Are you making them more stubborn?

The Cost of Miscalculated Persuasion

In the late 19th century, French colonial rulers passed a law to contain the rat population that was booming in the sewer network below Vietnam's capital, Hanoi. For every dead rat brought in to the authorities, the catcher was rewarded. However, for every rat killed, several more were bred solely for this incentivized slaughter. The authorities had inadvertently fueled a counterproductive cycle before fully calculating the implications of their incentive.

The limits of authoritarian persuasion have always been evident. In 1958, Mao Zedong ordered a campaign to eliminate sparrows in China, labeling them as pests that consumed grain. The populace mobilized to scare and kill sparrows en masse. However, without sparrows to keep them in check, crop-eating insects and locusts multiplied, leading to even greater devastation. Similarly, Nestlé's aggressive marketing of baby formula in developing countries undermined breastfeeding, jeopardized child health, and caused immense harm in regions without access to clean drinking water.

It’s a fascinating case of good intentions gone wrong; when establishments act in isolation, when they simply fail or forget to anticipate the unintended consequences of forced persuasion. One would think they’re driving action, motivating change, guiding mass behavior and in that zeal to convince, most end up breeding disobedience. The dynamic between intent and reception is far more complex than the physical nature of action and reaction. It involves emotions, conditioning, social constructs and everything else that we humans pride ourselves on conceptualizing as superior beings.

The Death of Hard Sell

Think about it.

Have you ever felt your opinion shifting not towards someone’s argument but away from it just because of how forcefully they made their case? It’s not that their points weren’t valid. In fact, you might’ve even agreed with them in theory. But humans don't just dislike being told what to think, they recoil from it, by clinging defensively onto their beliefs. Now whether these beliefs are objectively worth protecting is the beginning of a very diabolical conversation that could get this writer into a lot of trouble. Think of those endless "BUY NOW" commands or the relentless urgency of "Don’t Miss Out!”. People dig in their heels. Wouldn’t you? It’s a reflexive reaction to reject not just the pressure exerted towards the purchase but subsequently also the product itself. Of course, every generalization has exceptions. In the case of certain products, effectiveness often depends on the socio-economic context—one word, cupons. 

Hive Minds and Human Biases

Human evolution took meticulous notes from bees. It catalyzed an organic chain reaction, aggregating and maximizing diverse human wisdoms into a singular entity called the collective conscience, or swarm intelligence, as we observe among bees. Applied to product design, this collective conscience yields the ‘user persona’, a spirit that seems to guide all further decisions. But here’s where things get counterintuitive: every one of us is shaped by a unique set of biases; the more we evolve as a social species, the more biases we add to this repository. We stand open to being convinced or subtly persuaded, but despise being controlled. Why? It threatens our sense of self, robbing us of our perceived individuality and ‘evolution.’ The evolution of marketing is intricately tied to this understanding of human cognition and its resulting behavioral expression. As society evolved, so did the marketeers approach, from forced persuasion to subterfuge tactics aimed at convincing user personas. These tactics have only become more refined as our biases multiply. The result of this evolution? Consumers today are no longer passive recipients of information. Despite their need for self-actualization, they rarely act in solidarity. Consequently, the marketer's fuel is no longer limited to economic transactions; it is about the psychology of choice—autonomy. We don’t need it, and very few actually want to be alleviated from the suffering of decision making. But in a very twisted way, every consumer wants to be accredited for their choice even if it’s delivered in the form of critique. But the savvy modern consumer has seen it all before. They recognize the shallow effort behind phrases like "Only 5 left in stock!" and "Last chance!" and resist them. Some see this resistance as an internal ego battle while others have simply built a tolerance to decades of loud signage. The path forward requires reframing autonomy by treating the perceptive consumer as a partner in a shared, controlled narrative, rather than a target of forced persuasion.

When Advertising Stopped Being About Ads

In the early 20th century, Coca-Cola and Ivory Soap began using storytelling techniques in advertising. They explored emotional bonds, care and purity respectively, that went beyond product features. In the 70s, the television provided a new medium for storytelling and so began the concept of advocacy. In the 90s, as competition grew, so did narratives, so did empathy. By the dawn of the 2000s, digital marketing was the craze, the only input consumers required to make well-informed purchasing decisions. And so they stood convinced. Apple exemplified this by turning product launches into events, rather than bombarding customers with ads. They don’t chase you down with relentless ads, begging for your business. Sure, they market, but it’s effortless and as a result, their marketing feels effortless, empowering customers to believe the choice was entirely their own. By the time marketing reached the 2010s, it had gotten out of the marketeers’ control. Social media took brands that were restricted to first-world countries and generated clout in developing countries. User-generated advocacy took over advertising, and branding efforts began to slip through marketeers' fingers.

For marketing geeks, this shift represents a rich area of research. How can brands facilitate genuine co-creation without seeming manipulative? How do we measure the impact of user-generated content? And how could we ever possibly influence the nature of this content from 8 billion different angles?

In a Scrutinized World

Looking ahead to 2030, the demand for authenticity and transparency will continue to intensify. Consumers are scrutinizing brands more than ever, looking for alignment between stated values and actions. Brands that proactively demonstrate their commitment to these causes will be well-positioned for immediate success while the rest will lay in startup graveyards.

Success stories abound: Volvo’s universally applauded commitment to safety, TOMS "One for One" business model, replicated by Bombas, also seen in Warby Parker's "Buy a Pair, Give a Pair." Patagonia’s Patagonia Provisions. Interface’s ethical production aimed at turning into a carbon-neutral business by 2040. Wipro's public pledge of 66% of its economic interests in philanthropy, Zomato’s voice on small-scale local dining. Sula Vineyards experiential environmental stewardship.