Talk:Louis Cheskin/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Last paragraph of sensation transference
"It could be concluded that consumers are not aware of their reactions, that they are irrational, or that this approach was 'preying' on consumers. However, there is more to this understanding of how people behave: that people have admittedly strange reactions to elements separate from product effectiveness is amoral; i.e., not right nor wrong.[citation needed] It is not appropriate for companies or any other organization to cast judgement on how consumers' brains work or how society affects consumers' perceptions and experiences; instead, this is another mechanism that companies and developers of products take into account in making decisions on how to meet their customers’ needs. Whether an organization uses these understandings ethically or not is another question entirely. There is a fine line between clear, motivating communication and propaganda.[citation needed]"
Unless this is just a report of Cheskin's ideas this whole paragraph is subjective. Those citation needed's are pretty funny. Who's going to pronounce something amoral or appropriate to wikipedia's citation standard? The pope? Richard Dawkins? Jon Stewart? I'm deleting this for now. If it is just a report of Cheskin's ideas it needs to be rephrased to acknowledge that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckduckMOO (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)