Are you are suggesting consuming based on how the company makes you feel? If they make you feel good, or convince you that they are doing good work then should they get more business? Is that rational? What if they are lying or exaggerating? Doesn't a lot of marketing and advertising seek to increase the positiveness of the particular brand?
How about morality? How about if a charity uses these tactics in their fund raising? Is a charity raising funds to protect children allowed to use somewhat manipulative psychological pricing strategies to do good?
My point is that it does feel wrong and it does work, but it works because of feelings and psychology. It's fascinating morally. I agree, it's very hard to stop this and start consuming based on rationality.
> If they make you feel good, or convince you that they are doing good work then should they get more business? Is that rational? What if they are lying or exaggerating?
It is certainly more rational to believe a company should get more business if they can convince you that they're doing good work or better work than others. In order to protect customers from lying or exaggerations, there are (ideally) laws in place that should give you the right to return whatever it is that you bought. The whole discussion loses its purpose if we include fraud or otherwise illegal tactics.
> How about morality? How about if a charity uses these tactics in their fund raising?
That's a tricky question. I think you could reframe it into: Is it morally justifiable to do bad things in order to ultimately achieve a greater good? Morally, the answer is no since the morality of a society are a set of rules that determine what can be done and can't be done (instances of these rules can be found in the law). So, if something can't be done morally (e.g. child labour), you simply can't do it, whatever the context might be.
On the other hand, pricing tactics are not illegal and there's probably not enough consensus to derive morality from it. However, ethically, from my personal viewpoint, I would argue that it amounts to manipulation and therefore deceits people. Thus, I can not endorse charities that use manipulation, no matter the context. After all, if you want to do something good for people, why would you try to manipulate the ones trying to help you?
I like the idea about the charity. In the UK we have what's been called "chuggers" - charity muggers. Essentially doorstep and high street salesmen, these professionals work on behalf of many well loved charities but they harass and aggressively try to make sales.
Councils and people have tried making laws to enforce against them but they do not succeed because the charities are well liked by the majority of the population. So on the whole the charities do lots of good and people cannot effectively complain against their fund raising tactics. The charities do not suffer as a result of this, and those who support the charities do not suffer.
Is any kind of physical cold calling, being stopped in the street, or at your doorstep manipulative? Does it seek to control people into donating to the charity? Yes. Is it objectively wrong? I don't know, but personally I think it is subjectively. Do some people dislike the behaviour? Yes. Do some people like the charity nonetheless? yes.
My point is that it does feel wrong and it does work, but it works because of feelings and psychology. It's fascinating morally. I agree, it's very hard to stop this and start consuming based on rationality.