Social Engineering Blogs

I know what you’re thinking, ANOTHER blog about online shopping…And all I have to say to that is… yes, you are right.Last week, I realised this cold weather is not a joke and the cold air freezing my moisturised hands into shrivelled nanny fingers reminded me that not only do I need gloves, but I need a COAT. And what better time to buy a coat than on, BLACK FRIDAY week(end) yhhhhhhh boiiiiii.So, I went on my usual websites and then ended up on boohoo, and well there is nothing that gets my attention like free food, free parking and FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY, especially when it is written right next to RED CAPITAL WRITING.In my old, dire, non-informed days, this would have made me rush my purchase, feeling as though I need to decide on something quick and that there is no other option but to leave this website having bought something.But with the behaviour change module comes tranquillity (no seriously, that system 1 system 2 lecture made me decide I don’t want to system 1 my life away!). Anywaaaaaaaaaaay, I was feeling such beautiful tranquillity despite the anxiety/stress inducing sales tactic, because I knew that I didn’t need to rush because as I just said, I was aware it was a tactic. Tactics are only used when the opponent has a high chance of losing (Deanne Hay, 2016), so in this case I felt that boohoo are aware they may lose (defined by people visiting their website but not buying anything) so they used this tactic, having it bold at the top of the page but also having the reminder shop with you (left hand side and bottom of the page). They did this to make the customer have to continually and subconsciously make the decision of whether they want to be a part of this offer, again and again and, again – with the hope that they eventually, crumble. But each time I saw the words free next day delivery I didn’t light up with glee like I usually do or think about whether I should divulge in the offer straight away, instead I thought (I MUST WRITE ABOUT THIS). This coat is probably going to last me 4 months, maybe even years and now that I’m a system 2 person, I wasn’t going to rush and decide right now, instead I went on different websites, made lists of everything I liked and kept sieving this list until I reached a small number. However, I nearly fell out of my seat when I went back to boohoo the next day and found…..THIS!Yet, ANOTHER deal that customers should be hurrying to get.It made me question: does boohoo think I’m stupid?  And as each day went by (between my first visit and writing this post) I would check back to their website and there was ALWAYS, something to be in a hurry for, whether it be FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY, FREE STANDARD DELIVERY, NEXT DAY DELIVERY FOR 99P (a discounted price). The psychologists in me knows this isn’t 1) because they want to be genuinely nice to customers and 2) is not an accident or “mistake”Instead it is a very thought out promotional tactic and even has evidence to back its’ effectiveness.System 1 and System 2Although us crazy homo-sapiens are very complex creatures, (yes creatures, I was raised with two older brothers). In the renowned Thinking, Fast and Slow book (Kahneman, 2011) the author put forward the idea that choices that us creatures make, behaviour that we exhibit and well, essentially, everything we think or do is put through/aligned with one of two systems, system 1 (fast and thoughtless) or system 2 (slow and effortful). Take driving for example, when I learnt I was SCARED, I thought WOW my mum said drivers are stupid but here I am having to do and remember so many things at one time, this is so HARD, so the drivers I see MUST be smart. Learning did not come naturally to me, I was not the next Vin Diesel like I thought I would be, instead I was Mrs Mugoo (if you don’t know, get to know). However now that I have held my licence for nearly a year and a half, no one and I mean no one can tell me I’m not the best driver. I know the size of my car (and trust me, this is a big deal because many don’t – oh person driving your little Peugeot why can’t you see that you can fit through the gap????) and I can do many things at once whilst not crashing (I know that isn’t the standard but you get me).BACK to boohoo.When people are, anxious or feel led to be rushed in to something, their following actions tend to be through system 1. For example, without the RED CAPITAL WRITING inducing anxiety, someone may have read FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY and if they were typically a system 1 thinker, they would have been likely to be tempted and buy something. Whereas if said person was typically a system 2 thinker, due to being less likely to feel anxious (no red writing) they would be more likely to effortfully thinking about the offer at hand. Boohoo cleverly induced urgency/anxiety and with reminders plastered all over the website, they made a system 1 environment and hoped for the best, and the fact that this tactic is still being used shows us, it must be working in their favour.Scarcity We want things that a running low, we want things nearly out of stock and we want to get things that are on a limited time frame, this is the crux of the theory of scarcity. Researchers have found empirical evidence for both limited-time scarcity and limited-quantity scarcity, demonstrating their effectiveness in influencing (future and current) customers, (Aggarwal, Jun& Huh, 2011). Parker (2011) did an experimental study on scarcity based in a simulated store, participants were asked to explain their choices from the store and the study found that people significantly selected more scarce items than those which had plenty in stock (see figure from study below).  Although the above study is done on limited quantity and that research has found limited-quantity to be slightly more effective (i.e. boohoo saying they can only offer 500 people FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY and then having a live status of that), limited time like explained earlier is also effective.The reasoning why scarcity of both kinds are so effective is because we tend to attach more value to things when we know other people are competing for (http://www.referralcandy.com/blog/hurry-stocks-last-13-examples-scarcity-principle-used-marketing/). Even though there wasn’t a limited amount, customers could have felt as though they were in a speed buying competition and that winning this competition would be defined as having an online shopping cart ready before the deal in the countdown ends. When engaging in this competition the customer is likely to add more value to it and want these items more than ever – even if they only came to the website to browse (this is why losing EBay bids is so distressing, when you lose, that added value asks you how on earth will you live without this item in your life).This phenomenon is a part of social proof. Although boohoo doesn’t let you explicitly see other people’s buying habits (like Misguided), customers may feel as though other logical people like themselves would have lapped up the chance of FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY and that they should too, acting as a trigger for this speed buying competition to begin.Mere ExposureBoohoo’s mere exposure was not exposure of an item as typically used by other brands but instead their FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY, as Boohoo were aware that if they could “sell” this to customers then they can rope in other profits with it. As seen by the three pictures taken from Boohoo’s website, FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY and HURRY were not words that a customer could escape, even if consciously ignoring it their subconscious would see it each time. Constantly seeing this offer could tempt many customers, as researchers have found that mere exposure (through banner ads) induces liking (Fang, 2007). Other research found that whatever we are exposed to on a more frequent basis is deemed more favourable compared to things that we barely see. Zajonc (1968) studied differential exposure to faces for “visual memory” and then asked participants what they thought of the man they saw. When assessing the manipulation of the differential exposure to Chinese characters they were then asked how good they think the meaning of the character might be. The study found that exposure effects: those which were exposed more frequently were rated to have a good character meaning more often than those who had a low frequency of exposure. These effects can be applied to retail and customer behaviour too. As based on the findings of Zajonc’s study, being exposed to the FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY so frequently was likely to imply to customers that this FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY is an absolute necessity, whereas if they only saw it once when they first visited the page and then never again, they may have been able to think about it in a system 2 manner and not attribute it as a necessity until after this effortful thought. (If you wondering if I ended up using this FREE NEXT DAY DELIVERY, yes, I did, two days after. However, this wasn’t due to their techniques but instead because I had items in my wish list prior to visiting their website.)So how do you feel now? Ready to take on this online shopping world and not be a fool to their money-making schemes?I sure AM! ReferencesAggarwal, P., Jun, S. Y., & Huh, J. H. (2011). Scarcity messages. Journal of Advertising, 40, 19-30.Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of consumer research, 34, 97-103.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Parker, J. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2011). When shelf-based scarcity impacts consumer preferences. Journal of Retailing, 87, 142-155.Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9, 1.

One day, I just realized that I have many coupons in my wallet. Why do they make this kind of coupons? Why do they spend time and money for making regular customers? Let’s think about our own experiences. Have you ever regret to order a new menu in a restaurant? Have you ever regret to change your job? These kinds of experiences can be explained by the ‘status quo bias’.Samuelson & Zeckhause (1988) first proposed the term ‘status quo bias’. They defined ‘Status quo bias’ as an evident when people prefer things to stay the same by doing nothing or by sticking with a decision made previously. This means that people do not like to take a risk for trying something new, but instead they prefer to sick with a decision made previously. That’s why people tend to choose the same menu in a restaurant. They used a questionnaire in which subjects faced a series of decision problems which were alternately framed to be with and without pre-existing status quo position. They found that subjects tended to remain with the status quo when such a position was offered to the,m. This idea is basically related to loss aversion. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). People try to make decisions which avoid the risk rather than decisions that maximize the profit.This idea also can explain the reason why customers have high brand loyalty. This is why many firms try to target children. If a person became a regular customer for a brand they tend to continue their brand loyalty until they die.  The marketing which is trying to prevent customers to go to other places is called ‘CRM marketing (Customer Relationship Management Marketing’ or ‘loyalty marketing’.We can find these examples from everyday life as the photo shows.References:Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The quarterly journal of economics, 1039-1061.

I’m somebody who generally goes about social interaction in a very natural way; I don’t think too much about my word choice or persuasive techniques. Because of this, I am always fascinated by people who are different from me in this way, people who regularly calculate their interaction and use every conversation to their advantage. I have a good friend who does just this. They work in commission only sales and they’re damn good at it. I recently asked them to write down some of the techniques or phrases they use most commonly, and I have to say I was surprised by how many of them I could apply theoretical content to.Giving them the factsObviously whenever you buy anything, you want the facts. You want to know what your options are and what the benefits of each are. All salespeople will do this. But, without being aware of the theory behind its effectiveness, most salespeople will tell you what the most popular option is. This might be the actual best seller, or it might be the item they’re currently trying to increase the sales of. When we look at this theoretically, we can refer to Azjen’s (1985) Theory of Planned Behaviour. Being told the ‘most popular’ choice can influence behaviour through subjective norms, we come to believe that owning that specific product is seen favourable by other people. Another way to look at it is social proof. We evaluate the information to believe that other people have looked at the options and made the decision that it is the best product.  Building rapport and gaining information “Never underestimate the power of making someone like you, but keep it focused. Use it to gather knowledge about the person so you can make the sale personal”.Through building rapport with a customer, salespeople are able to have open conversations with you about your needs as a customer. Gathering this information is much easier if they have a natural conversation with you rather than interrogating you about whether you need the highest processing speed on your new laptop or the additional engine power in your car. The majority of the time, you won’t know the answers to these questions anyway, and by learning about you as a customer the salesperson can assess your needs, sell you the product best suited to you, and therefore present the most convincing pitch possible. A salesperson (or a good one at least) will constantly bring back the topic of conversation to how your personality and lifestyle relate to your choice of product. “Oh you enjoy… You will definitely benefit from this upgrade”. Even better, they might ask you questions based on your lifestyle so that you as the customer are convincing yourself that you need the product. “Oh you enjoy… Does that mean you’ll need a product with this feature or that function?”. We can look at the success of the above conversations with regard to the foot-in-the-door technique. This technique refers to the increased likelihood of a person making a large commitment if they have first made smaller commitments to the same thing. This effectiveness of this simple method has been supported by many difference pieces of research an example of which is Freedman and Fraser (1966). In this research, individuals were asked to sign a petition for safe driving. A couple of weeks later the same people were asked to place a large and unattractive sign in their front garden that read “Drive Carefully”. Compliance with the request to put the large sign up increase from 17% (not asked to sign a petition) to 55% (foot-in-the-door condition). In terms of being sold an item, asking you questions such as “do you tend to take a lot of pictures on your phone” may serve as a good way to gain incremental commitment from a customer and, eventually lead them to buy a more expensive phone with a better camera. Figure one: Graph to show results of Freedman and Fraser (1966)“The Assumptive Close” This technique refers to any action which assumes the customer has already decided to buy the product. A good example of this might be saying “We can deliver the goods to you by Friday at the earliest, would you prefer it in the morning or afternoon?”. As people, we don’t particularly like to correct others. Asking something like this makes it very difficult for the customer to then respond with something like “actually I don’t want it at all”. Asking questions like this can act as a form of presumed commitment. It works much in the same way as the foot-in-the-door technique. In this context, the response to the question acts as the smaller commitment leader to the bigger commitment (purchasing the item). Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) showed that individuals are more likely to make internal attributions when they experience cognitive dissonance in regard to the task. Individuals participated in a long and boring task and then had to tell another participant waiting to do the task that they had found it enjoyable. Participants were either paid £1 or £20. Individuals rated it as more enjoyable if they were paid less money. It is proposed that individuals who were paid £1 attribute the act of telling other people they enjoyed the task as internal because they can’t use the payment as justification and so they experience cognitive dissonance and change their attitude towards the task.  In comparison, those who were paid £20 experience no dissonance and so their attitude towards the task remains stable – they found it boring.Figure two: Graph to show results of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)This may be applicable to assumptive closes in that you as the customer, may justify your answering of the small commitment questions by attributing it internally – “I actually want the product”. This would therefore lead to increased likelihood of purchasing. Perhaps I’m particularly naïve, but I’d never quite realised how carefully structured my conversations in a salesperson/customer interaction had been before, but then again, maybe that explains my impulsive spending. I like to think that with the knowledge I now have, I’ll be much more equipped to challenge my urges to buy and maybe even save some money. I hope this helps you all as much as it will (hopefully) help me.Vicky HillReferencesAzjen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control (pp.11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203.Freedman, J.L., & Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.