NPR84%

4 marketing tricks to not fall for this holiday season81%

By Marielle Segarra0% Malaka Gharib0%

11/26/2025, 10:25:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anchoring Bias, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 23.3% saturation with 175 hits. Analysis detected 907 faulty-reasoning hits from 750 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.9% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,358 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.10% of the article peer group.

Extra 20% off! 
Factory sale! 
Last chance! 
You may have seen these offers while shopping. 
But are they actually good deals? 
To find out, Life Kit spoke with Brian Vines, a reporter at Consumer Reports, and Lindsay Weekes, editor-in-chief of Brad's Deals, a site that curates promotions from online retailers. 
They share common marketing techniques that companies use to entice shoppers to buy more  and tips on how to make smarter purchases. 
Technique 1: Creating a sense of urgency 
When you see words like "buy now" or "flash deal," while shopping, take caution, say our experts. 
Retailers use a sense of urgency to push consumers to make quicker shopping decisions, Vines says. 
They don't want you to think too hard about the purchase. 
This strategy also relies on shoppers' fear of missing out, Weekes says. 
It makes people think, "if I don't purchase this right now, I'll never get this deal again." 
The next time you encounter an offer like this, take a beat. 
Remember, companies are constantly making products, Vines says. 
"You will not miss the boat." 
You may realize that you only wanted to buy something because it felt urgent. 
Or you might find a better deal, especially if you wait to shop for something at the end of the season, Weekes says. 
Technique 2: Calling out the "original price" 
When you see a price tag that displays an item's "original price," say $200, next to the current price, say $75, that's called price anchoring. 
"It makes people fixate on that [higher] price versus the sale price," Weekes says. 
It can also make the product appear higher-value, making you want it more. 
A lot of the time, that "original price" was never the original price  or hasn't been that price for a long time, Weekes says. 
Outsmart the gimmick by focusing on the actual price of the item, our experts say. 
If the tag says it's $75, then assess for yourself whether you think that's a good deal, regardless of that original price. 
Technique 3: Inflating the base price 
Another pricing strategy retailers use is to raise the base price of an item just before the busy season, then offer a steep and enticing percentage discount, like 40% or 50%. 
But since the base price is higher, the item might cost the same as it did last week, or maybe more. 
This tactic is called "high-low pricing." 
To get around this gimmick, do a price comparison, say our experts. 
Look for historical pricing data online, or how much the retailer has charged for this product over time. 
You can also see if a product is cheaper at another retailer or a secondhand website. 
That's a great option for clothing  you can even find the same pair of jeans, new with tags still on, for a fraction of the price when you buy secondhand. 
If you're shopping at a store, go online to see if you can find a better price at another store across town, Vines says. 
Then talk to a sales associate and ask them if they can match that competitor's price. 
You can also add an item to your online cart and check on the price over a few days or weeks to see if it changes. 
Technique 4: Building a fantasy 
Marketers sell you a fantasy: the idea of that picture-perfect holiday dinner where everyone's connecting and nobody's fighting. 
Or the vision of you as your sexiest, most confident self. 
"These all play to our aspirational, I've-got-my-stuff-together side, based on the amount of things we're able to gather and put in our carts," Vines says. 
So if you find yourself typing in your credit card information while fantasizing about some idealized version of yourself or your family, pause, say our experts. 
That doesn't mean you don't get your family any gifts for the holidays. 
But when you consider a purchase, remember that you don't have to buy this particular item. 
You can also get creative. 
Bake them their favorite cookies. 
Plan a group dinner or a family hike. 
Find a treasure they'll love at a secondhand store. 
These gifts can be just as meaningful as something you buy from a store. 
The digital story was edited by Meghan Keane, with art direction by Beck Harlan. 
We'd love to hear from you. 
Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at LifeKit@npr.org. 
Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and sign up for our newsletter. 
Follow us on Instagram: @nprlifekit. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Marielle Segarra: 2.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias11.3%This article: 6.9%Marielle Segarra: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Marielle Segarra: 7.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 3.6%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error3.6%This article: 8.9%Marielle Segarra: 3.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect8.9%This article: 1.9%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 4.1%Marielle Segarra: 1.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 3.7%Marielle Segarra: 4.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias3.7%This article: 23.3%Marielle Segarra: 4.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias23.3%This article: 3.1%Marielle Segarra: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.1%This article: 0.8%Marielle Segarra: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Marielle Segarra: 2.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 3.3%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 2.1%Marielle Segarra: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 4.1%Marielle Segarra: 4.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal4.1%This article: 13.2%Marielle Segarra: 14.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority13.2%This article: 4.4%Marielle Segarra: 4.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.1%Marielle Segarra: 2.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.5%Marielle Segarra: 5.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.7%Marielle Segarra: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man1.7%This article: 0.0%Marielle Segarra: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%

750 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.