Is branding evil, using all it can to manipulate the unaware consumer into buying yet another useless thing? And by extension, am I engaging in unethical behavior for a living? I started looking into this, in part hoping that I would find a point of view that would relieve my conscience.

But beyond the mental gymnastics that would help me sleep better at night, it’s essential to address the ethical dilemma head-on. And in the process, define the way we approach the act of persuasion, influence, and manipulation, on one side and understand our role as consumers on the other side.

Why it matters

More and more, consumers view marketing as manipulation. For a good reason too. Many marketers with flexible ethics have contributed to this feeling of apprehension. Looking at the use of the word over time, the sharp and steady rise that started around the late 50s coincides with an increased interest in psychology and its real-life application in politics and marketing.

More recently, information technology has joined politics and marketing in their efforts to control our opinion, perception, and behaviors to get our time, votes, and money.

As marketing strategies are increasingly more sophisticated and consumers savvier, we’re in a race with no winners, where one side consistently tries to outsmart the other.

So maybe there’s a better way to go about this. Understanding what affects our decisions can bring transparency to the business-client relationship, ultimately bringing the system to a state of symbiosis.

What is manipulation, and what is wrong with it?

In his article, Fifty Shades of Manipulation, Cass R. Sunstein defines manipulation as:

A statement or action can be said to be manipulative if it does not sufficiently engage or appeal to people’s capacity for reflective and deliberative choice.

According to him, manipulation presupposes two conditions:

the manipulator’s goals are self-interested
it subverts or bypasses the choosers’ deliberative capacities

Conspicuously missing here is the outcome of the manipulative act. It turns out an act is manipulative regardless of intent. It is not relevant whether the act is done for the good of the people or not. But intention does qualify it, helping to address the question from a different, more nuanced perspective.

MALEVOLENT MANIPULATION

When the manipulator is acting out of self-interest to the detriment of others, it is generally understood as deceit or fraud. These tend to be regulated by law or at the very least, it is heavily sanctioned by society whenever it is made aware.

In 2015, German automaker Volkswagen’s image and shares took a significant dive when the Environmental Protection Agency announced sanctions for manipulating software to hide the emissions its cars produce. The fraud impacted the trust of the public so badly that it spilled over to other European car manufacturers, who also saw a drop in share price in the period following the Dieselgate scandal.

Such a slip in judgment has severe repercussions. First, the brand takes a hit that can ultimately bankrupt the business. The trust that took decades to build can be destroyed in a day, and some companies never recover from it.

Even when played on a small scale, manipulative tactics are not sustainable. When a customer feels they're taken advantage of, the business loses them as a client at the very least. More likely they will also spread the word. An unhappy customer has many avenues to express their anger and dissatisfaction. Nowadays, every business can be reviewed on Google Maps and every platform has reviews incorporated into the purchase process. They are an important factor in ranking against the competition and making it to the first pages that draw the most sales.

Prioritizing short-term gains over long-term mutually beneficial relationships will eventually backfire. The public, the press, NGOs, and other institutions make it their priority to keep businesses in line, making sure everyone plays fairly. Of course, not all nefarious deeds get to be punished. But in a highly competitive market, when one product or service can easily be replaced by the other, trust is a company’s biggest asset, and the downside is too big to be worth the risk.

BENEVOLENT MANIPULATION

Trying to influence people’s behavior for their good has its ethical downside as well. It is not the get-out-of-jail-free card I initially hoped for. “You were acting in my best interest, but why wasn’t I allowed to decide for myself?” is a valid objection against benevolent but manipulative acts.

In and of itself, it undermines the individual’s autonomy and ability to make decisions that are in their best interest. It leads them to choose without adequately weighing the costs and benefits on their terms.

“For the good of the people” also presupposes that the acting party knows what is best for said people. There are two problems with this paternalistic approach. First, treating people like children who don’t know what’s good for them is an affront to their dignity. And second, it seems to me that there is a high risk for corruption once the manipulative mechanisms are in place. What starts with a good intention can quickly turn dark if left unchecked.

So if someone is concerned with the welfare of the individual, why not try to persuade them and present the facts in a fair and neutral way?

THE REALIST TAKE

Manipulation is embedded in the fabric of all social interactions and is here to stay. Wishing it away seems to be a moot point.

In every relationship or encounter, we use subtle tricks that don’t even register as manipulation at this point. Things like tone of voice or choosing a particular outfit for the interview are designed to make a confident impression beyond the rational arguments that come out of our mouths.

In the previous article series on sensory branding, I wrote about the impact of the human senses on brand perception. Sound and smell are adept at triggering emotion and memory, sight is the rational sense that helps the brand stand out, touch plays a role in comfort and perception of quality, and taste is a bit of a catch-all sense that evokes emotional closeness.

Those who sell products are often engaged in at least arguable forms of manipulation. On the benign end, it takes a mild form that is generally socially acceptable, if only because it is pervasive in all aspects of our lives. Trying to avoid all manipulative tactics in branding would mean stripping the communication of all colors, literally and figuratively.

THE PRACTICAL TAKE

A second answer is that pure rational persuasion is, for the most part, inefficient. Harvard Business School professor Gerald Zaltman claims that 95% of our purchase decision-making occurs in the subconscious mind. There's much more behind this statement, that I'll address in a separate post. But for now, it's relevant to grasp that persuading someone through facts and reason alone can at most maximize the remaining 5%.

Homo economicus is a theoretical abstraction that economists use to describe a rational human being who is consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and pursues their goals optimally. It does not, however, reflect reality. A whole new field, behavioral economics, has emerged for this exact purpose - to find a better model that explains and predicts human behavior in real-life situations.

Trying to convince people to quit smoking is a good example of the inefficiency of rational arguments. Sharing the facts in a neutral way and informing the public of the adverse effects through numbers and statistics has had little impact. One strategy that goes a step beyond the neutral approach, and can be seen as manipulative, is pairing facts with disturbing images of smoking-related illnesses. According to the World Health Organization, pictorial health warnings work.

Other restrictions like enforcing policies that prevent smoking in public spaces, increasing taxes, and putting a ban on advertising tobacco products have also had a significant impact. All these efforts aim to nudge the behavior of the public.

By now you might argue that explicit actions do not count as manipulation. Indeed, manipulation is more likely to be effective if the target does not realize what is happening, but it is not a defining trait. One quick example is calling in a favor we've done for a friend in the past, to get them to do something we need in the present, even if they don't want to. "But you owe me!" usually gets the job done.

We’re only beginning to understand the 95% that affects our decisions. As communication goes, focusing on the 5% and ignoring the rest is a huge missed opportunity. While this might sound like a blanket excuse for all manipulative acts, looking at what is feasible and practical helps refocus the conversation from a theoretical debate to workable solutions that benefit both businesses and consumers.

THE BETTER QUESTION

If we consider the question we started from - Is branding Manipulative? - then yes, it is, by all the definitions that I could find. But by introducing intent and effect in the equation, we can address a better question: Is Branding Ethical? Or how can we make sure that our branding and marketing tactics are ethical and respectful of our audience?

Just because we cannot realistically avoid manipulative tactics, it does not mean that we have the go-ahead to make indiscriminate use of the tools and data at our disposal. Let's address again the two factors that define a manipulative act:

The manipulator’s goals are self-interested

Self-interest is a given. Businesses, consumers, institutions, etc., follow their own agendas. At the minimum, the company needs to make a profit to survive. But this does not imply that self-interest is at the expense of others. It can be, but the ethical thing to do is to make sure it's not.

The business should aim to create win-win relationships where both parties benefit from the interaction. This is, after all, a fundamental requirement of the economic transaction since before the invention of money. And as we've seen above, any other approach is doomed to fail in the long term.

It subverts or bypasses the choosers’ deliberative capacities.

Transparency is a necessary condition. So how can we ensure that the public is sufficiently informed and able to make rational decisions before purchase?

Naturally, in a business transaction, the intent is generally implied. We are not naive to the fact that businesses want to sell their products and services to make a profit. We may however be ignorant of their tactics to influence our behavior.

Brands are artificial personalities that emerge from the totality of micro choices and interactions. Every brand and business decision contributes to the customer's perception. In practice, it is hard to imagine a situation where businesses consistently disclose why they chose a certain color, music, or store layout.

Taken in isolation, each act can be seen as manipulative. But as a whole, communication should aim to be truthful and transparent, targeting also the consumer’s rational capacities through openly informative and persuasive means.

This looks like informing the public of the product specs, not inflating the benefits, sharing the downsides or adverse effects, disclosing all costs in advance, etc. The list is long, but the point is simple. The more accurate information available, the better.

So, where do we go from here?

In a perfect world, every individual has the right to be fully informed and allowed to make rational fact-based decisions. But we are not in a perfect world, and humans are not perfectly rational beings, as much as we like to delude ourselves otherwise.

Knowledge is a tool that can be used in harmful or in beneficial and constructive ways. As we get better at understanding what makes people tick and click, maybe even better than they understand themselves, it becomes increasingly relevant to address ethical objections. Insight comes with responsibility.

As consumers, to understand the factors that influence our perception. As branding consultants and marketers, to make sure that our actions and campaigns that target the conscious and the unconscious are not disingenuous and benefit both the company and the client.

I'm here for it! This first question opened Pandora's box, and I couldn't fit it into one post. But stick around and we will explore further what this knowledge is all about. You might find it helpful not only as a marketing professional or business owner but as a person, a member of the consumer market.

Is Branding Manipulative?