FEAR-based marketing; is it UNETHICAL?

[GeezerXtreme]

I'm curious to see what people think. One of the most common marketing tools is to appeal to people's emotions, but do you guys think that fear-based marketing is slightly unethical

The reason I ask is because we sell extremely high-tech security systems, and appealing to people's sense of safety is an obvious tactic to get them to listen, however I can't help but feel slightly bad by doing so. Do you consider appealing to people's core emotions unethical, or is all fair in love and marketing?

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Stirring their fears is one thing, and has its uses in marketing. It's not just trying to scare them; it's about making them more aware of potential threats and perhaps getting them to think about things that they normally might think (hope!) would never happen to them.

It's really up to the prospect whether they choose to give into those fears.

Unethical (and wrong and possibly illegal) would be hiring someone to peep in their windows or act suspiciously in their neighborhood or something.

[Jason Stepp]

Sometimes, people need to be reminded of their fears. Where would norton antivirus be without the fear of a virus? People who are new to computers know they should be worried about getting a virus, but norton strengthens the fear.

I don't think it's unethical at all. You are just reminding them of their fears and offering a way to combat the fear. They have the free will to decide if the fear is serious enough to need your solution.

[JMPruitt]

I don't create fear in my marketing, I target people who are afraid and offer them a solution to ease their fear, that is not only ethical, but humane as well in my opinion. It is th right thing to do, of course I have some sites I do this without even getting paid to so I am a little wierd.

[Daniel E Taylor]

Some great answers in this thread already. I'll
try to add my perspective.

You must first understand the point of using fear
in your marketing.

1. You are not creating fear in anyone. You are activating
a fear that is in them and offering them a solution to that
fear.

You are going to first have to make them aware of the fear
in the first place. Most people are so busing running from their
fears via addictive behaviors, they don't even realize they are
controlling their life.

So you inject some fear into them as well as show them the possibilities
and the glorious outcome. It's the contrast of emotions
that will cause them to buy.

Just using fear won't work and just using pleasure doesn't work well,
but using both strategically balanced is where the gold is.

I think some bad marketers (Such as mass media) due tend to be
fear heavy without showing the possible glorious outcomes equally available
, which just turns people into negative people, pessimists, etc...



Daniel

[JeffLam]

I sort of agree with JMPruitt.

Target their fears if you must, but be a nice guy and give them a solution to remove their said fears!

Insurance is as much a targetting of fears as it is a gambling with probability.

You are betting them that a certain event (usually disastrous and negative) will NOT happen in a certain time frame.

Yet people buy because of the FEAR they want to get rid of IN CASE such events DO happen.

Absolutely perfect business strategy.

[CDarklock]

I don't see the ethical difference between these two things:

"Hey, what would you do if someone broke into your house?"

and

"Hey, what would you do if you came home from work one day to find your front door kicked in - and your house completely trashed? Everything of value gone, from the television and the stereo, all the way down to your grandmother's china and your wife's jewelry? And there, on the kitchen floor, you find the little bud vase your daughter made you when she was four... casually tossed aside and broken."

You're just painting a more vivid picture. You're engaging the prospect's emotions, certainly, but isn't that reality? Isn't that what's really going to happen, if someone breaks into his house? So maybe he doesn't have his grandmother's china, or his wife has no jewelry, or his daughter didn't make him a bud vase. Isn't he still going to lose things that can't be replaced?

Why would it be unethical to say it?

[pro.it.media]

Fear is a strong motivational button. Having it be your only stronghold, people
might smell the fish.

[ExRat]

Hi,

Fear-based marketing is currently what makes the world go around.

Not only is it the core strategy of most current influential movements upon the masses, it is also the driving force behind those movements - why do people want to spend the majority of their time amassing as much wealth as possible, when in truth they would be far better off focusing on creating as much as they need for their core survival needs (and a little more for long term security) and then spending the rest of their time on more fulfilling activites?

They do it out of fear - fear that they will be a failure in a world where worth appears to be judged by wealth. Fear that if they don't control large amounts of wealth, those who do will oppress them (incidentally, one of the more rational and logical conclusions to come out of this).

So the cycle continues - more fear is manufactured, and as the creation of this fear becomes more cynical and unrelenting, being fearful becomes more normalised.

So we arrive at a point where manufacturing fear (and false scarcity) becomes the norm - it ends up being perceived as totally acceptable and 'to be expected' through it's prevalence, to the point where one would look like the fool to try and prosper by selling benefits only.

It's not about what you might gain if you do, it's about what you might lose if you don't.

And so the world becomes a mass of fear, negativity and mistrust. The 'weak' (passionate and considerate - socially conscious, along with those who are 'weak' wholly through circumstance - EG - the elderly, young or disabled) are abused and devoured, whereas those who continually push the boundaries of 'decency' prosper - and also become admired and revered for their ability to prosper in such 'tough times' and due to their wealth and power - they are also feared - hence, their activities continue to grow and flourish and plumb new depths.

I don't think it does this subject justice to ask if it's unethical.

I think better questions to ask are these -

Do you prefer a world full of smoke and mirrors, negativity and fear, to one of universal triumph against the odds?

Do you think the weak should be nursed and protected, or eliminated?

Do you feel that compassion is a valuable human trait, or one that has no place in the evolutionary cycle?

If there is a problem, are you part of it, or part of the solution?

Or do you prefer to just sidestep these difficult questions, and quietly go about your business on the basis that any contribution you make is so insignificant in the big picture that it is negligible?

Obviously, as with so many things, there is a line that can be crossed where on the one side, the use of fear-based marketing is most likely acceptable and justifiable.

Whereas across the line, it is not so clear cut and at the extreme, one is purely manufacturing fear, based completely upon lies and fallacy, and not contributing anything worthwhile or positive by doing so - except to line one's own pockets.

The problem is this - it is way too easy to have both feet well across the line on the not-so-nice side and delude oneself that this is not really the case. It's also very common for people to start off on the right side, and over time find themselves shuffling slowly across until the line is well out of sight.

So, as I said, perhaps the 'ethical' question is not as useful as just considering that 'you get out what you put in' - IE - 'live by the sword, die by the sword.'

In other words - if you spend your time racking up the fear factor in order to feather your nest, don't complain when this world becomes a place where it is impossible to escape and hide from societies that are controlled by those who dared to cross the fear-based marketing 'ethical' line way more than you did in order to opress, control and immobilise the populace through fear and sap the last remaining drops of humanity from their lives - because when that occurs, and everyone is completely used to and at ease with fear being all around them constantly, someone has to keep raising the fear stakes yet again to make it at all effective.

Eventually, as people become conditioned, the fear factor will need to be ramped up. No longer will typically idle threats and cheap con tricks suffice. To actually motivate people to do what you want, you would have to take it to extreme levels.

Some would say that this is what we are experiencing already.

You can't sell soap anymore by explaining that if you stink, people will avoid you. No, you have to sell it like this -

Have no fear with lifebuoy

Say no to swine flu

Parents are targeted through fear to encourage them to feed their kids totally un-necessary and unhealthy 'foods' with barely concealed lies such as this one - (this campaign was withdrawn once the public outcry started) -

Now helps support your child's immunity

(Thanks for the links M.L.)

And to avoid breaking the rules of the forum or to bore you to death, I won't include countless examples revolving around 'the war on terror' - which would make my point quite nicely.

My point - if you don't think this fear-based marketing is an issue at all, and perhaps feel that I have gone 'over the top' in my opinion of where it might be leading us if it is encouraged and allowed to continue down this path where the line between 'good' or 'bad' fear-based marketing is a distant memory, well I hope that you will be happy and satisfied with the outcome.

If every single one of us focuses on 'desperate buyers only', and moves on towards manufacturing that desperation and increasing the amount of people who actually feel desperate, in order to create a bigger marketplace using whatever tactics get the job done - no matter how cynical, mythical and inappropriate - then we will surely enjoy living in a world, and sending our kids out into a world that we have created which is scared of shadows and awash with mis-information and utter desperation. Nice.

[Chris Worner]

+1^

the above is spot on. There are whole multibillion dollar industries built on fear, did anybody say makeup or internet marketing?

for example, you here in those ads:

"when you use this cleanser, you will have smoother, clearer, BEAUTIFUL skin"

To the unenlightened, this statement would seem very innocent, HOWEVER, it PRESUPPOSES that the viewer watching has ugly skin if they don't use this product, and that if you are a woman, as that is who these ads are targeted at, you will be very unattractive and men wont like you, and we all know how much women don't care about looking and feeling attractive. And if you have any experience with women you know that women are very good at reading into things. This strategy as you know is very effective.

Heck even the name itself: "Make Up" has a negative fear based connotation to it.

How do you think the media makes its money? If the news shows something which will cause a stir and generate large ratings, what else goes up? THEIR PROFITS as they can charge the advertisers more per spot.

Ever heard of the saying "Keeping up with the joneses" the fear of being left behind.

And I can keep going on, point is, fear based marketing is what drives people to buy something in the first place.

[patselby]

Most people walk around in fear. Fear based marketing is used by traditional businesses. I have worked a company that analyzed businesses; their sales force was trained by a
physiologist to detect the fear that a particular person had and hone in on it. People normally won't take action unless the pain of doing nothing is greater than the pain of taking action. Addressing people's fears invokes them into action.

[JeffLam]

ExRat, yet another awesome post!

Totally agreed with what you say, and am englightened with some new things.

Yes, sometimes we just have to expand it to our real world and how it functions to understand and decide for ourselves whether it is legal AND ethical.

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by ExRat

If every single one of us focuses on 'desperate buyers only', and moves on towards manufacturing that desperation and increasing the amount of people who actually feel desperate, in order to create a bigger marketplace using whatever tactics get the job done - no matter how cynical, mythical and inappropriate - then we will surely enjoy living in a world, and sending our kids out into a world that we have created which is scared of shadows and awash with mis-information and utter desperation. Nice.

Politicians are far more guilty and culpable in this than are marketers. The worse a marketer can do is get your money in exchange for providing you with a product or service. If you don't fall for a marketer's tactics, they can't get your money. If someone else falls for their tactics, they still can't get your money. On the other hand, you don't have to fall for a politician's tactics, but you can still get hurt by them if enough other people fall for it.

Marketers may be able to create the illusion of a dangerous world--and we can freely decide whether or not to live in that kind of a world--but the politicians have the power to create that world. And, unlike dealing with marketers, even if you don't fall for the tactics, even if you don't hand over your money, even if you don't give them your vote, you can still get screwed.

For example, take the upcoming new FTC requirements. I would contend that, despite the harm caused by some unscrupulous marketers, we would be far, far better off were those requirements applied to politicians rather than marketers. I'd like to see them explain the typical results that can be expected if they get elected. Oh, and seeing how they manage endorsements and testimonials under the new regulations would be fun too.

While I see your point, I just don't think that marketers have the power to create such a world as you've described. Ultimately, it is not marketing tactics that can define our world, but rather our reactions to them. In that sense, marketing tactics are more a reflection of society than the defining force behind it.

[MichaelHiles]

There are only two core emotions that drive all buying decisions.

Value & Fear

You'd be surprised at how many things are based on fear that you don't even really consciously consider.

Sure, there's the easy ones... insurance, etc...

But things like laundry soap.

Volvo

Goodyear tires

Etc..

lots of consumer products have campaigns that target a subsection audience with a fear campaign based on the safety features, social implications, etc...

[ExRat]

Hi Dan,

Politicians are far more guilty and culpable in this than are marketers.

I agree with many of your points, but wanted to focus on the marketers' responsibility (above), as to do otherwise would risk deletion of the thread.

But while we're on the subject -

Corporate marketers own governments. The latter are the puppets of the former. They are the buffers who take the flak to protect the real perpetrators, and to disguise the intention.

The worse a marketer can do is get your money in exchange for providing you with a product or service.

I disagree. People are exposed to invasive, misleading advertising wherever they go. They don't have to turn a TV on or purchase a magazine - it's all over buses, billboards, buildings, taxis etc.

It permeates supposedly unbiased informational news broadcasting.

The trademark of fear-based marketing is that it is subliminal and guerilla - it is found in places where the uninformed would never expect to find it - thus increasing it's potency.

If you look at the climate of fear which is created for the huge global campaigns, it's quite clear that losing your money is possibly one of the least concerning factors - hence why I emphasized (above) the downside of living in a desperate, fearful world.

I don't mind them taking the money so much - it's the lies, deceit and damage they do that bothers me - and of course, when an example is set at the 'top', it trickles all the way down until it's ingrained as part of the culture.

For example, take the upcoming new FTC requirements.

They're just more puppets, with strings pulled by the same people, to create an illusion of regulation and security for the consumer. Sure, there will be some sacrificial lambs.

While I see your point, I just don't think that marketers have the power to create such a world as you've described.

I agree (in terms of us) - with the exception that those at the very top ARE marketers too. So we have choices -

a) do nothing

b) jump on the bandwagon

c) change the things that we can control, set an example and help to enlighten the un-enlightened and see where that gets us. Oh, and keep cutting the puppets' strings.

While c) might seem doomed to failure, a) and b) are beyond contempt.

Ultimately, it is not marketing tactics that can define our world, but rather our reactions to them. In that sense, marketing tactics are more a reflection of society than the defining force behind it.

That's exactly how evil people justify their deeds to themselves. 'They deserved it - they asked for it'.

In my opinion that only has any chance of being applicable when the masses choose a) or b) above.

[TimGross]

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I don't see the ethical difference between these two things (snip)You're just painting a more vivid picture.

Well said.

If you're not selling fear to try to sell security systems (or other types of insurance), what are you selling?

For the small portion of people who it will actually benefit, it could be a lifesaver, so it could be looked on as "immoral" to not do everything you can to sell them the insurance.

I've read about a security company that go through a neighborhood littering beer bottles on the ground a week before they start going door to door... Convincing homeowners there are people roving their neighborhood at night drinking and potentially causing mischief.

If you want to debate ethics, start there.

[DogScout]

In the car biz , had a saying: "Got to hurt them before you can help them."

[Raydal]

Jesus did it so it can't be unethical.

-Ray Edwards

[Daniel E Taylor]

I think it's important not to become altruistic in your marketing
and not to become to fear based. It's all about the balance.

Altruistic is just is bad as all fear based. Helping someone escape
reality and dream of daisy's all day and not making them aware of the
negative isn't helping them at all.

The goal is to become aware of the negative, face it, release fear/resistence,
and move toward the light.

Moving toward the light without awareness of the darkness just
keeps you in resistance to the darkness, and what you resist persists.

You can't overcome a fear if you're not aware that you have it.

So in my opinion it's a balance.

Fear based marketing I don't agree it.

and

Altruistic (Life is full of daisy's buy my product) I don't agree.

A good balance is reality. There is positive and negative that is
life.

Daniel

[Chris Worner]

Originally Posted by Raydal

Jesus did it so it can't be unethical.

-Ray Edwards

THANKYOU

p.s consider it stolen

[JohnMcCabe]

They say that the best prospect for a burglar alarm is someone who has just experienced a break-in. The second best prospect is someone who knows someone who has just had a break-in.

Among obese middle-aged men, the groups with the highest success rate at losing weight are those who have experienced a heart attack and those who are recently divorced.

There are many more examples like that to be found.

All of these groups have something in common - they needed a personal trauma of some sort to move them to taking an action which would ultimately benefit them in some way.

If your marketing can induce the same action, minus the personal trauma, is that not ethical?

[ExRat]

Hi Tim,

I've read about a security company that go through a neighborhood littering beer bottles on the ground a week before they start going door to door... Convincing homeowners there are people roving their neighborhood at night drinking and potentially causing mischief.

If you want to debate ethics, start there.

For clarity -

Is there a difference between your example (distributing beer bottles to sell security) and creating a pandemic to sell a vaccine? Or giving people cancer to sell healthcare?

Or are my two examples just a 'more vivid picture?'

That was my point above.

Most of the examples given here (tires, volvo, insurance etc) are the lower level bandwagon jumpers who are simply jumping on and exploiting the fear created by the global schemes by the truly powerful.

Then if you want, you could classify the typical IMer selling to desperate buyers as an even lower level if you like, or just lump them in with the other bandwagon jumpers such as car makers and insurance companies.

My point being - 'everyone' is at it. Where does that take us? A miserable world?

Hi Raydal,

Jesus did it so it can't be unethical

Pffft. Why don't you just press the nuke button on the thread - it's quicker?

Hi John,

If your marketing can induce the same action, minus the personal trauma, is that not ethical?

It probably is ethical. My point is that we're getting the trauma too - often deliberately.

[Jagged]

Originally Posted by Raydal

Jesus did it so it can't be unethical.

-Ray Edwards

Before you all go getting your panties bunched up...
Jesus (heyzues) is that marketer from mexico city...isn't he?

[Dan C. Rinnert]

Originally Posted by ExRat

I don't mind them taking the money so much - it's the lies, deceit and damage they do that bothers me - and of course, when an example is set at the 'top', it trickles all the way down until it's ingrained as part of the culture.

Lying and deception isn't marketing. It's lying and deception. If you have to lie and deceive people to sell your product, you are not a marketer. You're a scammer.

[MichaelHiles]

If you're solving a legitimate problem, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the problem, and the risks involved in not solving said problem before presenting your product or service as a solution.

The fear happens in the mind of the buyer.

If the fear isn't great enough to overcome purchase resistance, then you have a value problem somewhere in your marketing mix - up to and including a product or service that isn't really needed.

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by JasonHicks

If you don't use fear, you're losing out on probably the most effective marketing method.

Actually, I think the most effective emotion in marketing right now is ANGER.

People are angry. They want to hurt someone. They want to make the rest of the world pay.

I think there's really a lot more money in that than there is in fear, these days. You'd have to be in a slightly different niche, though.

When you really look at it, I don't think the ethical concern is in identifying and tapping into the customer's emotions. I think the ethical concern is in manipulating the customer's emotions, to create an emotional state that wasn't already there.

Like the difference between saying "hey, what are you doing with your money now that the dollar is dropping?" - which is a legitimate fear - and "hey, the Amero is going to replace the dollar soon, you'd better buy a bunch of them or else all your money will be worthless!" which is a scam.

[dv8]

Originally Posted by Dan C. Rinnert

For example, take the upcoming new FTC requirements. I would contend that, despite the harm caused by some unscrupulous marketers, we would be far, far better off were those requirements applied to politicians rather than marketers. I'd like to see them explain the typical results that can be expected if they get elected. Oh, and seeing how they manage endorsements and testimonials under the new regulations would be fun too.

HAHA! Never thought of this. That would be hilarious.

[ShaneRQR]

I think the question of ethics, in this case, doesn't concern whether you activate, create the fear or just remind them of it.

The question is whether the fear is rational or not. And with fear-based marketing, it almost never is.
We're afraid of all kinds of stuff that never happens to anyone (kidnappings, terrorist attacks) and not of things that really are dangerous (driving a car, smoking). At least statistically speaking.

Fear based marketing plays it's part in skewing our already off-balance sense of risk. That is ethically not great.

But fear-based marketing simply is a reality. Everyone who can do it, does it.
To me, it's one of the many things that are not good, but neither terrible. And because it's omnipresent, I would probably not even feel guilty (much) if I did it myself.

Just my 2c.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Sex sells! Oh wait...

[Ken Snowdon]

Fear base media marketing seems to be the norm these days. Just look at all the fear instilled in peoples minds when they see an ad that on one hand is telling you how good this medication, tool or any other toy is going to be, to go on the flip side and give you a warning about the product that scares some people have to death. People have choices in life and they have to take individual action to block out Right from Wrong choices. I am presently dealing with a situation with my 15 yr old son who is being told by his friends that smoking grass is the norm at High Schools now by most of his friends. Do I instill the fear of God in him about the affects of smoking grass and the negatives about the drug or do I discuss choices in life that we all have to make at no matter what age. Fear mongers are abundant in our society, one just has to separate the truths and live with their consequences.

[Martin Luxton]

One of the reasons that fear-based marketing is effective is that so many people have piss poor risk management knowledge.

If you live in America you are some 35 times more likely to die in a transport accident than die of swine flu.

15 times more likely to be killed by a firearm than swine flu.

22 times more likely to die of poisoning than swine flu.

3 times more likely to drown than die of swine flu.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/in...of%20Dying.pdf

N.B. These calculations are based on the US government's estimates of deaths pre-vaccine availability. When the vaccine became available and met some "buyer resistance" the government changed its counting method and discovered the number of deaths wasn't around 1,200, but over 4,000.

H1N1 Deaths Appear To Triple Overnight - ABC News

Fear-based marketing or coincidence?

Martin

[Bob Harmon]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

There are only two core emotions that drive all buying decisions.

Value & Fear

I couldn't agree more, people will buy anything if they feel like they are getting a great deal on something or the thought that it will no longer be there when they come back later to buy...I know I have been guilty of both of these buying reasons.

I bought a home security system at our last home from a sales lady who was very good at her job she used a lot of "what if" scare tactics and my wife and I both being new first time parents bought it all, it didn't matter how much it cost we needed to protect our new family. One day something triggered our alarm and when I met the police over at our house the officer told me he could see no sign of attempted break in. He then told me if he came to rob our house and heard our TWO very big dogs inside he wouldn't go inside. We already had the best home security alarm on the market but out of fear we spent a couple grand on an alarm system(install & monthly monitoring). We cancelled our service after that.

In short fear sells. It shouldn't be the only method used but it does work like gang busters.

[graham41]

Fear based marketing is a wonderful tatic in my opinion so long as it is done in a responsible manner. It works both online and off line. Greed is also a powerful tool.

A solution for recovering from a bad situation is also more powerful than fear of preventing a bad situation e.g clients do not change business consultants until those consultants advice has landed them in trouble with the taxman.

G

[jamawebinc]

Originally Posted by GeezerXtreme

I'm curious to see what people think. One of the most common marketing tools is to appeal to people's emotions, but do you guys think that fear-based marketing is slightly unethical

The reason I ask is because we sell extremely high-tech security systems, and appealing to people's sense of safety is an obvious tactic to get them to listen, however I can't help but feel slightly bad by doing so. Do you consider appealing to people's core emotions unethical, or is all fair in love and marketing?

No, it is not unethical. How many decisions are made based on fear?

How many decisions are made by every person in 1 day based on fear?

Here are some examples ---------

I better pay that bill today or I may be charged a late fee.

I should stand back a bit from the street with my young son, what if a taxi driver screws up and comes up on the sidewalk?

I'll go a different route to the store, I might see that annoying guy I don't want to talk to.

I can't eat that food because I'll have a terrible headache later.

I better do everything I can to see my parents for the holidays, they are getting older and won't be around forever.

Almost all decisions are based on pain or pleasure, so pointing out those fears and making them stronger, more important, etc is not unethical.

If you have a great product that will help someone and alleviate their fear, then it is your responsibility to do everything you can so they decide to take action and get it.

Of course, if you are lying or your product is crap, or you use illegal means to play on their fears - that's unethical.

[greenovni]

Websites that do really good with fear marketing:

http://abovetopsecret.com

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[GeezerXtreme]

Wow, this thread really blew up after I went to bed, thanks for all the useful feedback guys

Going to have to go through one by one and read them all now