
When Websites Won’t Take No for an Answer - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/technology/personaltech/when-websites-wont-take-no-for-an-answer.html
======
exodust
LinkedIn suffered a class-action lawsuit for their email spam! I didn't know
that, good to hear. I left years ago and remember it difficult to leave (lack
of close account function, and kept receiving emails after unsubscribing).

On the LinkedIn issues, this tweet surely is the funniest:
[https://twitter.com/darylginn/status/590664399041519617](https://twitter.com/darylginn/status/590664399041519617)

On dark patterns, or at least it felt dark... I was booking an overnight ferry
trip across Bass Strait in Australia. After selecting the fare, entering my
details about my car make and model, name and address, cabin choice etc, and
about to enter credit card details, the website proclaims "our real-time fare
system has adjusted the price" and my fare went up $40 right there and then on
the final step of the booking process. Not happy.

~~~
CaptSpify
I hate this, because it's made me cynical. I don't even try to un-subscribe
from emails like this anymore, I just mark them as spam. And that hurts the
good companies that do listen and unsubscribe you easily, because now they are
being looked at as spammy.

~~~
ams6110
Yep. Anything sent by Constant Contact or MailChimp is auto-junked for me. I
never see it.

~~~
manyxcxi
At least from a MailChimp perspective at least those emails all come with
unsubscribe links and such in them and I have found MailChimp to actually
honor those. It's the ones that aren't from MailChimp, et al that I think
twice before clicking unsubscribe on because it could just be a ruse to prove
its a live account.

~~~
CaptSpify
That's the problem though: The bad players are hurting the good players. I
don't unsubscribe from stuff using mailchimp, because I'm just not going to
take the time to learn which systems are legit and will unsubscribe you, and
which ones are shady.

So in this case, mailchimp is getting marked as spam, even though they are an
honest player.

~~~
manyxcxi
That's valid, I'm sure I've done the same more times than I know. My general
rule is if it's from a brand or site I know I've interacted with or generally
recognize I'll spend two seconds to check the unsub options.

If the unsub requires me to log in first, I mark it spam instead. If the link
looks fishy and/or I can't readily discern it's of any quality it's spam. If I
have no clue why I could've gotten the message it gets flagged for sure.

Luckily for me I get very few emails per month that I don't know why I
would've gotten them, so it isn't a painful exercise to give them a chance to
not get flagged.

I use Unroll.me[0] to manage the messages I do want to get, but want to check
on my own time and I don't want them sitting in my inbox. I'm sure there are
other types of services, but I'm generally happy with what they do. They also
can manage a lot of the opt-out features as well, not sure if it 'protects' me
any more than doing it myself though.

[0] [https://unroll.me](https://unroll.me)

~~~
rhizome
Requiring you to log in to unsubscribe is a violation of CAN-SPAM:

#6: [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/can...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-
center/guidance/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business)

------
ikeboy
Two rants:

Signed up for pickydomains a while back, they send me emails every time
there's a new listing. I decide I don't want to get the email anymore. Click
the unsubscribe link. They want me to sign in. I sign in, and am unable to do
anything without agreeing to their changed Terms of Service.

In other words, I have no way to get them to stop emailing me without agreeing
to new terms.

Similarly, I once signed up for a trial of IBD newspaper. I still get emails
from them occasionally (although those at least go to spam), and the
unsubscribe link requires a sign in, which I don't remember. I could probably
reset my password if I cared enough, though.

(These are just the two I remember, I'm sure there's been others that were
similar. I had an issue with PayPal spam at one point as well but it was more
complicated.)

As far as I can tell, both of those are in violation of the CANSPAM act.
Companies are required to offer an opt out link with no additional
requirements to opt out. But there's no consumer right of action, so the only
one who can enforce it is the government, and they focus on worse spammers, so
real businesses that are just aggressive mostly get off free.

~~~
cm2187
Unsubscribing is a waste of time. Even when they do stop the spam, in 99% of
the time it is only temporary and after a few months they start again.
Deletable email aliases is the solution. If they spam you, you show them the
finger and delete the alias.

~~~
ikeboy
That's true for actual spammers (i.e. if they buy your address from a list and
so on) but not for legitimate companies. Both examples I gave are real
companies that I signed up for. I'm pretty sure if I managed to unsubscribe
they would honor it.

~~~
cm2187
No I have many examples in my mailbox from major companies.

~~~
ikeboy
Can you name and shame them, like I did?

~~~
cm2187
Looking at my spam folder: Air France, freelancer.com, Addison Lee,
Pluralsight, etc. I gave up playing whack a mole with unsubsubribe links that
never get honored. I now filter emails automatically by domain name and/or
keyword (for the companies that got my email before I switched to this alias
system).

------
kerkeslager
Facebook is pretty guilty of this too. I "deleted my account" on Facebook
years ago and the only effect this had was that I lost access make changes to
my account. The account still exists and still is accessible[1], albeit with
outdated information. I have no doubt they're still making money off my data.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/david.kerkeslager](https://www.facebook.com/david.kerkeslager)

~~~
dave2000
It wouldn't surprise me if Facebook created profiles for people who've never
used it, just by virtue of having enough of their friends having their contact
details. IE if 5 people are friends and all have "fred bloggs" in their
contact list then there's a good chance it's the same "fred bloggs". I'm not
sure what this virtual person is worth to advertisers, though, just like I'm
not sure what you're worth if you don't use it any more.

~~~
mason55
They absolutely do this and have been doing it for awhile. If you google
"Facebook shadow profiles" you'll get plenty of info about it.

------
xg15
_To help companies gauge where their techniques fall along the persuasive-to-
manipulative spectrum, Chris Nodder, a user-experience consultant in Seattle,
has developed guidelines for ethical conduct. Systems that nudge people to act
in the public interest are “charitable,” he told me, while products like
Fitbit, which may help people develop better habits, are “motivational. “If
the company benefits more than the consumer, I would call it ‘evil design,’”
said Mr. Nodder, who wrote a book on the topic called “Evil by Design.” If an
approach benefits the company and the customer equally, he added, “you are
probably in the realm of ‘commercial design.’”_

I find it surprising that the researcher apparently makes the distinction
whether a certain UI is "dark" or not depending on what it is used for.

As a customer, unless I signed up with the explicit goal of habit-change (e.g.
for a fitness service) I would very much _not_ like to be manipulated no
matter if the cause is "good" or not.

~~~
adevine
> I would very much not like to be manipulated no matter if the cause is
> "good" or not.

The problem is the definition of "manipulated" is not black and white.
Consider the relatively recent change in StubHub's fee model. Consumers will
always tell you they hate having a service fee tacked on at the last minute
when checking out. So, for a while, StubHub tried all-inclusive pricing on
their search results, and consumers said they liked the change. However, it
ended up tanking their conversion rates. When they A/B tested putting the fee
on last, they immediately saw an increase in shoppers willing to buy.

Is this manipulation? The fee was still clearly stated on checkout, but I
imagine the subconscious thought process of shoppers was "well, crap, I've
already made it this far, I just want these tickets now."

I agree some of the outright "tricking" examples from the article are over the
line, but most forms of marketing are manipulation in some respect. When does
"persuasion" become "manipulation"?

~~~
xg15
I see that as a very clear example of manipulation, actually.

They presented a meaningless price when in situations where potential
customers would compare them with competitors. Only when they can be sure that
a customer would likely not check the price anymore (because they think they
already know it or because of psychological reasons), they show the actual
amount.

That's a very clear case of improving their own situation (better conversion
rates) by worsening their customers' situation (higher likelihood of
overspending, reduced ability to compare prices) and making them act against
their own interests. This would be manipulation by the all of article's
criteria.

Of course as a company you can decide do use that strategy - it's not your job
to think for your your customers. But don't be surprised if consumer advocacy
groups flag you and at some point you find people demanding a law against that
practice.

More generally, I'd draw the line to "marketing" if you supply information to
the customer that's either meaningless or misleads the customer, but could not
possibly help them reach their own goals. (As in this case presenting an
amount in the search results that has no practical relevance.)

I'd draw the line to "manipulation" even earlier, if you make a person act in
a way that's against their own conscious interests in the moment. As I said,
there can be rare cases in which that manipulation could even be wanted by the
person, but I don't see that changing the fact that it's manipulation. It's
different from "persuasion" where you make the person change their interests.

~~~
cm2012
But if more people buy the product in the fee at the end situation, doesnt
that mean that they really prefer a fee at the end? It is just as irrational
to not buy the product as to buy it in either scenario, since the price is the
same.

You're starting with the prior that buying stuff is bad and should be
discouraged in general. This is quite arguable.

~~~
xg15
> _But if more people buy the product in the fee at the end situation, doesn
> 't that mean that they really prefer a fee at the end?_

Nope. Otherwise people should absolutely _love_ my approach of forcing them to
buy at gunpoint - perfect conversion rate!

Even if you assume that the data implies customers prefer the fee at the end,
you'd also have to research _why_ they do so - and solve the mystery of why
your statistic suggests they prefer the fee at the end, yet direct user
feedback suggests the opposite.

> _It is just as irrational to not buy the product as to buy it in either
> scenario, since the price is the same._

That kind of rationality requires perfect information. But it is likely that
the price _appears_ lower in the fee-at-end-case, because that is the only
effect that the change has - so perfect information is not given. As the price
is in fact the same as you say, that would make fee-at-end the case with
irrational behavior.

> _You 're starting with the prior that buying stuff is bad and should be
> discouraged in general. This is quite arguable._

No, my premise is that buying stuff while you don't know the price is bad,
which I think is a commonly accepted sentiment.

------
dredmorbius
The ultimate problem with such dark patterns is that they darken the prospects
for all participants.

I'veb been long aware of such trends. Something as simple as a multi-step
transaction process, across multiple screens. I literally _cannot see_ what
the end-stage requests will be before committing. If I don't bug out
immediately, I'll just throw random inputs at the page to see what the hell it
does.

But it's another reason why I'll strongly prefer in-store, brick-and-morter
purchases, or anything that _doesn 't_ have a service contract (the "agree to
our new ToS to cancel your account" story below really puts the shine and hurt
on this), etc.

Much as the whole microlawsuits thing sounds like an absolute PITA, something
which reduces frictions for consumers to sue would be interesting. Respond to
failed opt-out tools with a claim for damages and costs....

Sigh.

~~~
dingaling
> Something as simple as a multi-step transaction process

Amazon UK has an horrid check-out process that omits any clickable bail-out
links, should you want to back-up to change something you have to edit the URL
bar.

They also only provide a total for all postage, on one page, with no break-out
of what applies to which item ( from multiple vendors ).

I assume it's meant to be slick and non-distracting but it feels like a
greased laundry chute through which you are sliding...

~~~
grogenaut
They rolled out a go back to browsing mode in the us a few months ago on
checkout. I think they looked at the data about how often people want to add
one more item especially with the hated "Add on item" and prime. Also how
often carts were being abandoned anyway to add more items.

------
CPLX
I consider myself pretty cynical by nature, and I still found this Ryanair
example rather astonishing:
[https://twitter.com/Jelliott08/status/430777503360491520?lan...](https://twitter.com/Jelliott08/status/430777503360491520?lang=en)

~~~
JadeNB
It's mentioned in the article:

> Whereas Ryanair once placed the insurance opt-out option in a drop-down menu
> of passengers’ home countries — between Denmark and Finland — it now simply
> gives passengers the option of adding insurance.

------
Animats
Amazon Prime.

If you use Amazon but don't want Amazon Prime, you get deceptive dialogs
shoved in your face at least twice per purchase.

~~~
pluma
Did you know you can save $20 on this purchase by applying for an Amazon
credit card?

If you try Amazon Prime for FREE, you also don't have to pay for shipping.

~~~
gohrt
Don't worry, we'll default to Prime when you check out, as long as you don't
hunt for the obscure opt-out link.

------
eevilspock
The key last line from this EFF indictment of Facebook[1]: _" If a business
model wouldn’t work if users had to opt in, it deserves to fail."_

To me the entire ad-supported "business model" is the darkest pattern of them
all. __Please __read this comment before a knee-jerk rejection of my
claim:[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773)

-

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-
con...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/internet-companies-confusing-
consumers-profit)

~~~
andybak
So far the negative effect on my life of the sum total of tracking and ad-
profiling has been - to the best of my knowledge - neglible. (Largely because
the ability of companies to use data to my detriment hasn't kept pace with the
thirst for collecting it).

In return I've been given free access to a huge amount of free content and
free functionality. Plus - very occasionally - the advertising is beneficial
rather than merely irrelevant.

~~~
eevilspock
If you read my link then you'd realize that society is subsidizing all your
free shit. There is no free lunch.

------
x5n1
They don't care cost of doing business. Internet is an advertising and
marketing platform with all the downsides of that. Part of the function of an
advertising marketing platform is to gather as much information about users to
sell them stuff. That's what pays for billion dollar valuations. This is not
going away.

~~~
55555
A lot of it could go away with better consumer protection laws and
enforcement. I'm not sure why this country puts up with deceptive negative-
option rebills. They should just show the sales funnel to 100 random citizens,
and ask them how much they think they are going to be charged after going
through it. If more than 50 people get the answer wrong, what you are doing is
obviously deceptive (Yes this would include things like mortgages and credit
card fees).

~~~
uxp
Because one person or company that is bound to lose millions of dollars, or
their entire business model (deceptive advertising and marketing, for one) has
more of an incentive to lobby against a regulation than a million unorganized
people that might lose 25 or 30 dollars over signing up for a difficult to
cancel "membership".

------
semi-extrinsic
" _``That’s when things start to drift into manipulation,” said Katie
Swindler, director of user experience at FCB Chicago, an ad agency._ "

Really, her last name is Swindler? That's just funny.

------
ninguem2
So I clicked on the link and, for the umpteenth time, was greeted by their
pop-up saying "we can't go on like this" and asking me to whitelist them on my
adblocker. I am a subscriber of their online edition. Oh, the irony.

------
hannob
This is actually a widespread practice among German ISPs. I once fell for this
myself. What they do is that when you order something they automatically add
some service most customers almost certainly don't want or need (like a
software package or homepage webspace) and that is free for the first months.
You cannot remove that from your order, you have to later cancel it manually.
As it's free at the beginning new customers checking their bill won't notice
it as something odd (it's some free addon, why care?). Then after some time it
starts costing a fee.

~~~
robert_tweed
That sort of thing is now illegal in the UK and most likely in Germany too.
The trouble is that there are no penalties beyond individual refunds and not
enough people are aware of their rights for it to have a significant impact.

See: [http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2014/08/26/some-dark-
pa...](http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2014/08/26/some-dark-patterns-now-
illegal-in-uk-interview-with-heather-burns/)

Note that this article is from two years ago and at least one of the sites
called out is still doing the same thing.

------
iampims
Meetup.com forces you to log in to unsubscribe. Their emails go straight to
junk.

~~~
Endy
I'd call Meetup a different case; as someone who actively uses the service,
both as Organizer & Member... I need to know if someone knew signed up to my
Meetup so I can send the a message and engage them. Or if a new group started
up competing with me (or groups I'm a member of). My own RSVP notifications
are obvious. Sorry, but the email Meetup sends is literally integral to the
function of the service.

------
lfender6445
godaddy is notorious for this when you are purchasing or renewing a domain

------
dustinupdyke
_Click_ \--> NYT Article --> _Back_ \--> Open in new incognito window

A dark pattern if I ever saw one.

~~~
BrandonBradley
My NYT savior! Thanks

