"Before you go, do you want this special one-time offer?"

The message flashed on my screen.

I managed to find the 6 point font at the very bottom that said "No, thanks, I'm an idiot who wants life to be harder" (or something along those lines).

Immediately, another one popped up.

"So you didn't want that one, but what about this one?"

Nope, still not interested.

"Are you SURE you don't want it now? I just cut the price in half JUST FOR YOU. But this is a limited time offer that will never ever again show up if you click off this page!!!!!"

(Fun life hack: Just copy the url and save it in a note somewhere. 9 times out of 10 that never-to-be-seen-again offer will be there.)

But seriously.

Nothing makes me more annoyed that I just gave someone my credit card information than when I get hit with a million obtrusive upsells afterwards.

Not a great way to start a new relationship with me as a customer.

But here's the thing: It's not the upsells that annoy me.

It's the way they're used.

There's increased conversation in the marketing space about "bro marketing."

(And its near relation, "sis marketing," where people fake appearing super relatable to you — even though they are in a completely different tax bracket — so that you'll feel like they care about you and get you and therefore buy all of their stuff.)

"Bro marketing" is using marketing tactics in a pressure-filled, sleazy way to essentially coerce someone into taking an action out of fear.

It's often associated with strategies like scarcity, urgency, FOMO, etc.

The problem isn't the strategies.

The problem is the implementation and intention.

Because not all scarcity is bad. (Sometimes, there really is a limited quantity of products, seats, etc. available.)

Not all urgency and FOMO is bad. (Sometimes, people will miss out on something really helpful if they don't act, and people notoriously wait until the very last minute to take an action and forget.)

Not all relating to people is bad. (Sometimes, we do actually relate to people, and feeling seen and known is a beautiful gift we can give to someone.)

Just like not all marketing is bad.

In fact, Jesus used all of these strategies.

He said that the gate was narrow for those who would persevere to enter the kingdom. (Scarcity)

He repeatedly proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and the time to repent was now because you do not know the hour. (Urgency and FOMO)

He very much related to people and helped them feel seen and known. (Relatability)

But He wasn't using those things for His own gain.

In fact, NOT mentioning them would actually be a disservice.

I'm seeing a growing shift in marketing right now where gurus on one side are using all the "bro marketing" tactics they can to get ahead, and another where people are rebelling against them entirely because they feel they are inherently sleazy.

But what if it's like any other tool?

We can use marketing and psychological persuasion strategies for evil (or at the very least, personal gain over service to others).

Or we can use it to build up the kingdom.

No strategy is inherently bad.

But our intentions can be.

As always, the Church looks on marketing as a both/and — it can be a wonderful tool to help people or hurt people, all depending on how we use it.

Here's what Pope St. Paul VI said about it:

“The Church looks with favour on the growth of man's productive capacity, and also on the ever widening network of relationships and exchanges between persons and social groups; they are for her a reason, a sign and an anticipation of an ever greater brotherhood, and from this point of view she encourages advertising, which can become a wholesome and efficacious instrument for reciprocal help among men.” — World Communications Day 1977

Yay, marketing is good!

But in the very same document:

“...on those within the advertising profession, the imperative requirement to respect the human person, his right-duty to make a responsible choice, his interior freedom; all these goods would be violated if man's lower inclinations were to be exploited, or his capacity to reflect and decide compromised.” — World Communications Day 1977

The only difference? The intention and legitimacy behind it.

Are you using these marketing strategies to get people to take an action out of fear or so they won't have time/rationality to think for themselves?

Are you falsifying situations to force urgency, scarcity, or relatability (aka just plain lying)?

Are you convincing people they "need" something that they don't actually need just for your own gain?

Then they're bad.

Are you using these marketing strategies legitimately to guide people in making a decision that will help them?

Then they're good.

But again, none of those are the strategies themselves. The strategies are neutral.

Like any other tool, we get to decide how we use them: sleazily, or holy.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

For His greater glory,

Emily

​