By David Golan (January 26, 2009) (Fogg,Netflix,Reading 1)

When using Fogg’s definition of captology as focusing on endogenous intent, I find there is a fine line on what actually is a “persuasive technology.” My issue lies in the conflict between exogenous intent and microsuasions. Just because certain elements of a software may be called microsuasions, such as dialog boxes and icons, were they actually implemented for the intent of persuading (endogenous)? Isn’t the design process a manufacturer goes through for commercial production implemented specifically to produce an inherently persuasive product? Perhaps my argument is limited to commercial products, but in my opinion, a technology that is not macrosuasive cannot have endogenous intent, and therefore according to Fogg is not persuasive, because “microsuasions” are inherent to the design of all technologies so that users can more easily interact with the product. Perhaps all (commercial?) technology is persuasive, or perhaps we need a different definition. Another limiting factor to my argument may be the view of technology as a tool and as invisible and non-disruptive.

An instance where I was persuaded by technology involved the rating system for movies from Netflix. I never felt the need to rate the movies I rented/streamed from/on Netflix, perhaps due to laziness. I received an email from Netflix asking me to rate the last movie I watched “instantly” on my computer. Perhaps due to the fact that an email was sent personally to me and that the message asked for my help to make the service better, I felt a responsibility to help. That was the first time a rated a movie on Netflix, and my behavior has changed since then as I now do so regularly. The experience was perfectly executed to appeal to me at a “moment of weakness,” as Fogg describes. Perhaps to make it even more persuasive and simple for the user, the message could have allowed me to rate the movie directly within the email as opposed to having to navigate to the site.