technological). It's funny, though, how marketing can tip the balance. What we need certainly isn't the driving force behind most of what we buy.
We can see this kind of manipulation in different traffic sources.
I have done work on 5 eCommerce websites & conclusion is very simple. Are you targeting that people who need what you have? If yes so you will win win win and win.
Search Engine Traffic: Why search engine traffic gives us maximum conversion. Because, people are searching with pre-define products or services what they need. They are clear about all factors regarding any subject & supposed to convert very fast.
If I want to buy T-Shirts no so I will search in Google & buy it very quick because, my all T-Shirts are in old condition & not in condition to wear.
Referring Traffic: By social media or mail marketing or any other channels: We are doing bombarding of data on sleeping guys. They will shock Hey!! I am injured by this bombarding.
If I will buy T-Shirts after one hour & get any social media reference after 2 hours so I will be irritate with data... Hey man!! Now I have brand new 5 T-shirts.
I never see good conversion in social media traffic.
Direct Traffic: Social media traffic or search engine traffice pull my direct traffic.
Dr. Pete explain very good method to gather people who wants to buy & who wants to sell exact things.
After it, they will go for long drive... :)
I love the illustrations! Great scenario lay out of how marketers work to bring potential customers to their clients.
How fine is the line between persuasion and manipulation really? Tell little white lies about your products and services or boldly setting false expectations. Either way, it will result in an unpleasant user experience and chance for reselling is slim to none. Do yourself a favor and be honest from the start.
Thanks for the post Doc!
I didn't want the post to drag on, but I think the reselling (and lifetime value) is a very important point. You can trick someone into buying once, but it's going to leave a sour taste in their mouths. If your business is short-term, that may work, but if you want customers to come back, it's going to backfire.
I think that the main focus should be on helping people find your products that want to buy them whether that's in a competitive situation or not. Included in that, but also part of your #4, is showing people a product or service that helps fullfill a void, makes something in their life easier or makes them feel better about themselves. It's much less the product marketing as it is marketing to emotions or marketing to solve an issue.
#5 is a waste of time unless you're buying into the Internet Marketing hype engine. The time you spend trying to convince me I want your product when I don't want it could bring you much more profits if you just focus on 1-4. I'm thinking of the 80/20 rule here.
Thank you, yes - 80/20 is exactly the point I'm trying to make in the last section. It's all about where your effort is best spent. Why build hurdles just so you can climb over them?
I realize my comment was straight to the point. I should probably also add that you laid it out very well in this post the different types of consumers and marketing to them. Doing more research up front, for most SEOs, on who the consumer is and where they fit into your numbers above would likely result in much better conversion rates.
Well placed reference to "The Jerk" = +5
One of my all-time favorite scenes ever.
Love the post. I take issue with the idea, though, that Apple sells us products that we don't want. True, the products may not even have existed before Apple came out with them - and we didn't KNOW we wanted them... so, uhm, right - how could we have wanted them?
But what they have been doing is selling us "hipness". It's not so much the device, and what it does, but how it makes us feel. Everything about the brand says 'cool', 'hip', and 'with it'. Brand association can be powerful, and Apple, along with CocaCola are probably the greatest masters of this.
So... not so sure there is an ethical dilemma with the idea of marketing things we don't want. That doesn't mean, though, that there isn't an ethical issue in black hat seo.
(Ric Dragon from DragonSearch)
Clearly, #4 created the most controversy. I should explain that I see this as a continuum where coercion can creep in. That's not to say that #4 and #5 are necessarily unethical. I don't think Apple did anything wrong when they sold me an iPhone. Creating something that amazes people when they see it is perfectly acceptable, even admirable. In other instances, though, you see companies trying to create a need using less admirable tactics - like fear-mongering. Scenario (4) opens up a lot of complexity.
The more practical worry for me is that so many companies are off aspiring to be Apple that they miss the customers right in front of them.
Great post and subsequent discussions.
#4 is what the large Pharma excel at. Grass roots lobbying from the local practices, to congress/FDA (USA), to media blitz straight to the consumer. Once they have a customer, it is often for life!
By way of illustration, I always throught "RLS - Restless Leg Syndrome" was a made up "disease" or "afflication" by Pharma and that the symptoms are the body's normal signals saying get up and excercise lazy! This is just one of many pharma examples of #4. I would think of more examples but my ADD (Attention Deficiet Dis-something) has just kicked in ;-)
What is kind of ironic is that it was big pharma aparently leading the charge against Google ($500M fine) for allowing misleading drug ads and ads for obtaining off-label and prescription drugs illegally. I agree that these advertisers are bad and that Phrama did the right thing to blow the whisle as people were getting hurt.
What's interesting is that the this case shows that the distrubution channel, Google in this case, holds some of the liability for marketing practices #5 which will drive changes in the online advertising operations for ad networks everywhere, at least here in the US.
Isn't some of it profiteering with pharma companies?
I mean if people actually really do "need" things in order to live, then they don't need it marketed to them but they could still get mis-sold it through marketing channels, or convinced they need it to be healthy when they don't (i.e. homeopathy)...
What would health insurance marketing come under in the above scenarios?
*sorry double post
You're absolutely right that it comes down to intent. When someone intentionally tries to game the search engines so their site will rank higher, they have crossed the line. When someone sets out to undermine the competition by spreading false rumors, they crossed the line. Search engines don't know our intent, they only see our actions. That's how innocent sites end up getting scooped up with the bad.
Love the illustrations. However the thing that sticks out the most from them? Poker face
To your points:
#1 is operations.
#2 is sales/marketing.
#3 is sales.
#4 is marketing.
#5 is sales.
#4 is big, because while serving #1 is easy (and so easy it is often ignored) most people don't KNOW what they need.
My computer doesn't work - do I need a new one? Do I need to replace a part? Do I just need to get a virus scanner?
I'm hungry. Do I want tacos? Do I want a gyro? Do I want a salad?
The majority of the time customers are in #4. For those of you who are independent SEOs - how often does a customer say "I'm looking to build a link-base, all white-hat, with 6-7 high value links, 20-25 mid-value links, 40-50 lower value links and I'd also like a plan for redesigning my website to become more flat to optimize the link juice spread." That'd be case #1.
More often they say "I want to rank higher than this other guy." or "I want to be #1 for these keywords." One SEO will talk to them about creating some great content and building links from it, others will say don't worry, we'll get you 1,000 social media links and you'll rank great from that. Both are basically what they want (let's skip the part where one is long-term, and the other can get them in hot water) it's just a matter of convincing them that you have what they need.
In search, the long-tail is case #1. The short tail is case #4. I'm really generalizing here, but... There's money in both, don't get me wrong. But what makes growth is winning customs in case #4, not #1.
And in business, outside of profit all anyone cares about is growth.
Great points. I'm not sure we're in disagreement, so much as viewing it through a different lens. This started out as me pondering the ethics of CRO, and so I think the power of #1 comes in how much many of us are losing simply by failing at selling to the people who already want to buy from us (especially with bad websites, poor SEO campaigns, etc.). I think a lot of $ are lost there.
I was looking at #4 a bit more narrowly, in the sense of full-blown product concepts that people don't know they need, but you're certainly correct in a broader sense. I didn't go out shopping for a car last year thinking "I want a 2011 Honda CR-V in light metallic gray". I thought "I need a bigger car because we're having a baby, but I don't want it to be too big, and I want it to be safe and reliable and get decent gas mileage". A marketers job is to help me translate that thought into a specific product.
#4 is what a professional salesperson selling high end product or intangibles does. When I was a salesman, I sold on value while using a strategy called Question Based Selling. Many people don't know what they are looking for. All they know is they have a problem.
That's certainly a valid point. I don't want to suggest that #4 (or even #5) is never appropriate - just wanted to get people thinking about the continuum and whether their efforts are in the right place. Some people go after #4 because they want to be like Apple or create some kind of intangible mystery, when it isn't really necessary. Often, there is a market out there, somewhere.
Very true, which is why a critical part of sales is identifying the customer's pain points. Only then can you offer a compelling 'solution' to their 'problem'.
"If you find yourself constantly having to change people’s minds, even to the point of manipulation, you may be targeting the wrong market." really? Kidding, the thng is that people enter an already suffocated market and they are going against a brick wall, the basis of which we need to change. A slight push in to the corner street might open up new possibilities, so even in that kind of a situation we can make it ethical for our clients and also working for them. I guess I was always the ethical type, even though the comeptitors are buying this and that, I strongly believe quality wins, be that links, content or ideas.
Nice article Pete.
Great marketing is ALWAYS borne from a great product. Beyond that, you are getting into sales territory, as Magento touched on above.
Brignull's piece is wonderful. Readable and he gives very clear examples of what's dodgy in evil-genius UI. Worth the click through and under 10 minute read.
He also coins a nice phrase: "Privacy Zuckering"
Great post, I like this sort of thing.
I think it would be easy to point to instances where the line has "definitely" been crossed, with regards to ethics.
When the product is a known scam. There's lots of sites out there promoting a whole range of rubbish, with sales tactics trying to push the products hard on people, with intentional lies, fake testimonials, etc... Those ones are easy to spot (for web savvy people anyway).
But then where do you draw the line? Much of advertising in any form seems to over-promise on products. And little is sold based on its true value, instead beig sold for as much as people are willing to pay for it.
So if we're there helping this to happen, what does that make us?
I think the best (and maybe only?) measure of it all is simple. Is it an "everybody wins" situation, or is there a loser somewhere?
If the customer is happy with their purchase, including the price, customer service, support, and whatever else may be involved, plus the vendor is happy with their sale and your work towards it then I think it's okay to keep getting sleep at night.
If the customer (or lots of customers) feel ripped off then maybe your client is not an ethical one, so you helping to perpetuate his unethical practices is in itself unethical.
A white-hat marketer aims to inform her audience. A black-hat marketer aims to deceive her audience.
This is brilliant. It's something i've had to consider a lot working in the online gambling industry.
Is what were doing as an affiliate network unethical? At times i think, yes maybe. But then i remember, we are providing a good service via offers and exclusive deals to consumers who are ALREADY searching for the deals we offer.
We are simply their to give it to them, and a lot of the time they know they want to sign up to a particular casino and want a good offer. Other times, they're unsure but know exactly what games they want to play - so we can show them the casinos which offer the best of those games.
Is what were doing unethical? Based on this post; no :)
Great post. I really like what you wrote about white and black hat marketing. Well-written and presented. Thank you.
Well, you certainly get fewer requests for refunds if you opt for the persuasion model, and are upfront about the costs and specification of your product, so the buyer knows what they are getting into. Am convinced that in the long run, persuasion is the more profitable route because of this.
I think that the ethical sales tactics tend to slip into manipulation depending on the desperation. We've all seen used car salesmen. I've also working in a company selling a horrible product and have seen shoddy sales practices.
I'm obviously against manipulation, but also wonder if it can be a measure of your quality as a company.
Great post, Dr. Pete - loved this.
What about the company who sells wall demolition and then, secretly, builds walls on the other three sides of the customer - then runs away and changes its name? Rascals. Oh wait, that actually hurts people. Bastards!
Let's call that #7. Wasn't that a Road Runner cartoon?
#4 somehow falls in line with "upselling" I think and it is done well by a few companies like Amazon and Netflix and its the companies that upsell really well always have an edge in terms of the marketing $s they can spend to acquire each new customer.
Apart from the cute illustrations ... while reading, I was wondering what was the point of that psychological statement - until you got to it.
I guess the perfect middle would be the best choice: being as ethical as possible and selling as much as possible. But the world is not perfect and most of the marketers / sellers don't take into consideration if they do the best for their clients needs. At least not in the anonymous internet world.
To hold on to your example: Neither do I think that anyone, who paid e.g. links for SEO purpose did spend a single thought about your 5 mentioned scenarios.
But deep inside I share them :-)
It's funny - this started as a thought exercise about CRO, and it became a thought exercise about marketing. The thing I've realized over time is that sometimes just removing resistance or obstacles is the easiest (and often most ethical) way to sell. So many companies go chasing after new customers who barely want what they sell while ignoring the people trying to buy and failing (because of, for example, a lousy checkout process).
The other example that irritates me all the time is companies who treat their existing customers badly while spending millions (or billions) to acquire new company. The data shows time and time again that it's cheaper to keep an existing company, and yet companies never appreciate what they have. The phone companies do this all the time - here's a great new offer for new customers but old customers can't have it. It's short-sighted, IMO.
You are definitifely right! The best customers are the ones who get the feeling that they really matter and that their wishes and concerns are taken serious!
Those satisfied people will become regular customers and bring new ones, too - e.g. via positive online reviews or through the words of mouth.
That's the same indeed with employees. If they are satisfied the company will profit ... but I drift apart ...
In many cases it comes down to the business model. If a business has the potential to increase the lifetime value of the customer (CLV) then they will financially benefit from transparent and ethical marketing. If the model is geared to making one time sales they will gravitate towards lack of transparency and pushing the ethical envelope. I try to keep in mind that business models are neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral profit seekers.
Practically speaking, stepping down from the ivory tower, I think that's often true of "black-hat" vs. "white-hat" as well. I've started to think of them more as "short-term" and "long-term" tactics. If your goal is to build up an affiliate site for iPhone 4 accessories, short-term tactics that are effective now but crash-and-burn in 6 months may be fine. It's not my thing, but straddling the black-hat would make more sense. If you're trying to build a long-term business, then risk is much more of a consideration.
Edit: I meant to write "straddling the black hat line", but somehow just "straddling the black hat" seems more appropriate now :)
Definitely agree, if I'm an existing customer then I don't want to hear how much less new customers are paying for the same service as me. I think there are a lot of companies that go round in circles, losing customers to competitors and then regaining them as 'new' customers with offers. It would be much easier and cheaper for everyone all round if this cycle was broken. - Jenni
Like many SEOs, I try to land my sites on as many relevant SERPs as possible, and try to have my sites rank higher than others on those SERPs.
Many times, I have been asked to "rank for this [usually weakly related] keyword because of it's [insert rationalization here]" even immediately consensus holds that a higher ranking on a more relevant and profitable keyword would generate more revenue, traffic, or impressions. I'm sure I'm not the only SEO who has dealt with this.
I believe this pattern is very analogous to the pattern many companies exhibit with seeking new customers rather than continually satisfying their past/existing customers.
I wonder if there is psychological or sociological research for such irrational behavior?
I think a lot of SEO has to do with the first options - customers are searching for something, and you want to rank at the top for those keywords because you're selling it! It just gets more complex when there's more than one of you selling that item... why do you deserve to rank higher than your competitor? Well you just have to strive for prices, terms, ease of website use, etc, that are better than theirs.
P.S. My puppies are in the market for some double-rainbows, but I haven't decided on the best site to purchase from... any tips??
Nice article. For me, the most common case is the number 4. Visitors is looking on websites but they don't really know what they want and if they'll buying something. You have to create the desire!
All Scenario were well describe but the thing is presentation, and thats the major thing you have to think about it, for me video is a good presentation and impressive to attract client and force him or her to buy your product, but what you prefer ?
Very thought provoking Dr. Pete! I started to comment and it got so huge that I thought it would be better to just post it:
https://www.roninmarketeer.com/2011/05/19/more-on-marketing-ethics-persuasion-vs-manipulation/
Your feedback would be welcomed.
Persuasion and manipulation are one in the same, without all the sugar cookies.
Marketing ethics should be based on 1 thing: Learning your ABC's