How to Avoid Believing Weird Things
The Competition Bureau took five years to shut this website down, which "used testimonials" from people who did not exist. Strangely, this is not legal.
Five years on the job and no restitution to any consumers.
On the other hand, the Competition Bureau did receive a $100,000 fine. Nice work.
But, why do testimonials work? Here is a marketing guru's take on testimonials:
(my emphasis)
"Most of us would rather act on a referral from a friend than make a purchase based on a sales pitch alone. We want to know that the product actually works before we take the leap to buy, and we're bound to put more trust in someone who has already used the product successfully than the person trying to convince us to buy it."
I agree that this is a psychological truth, but it really doesn't make any sense as a decision strategy. Why is it so compelling to "act on a referral from a friend"? Especially when it can be easy to fake the testimonials?
Technorati Tags: job seekers, competition bureau, testimonials, sales pitch, psychological truth, restitution, leap, guru, salaries, referral, promises, consumers, marketing
One reason we act on testimonials without too much regard to their truth is that we are pretty bad at induction, reasoning from a series of instances to the general cause. One good testimonials is better than 1000 inconvenient facts.
When we hear a testimonial, we naturally frame the question as "Is the speaker telling the truth or not?"
We are loathe to assume that someone we disagree with is lying; we then become influenced by the testimonial, even if we were inclined to ignore it. In the mediavel sense of the word, the testimonial has increased the probability of the event being true.
How can we avoid this frame?
We can avoid the improper seduction of a testimonial, by always asking what is more reasonable:
a) that the testifier has made a mistake in some in their report, or
b) the extravagent report or "miracle" is true?
A mistake is not a lie. So, I can disbelieve the testimonial without having to believe that the person is a liar.
Here is an example, taken from an enthusiast of Bioperformance. Jerry Thompson wrote:
"You should not cast a stone when you yourself have not been proven accurate in your assumptions. I personally refuse to promote anything that I have not used myself with successful results. Since I have experienced successful results with "the silly ideas like BioPerformance" I will continue to promote them and their porduct without reguard for your lack of acceptance."
Mr. Thompson on his website promotes "gas savings up to 35 cents on the dollar".
Assuming "up to 35 cents" means something like "close to 35 cents", then which is more probable: a) Mr. Thompson's experience is mistaken, or b) a miracle has occured? I leave it to the reader to decide.
Technorati Tags: job seekers, competition bureau, testimonials, sales pitch, psychological truth, restitution, leap, guru, salaries, referral, promises, consumers, marketing
