Are you afraid?
Be afraid.
Why should you be afraid? Because…
🎃 EMAIL IS SCARY!
And if you don’t listen to me (the preeminent authority on email marketing) and implement my advice…
📉 your business will fail,
🥶 hell will freeze over,
🪖 WWIII will commence,
🐖 pigs will fly,
🌠 an asteroid will wipe out life on earth,
🫵 it’ll be all your fault,
🪦 and then you’ll die alone.
I’m joking 🤣, obviously…
Above is an extreme and satirical example of stoking fear. Fear-based marketing, if you don’t already know, is leveraging a lead’s negative emotional response to induce a purchasing decision.
Fearmongering marketing email gets a bad rep. I’ve heard many claim it’s unethical. and avoid businesses that use it, or will outright call them out for it!
Let’s examine the claim, “Fear-based marketing is unethical.“
Didn’t see Part 5?
Catch up on the whole series: groundhogg.io/gh/campaigns/email-is-hard/
Part 6: “Poison profits.”
Before Groundhogg I worked with my family’s digital marketing agency. One of our clients was a maker of all-natural deodorants. It was a great product that worked well and had great reviews.
They came to us because they wanted more sales. We sat down with them and asked why people buy their natural deodorant vs store-bought.
I learned more about deodorant than I’d ever thought I would. Many individuals buy because of health-related concerns about the chemicals and metals found in deodorants and antiperspirants.
Parabens and aluminum are essential components of most antiperspirants and deodorants. Many studies (of varying quality) have been conducted to establish a causal link between the regular usage of parabens and aluminum and breast cancer. No definitive link has been established, but the jury is still out for many. The trust of established health “experts” has been significantly eroded in the last decades (whether you agree or not).
Antiperspirants, often confused with deodorant, prevent the body from sweating. It has been hypothesized that regular application of antiperspirants can have negative health effects by disrupting your body’s natural processes.
A recent study also found many brand-name products were contaminated with a known carcinogen (cancer-causing agent), benzene, above safe levels.
“In November 2021, Valisure, an independent laboratory, tested 108 body sprays from 30 different brands and found more than half contained benzene. Benzene exposure is linked to certain cancers, including leukemia and lymphoma.”
Our society has become hyper-aware of what we put in, and on, our bodies. (Have you seen the ingredients in store-bought bread recently? Allysha now makes all our bread, buns, and bagels at home.)
To capitalize on the health-conscious consumer (while providing a good quality product with real benefits), we wanted to design a marketing campaign to really emphasize the potential risk factors of using store-bought deodorant and antiperspirants.
But the client was worried about using, “scare tactics,” to get customers.
You are what you eat put on your armpits 🙋♀️…
When writing marketing copy there are typically two areas of focus.
- The problem you are trying to solve.
- The solution you are trying to sell.
Finding the perfect balance between bringing attention to the problem and identifying the solution is difficult, even for the most seasoned of copywriters.
In my opinion, most new marketers and business owners focus too much on the solution when creating their first campaigns.
Such was the case with our natural deodorant maker. They emphasized that their products contained all-natural ingredients, no artificial preservatives, etc… but never really focused on why that was important.
Personally, I think businesses have a duty and responsibility to educate and inform customers of the risks of not using their services. If using the competition means you have a legitimate risk of health issues, you should bring it up.
Fearmongering 😨, or risk education 🧑🏫?
Many have a hard time telling the difference between educating through problem-aware marketing, and fear-mongering.
Fear-mongering often entails exaggerating the issues, misrepresenting facts, or otherwise making issues appear more severe than the threat they truly pose.
To avoid fear-mongering while making a claim we want to ask ourselves some questions… (the following list was partially written with help from ChatGPT)
Is my claim supported by reliable evidence?
- Do I have credible sources to back up my claim?
- Are these sources respected and recognized in their field?
Am I presenting the information accurately?
- Have I fact-checked the details?
- Am I avoiding exaggeration or distortion of the facts?
Am I providing context for the claim?
- Have I explained the broader context in which this information exists?
- Am I including relevant background information that helps the audience understand the issue fully?
Am I considering multiple perspectives?
- Have I considered and acknowledged different viewpoints?
- Am I presenting a balanced view rather than a one-sided argument?
Am I clear about the level of risk or threat?
- Am I accurately portraying the likelihood and severity of the risk?
- Have I avoided making the threat seem more immediate or severe than it is?
Am I being transparent about uncertainties?
- Have I acknowledged any uncertainties or limitations in the data or analysis?
- Am I honest about what is unknown or still being debated?
Am I encouraging rational response rather than panic?
- Am I suggesting reasonable actions that can be taken in response to the claim?
- Am I avoiding language that could incite undue fear or panic?
Is my intention to inform rather than to manipulate?
- Am I aiming to educate and inform my audience?
- Am I avoiding using fear to manipulate opinions or behaviors for personal gain?
Ultimately, be honest with yourself and with your subscribers and you should be ok.
What the community has to say 🤔
I asked on 𝕏 and in the Post Status marketing Slack channel what business owners think about fear-based marketing. To my surprise, I got a wide variety of answers, depending on the person’s industry experience.
Here are the main takeaways from everyone’s thoughts.
The line is blurry and grey.
I got a sense that there is a very blurry line between problem identification and education, and fear-mongering for most people. Crossing too far over the line can have real consequences of putting people off your brand and losing trust. The placement of the line depends on the reader and their lived experience.
It’s not about if, but how.
The ethics about using fear is not so much whether or not you employ it, but how you use it when you do. If your intent is to be malicious and manipulative, that’s different than trying to truly empathize with someone’s pre-existing fear.
It’s industry-dependent.
Some respondents pointed out that fear-based marketing was the only mover for them in their industry when all other tactics failed.
Fear creates short-term wins.
Most agreed that using fear would only create a short-term victory. You must build trust separately to create long-term relationships.
It’s easier to stay away.
Many respondents opted to steer clear altogether, to avoid a potential misstep. Opting for “safer” marketing tactics.
Below are some (not all) of the responses I received. Read them and come up with your own opinions.
Matt Cromwell
of StellerWP
“The ethics [of using fear-based marketing] depends a bit on how real the fear is that’s being leveraged. Is the thing being promoted actually a danger? Then it’s important to emphasize both the fear & solution. If fear is being used towards something not likely, then it’s misleading misinformation.”
Joost De Valk
of Emilia Captial
“We explicitly chose to invest in PatchStack because they, unlike the vast majority of security companies, do not employ fear based tactics.
I hate those types of tactics (and hate is not a word I use lightly)”
Chris Lema
of MotivationsAI
“The question for me isn’t “Are you using fear?” but instead, “What are you doing with that fear?”
When you come alongside a prospect and use the articulated fears to connect with them and comfort them, then it comes across empathetic.”
Kathy Zant
of MotivationCode
“Coming from the security space, fear was the only thing that motivated people. No one wants to talk about security when all is well. But everyone wants to talk about security when there are incidents happening, or someone’s house is getting broken into down the street. Fear was a part of the conversation. Turning fear into empowerment, though, that’s where magic happens.”
Katie Keith
of Barn2
“I think it’s fine to use fear-based marketing in minor ways that won’t deeply affect a person, for example by using language or other techniques that appeal to their fear of missing out. However, it’s not acceptable to use more personal or deeply-rooted fears to trick them into buying your product.”
Taylor Elizabeth Rose
of LearnDash
“[Fear-based marketing is] So unethical! When I was in marketing, I refused to ever go this route and never regretted it. Other companies who use this tactic cause issues in the wider ecosystem (especially in open source ones like WordPress) and it’s all around a bad practice.”
Lawrence Ladormery
of WP BizDev
“There are plenty of examples that are both ethical and that work. Have a look at the lot of WWF’s campaigns – many examples there.
I worked at a big ad agency a while ago and one of our clients (here in Victoria, Australia) was the Traffic Accident Commission. Their mission was to reduce the number of traffic accidents to zero. Some of our ads were pretty scary.
If you ride motorcycles you may not want to see this one. One of my fav ads is a political one that starts somewhat fearfully and… well, you just gotta see it :).”
Dan Knauss
of Multidots Solutions
“…fear-based anything is bad, and doubly bad around security issues. Ever have someone try to sell you a security system at your door and start by making up stories about recent crimes? Terrible. It should be “common interest based marketing” or “risk-reduction” marketing where you help customers accurately understand and assess their risks and self-interests, especially where these coincide with collective interests. […]”
The following is taken from an unpublished post written by Dan Knauss for the WordPress security community.
Be as accurate as possible about threats — but focus on solutions. Don’t use fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) to sell solutions. Dispel fear with knowledge, demonstrate how reasonable levels of risk can be managed, and foster confidence in the tools, information, and relationships that empower WordPress users to secure their web properties. Empower people with knowledge, teach rational risk management, and show how we work together and care about each other’s welfare in open source.
Don’t minimize threats, overstate them, or tell an open-ended story of dark and scary unknowns. There is almost always an upside. What is it? What knowledge, tools, resources, and relationships will most effectively and efficiently reduce risks and increase security? There is always helpful action that can be taken now.
Always lead with that. There is always something to be learned from bad situations — what is it? At the same time, don’t minimize the downside or exploit a problem to oversell our solution as a cure-all
Should I use fear?
Like anything, if using fear it should be used in moderation. If every email you send is attempting to scare the bejesus out of your subscribers, that might cross a line eventually.
Using fear effectively is also entirely dependent on your industry and service offering. Here are some ideas I had based on recent conversations with customers.
Self-hosted CRM
“Your SaaS CRM can pull the plug at any moment. Don’t let others control your business.”
“You don’t own your data, so do you really own your business?”
College Admissions
“Students without admissions help are 30% less likely to be admitted to their dream college.”
Accountants and Tax Professionals
“You’re losing money to the IRS!”
“The government can take your stuff, but not if you have a plan!”
WordPress Agencies
“Is your site secure? Your WordPress site may be at risk.”
“Do you have a backup plan for when your site explodes?”
Risk Management
“What happens to your business if you get hit by a bus?”
“Hackers steal your data, what next?”
Insurance
“Is your family going to be okay if something happens to you?”
“More people are getting sick. Critical illness insurance can be a lifeline when you need it most.”
What you’ll notice is that all of the above statements highlight meaningful, high-impact consequences of inaction.
What I’m suggesting to you, is to highlight meaningful, real-world consequences in your marketing. If the consequences negatively impact…
- Health
- Security (financial or otherwise)
- Lifestyle
- Business
- Family
Then it is highly likely you will get a response to your marketing.
Does Groundhogg’s marketing leverage fear?
Yes, sometimes. It’s subtle and very effective.
We regularly highlight the negative outcomes customers have with SaaS CRMs, many of which go beyond extortionary pricing.
For example…
“Your SaaS CRM account can be closed for any reason, without warning.”
While it is rare, it’s baked into the terms of service of every SaaS CRM that they have the ability to refuse your business. There is no shortage of anecdotes on X and review sites of customers’ accounts being closed without warning. So it’s a verifiable claim.
Sometimes it happens by mistake, sometimes it’s intentional because your account violated something in the terms and conditions. Policies are updated frequently. What is compliant today, may not be compliant tomorrow.
When you self-host your CRM, no one can close you down. It’s important to own your data and control your own up time. Don’t leave your business exposed to third parties.
By educating leads about the risks of relying on SaaS CRMs, those concerned about up-time, long-term reliability, data ownership and security, are more likely to pick a solid self-hosted option, of which Groundhogg is one.
What about FOMO?
The “fear of missing out” is the most popular way to leverage fear in marketing. We humans have a natural instinct to be “in.” We really don’t like being left “out.”
That’s why setting limitations on availability is so effective and creating conversions.
- “While quantities last.”
- “First 100 customers.”
- “Available for a limited time only.”
- “Selling out fast.”
- “Only 40 spots available.”
- Etc.
If we don’t buy the thing we’re “out.” Out = bad.
FOMO is different than what I’ve been talking about though. Since the only consequence of missing out is, well, missing out, I wouldn’t say that there is any “real” consequence.
I think FOMO is generally overused, especially around Black Friday and other shopping-centric holidays. These days, I generally avoid it since it doesn’t offer much extra value for the consumer.
What do you think?
Is fear a useful marketing tactic, or an unethical manipulative trick? Can businesses use fear and still be considered genuine?
Can, and should businesses use fear? Vote now 👇
