Evaluation of Control: What Does It Mean to Convince, Influence, Manipulate, and What About Marketing and Neuropsychology?

Doing marketing is not about convincing.

Convincing means presenting elements and arguing in a relevant way without distorting perceptions, and without influencing or manipulating communication.
This is, of course, a quick summary, as there is an entire book by Philippe Breton, one of the leading specialists in communication, titled Convaincre sans manipuler, apprendre à argumenter, which I highly recommend.

If we want to talk about ethics in marketing, we can simplify the issue with one fundamental principle:
If what you present is true and free of tactics used without the knowledge of the audience, you are engaging in persuasion, not manipulation.

Marketing and neuropsychology are not intrinsically manipulative.

It is the use that is generally made of them, as seen in most recommendations designed to drive sales.

Marketing could simply be used to structure an offer.
Neuropsychology serves to better understand human attention.

However, this mastery and understanding inevitably serve certain interests and are used to manipulate attention and prompt action.

In marketing and neuropsychology, we talk about KPIs, scarcity, social proof, likability, commitment, authority, etc.
These are elements that an individual or a business—whether in a commercial context or not—projects about themselves, their activity, and their success.

It is the construction and projection of a representation, whatever the object or objective.

But the problem with certain marketing techniques is that they play on perceptions and use tricks based on psychological mechanisms, some of which were discovered in neuropsychology, to bypass free will and encourage adherence or purchase.

Ethically or not, they often go far beyond the simple act of convincing.

The same applies to neuropsychology, as soon as you transform a neutral slogan like "Here is my offer" into "Buy my program now—it closes at midnight tonight!"

I have already proposed a philosophical essay on the blog discussing the difference between influence and manipulation.
In my view, there is no real difference between the two, except in how these terms are perceived in popular culture.

From this comes the following idea:

Influence is, in the collective imagination, a softened or "acceptable" version of manipulation.

And everything supposedly depends on the intention:
Influence would start from a good intention.
Manipulation would stem from a bad intention.

This is oversimplified and does not hold up to scrutiny.

The only way to distinguish them would be to evaluate ethics through an analysis of intention.
And yet, intention cannot be separated from its long-term effects.
This makes one impossible to measure and the other entirely subjective.

An influence may be well-intentioned but produce negative effects.
Example: A parent who pushes their child toward a "stable" career thinks they are helping, but might actually be limiting their child's fulfillment.

A manipulation may seem malicious but ultimately be beneficial.
Example: A doctor who reassures a patient by minimizing a risk to prevent unnecessary stress.

Yes, it’s enough to make you question everything...

Thus, it is impossible to determine where influence stops and manipulation begins—whether by intention or effects—if we accept the need to differentiate the two.

Even the degree of control held by the person being influenced and their awareness of the mechanisms at play cannot truly define the boundary.

The only truly ethical form of influence would be one that provides others with the tools to resist influence... but even that is uncertain.

If we accept a distinction and admit that influence is merely soft manipulation,
then the real question is no longer "Am I manipulating?" but rather "To what degree and for what purpose?"

Even when acting with the best intentions, we can never be certain that the effects will be beneficial.

Ultimately, neuropsychology and marketing refine manipulation techniques to shape perceptions and trigger action.

And no matter how much we try to dress it up as something pure and ethical, it doesn't change the underlying intention.

At the end of the day, this entire conversation about influence and manipulation has nothing to do with true persuasion.
It boils down to one fundamental truth:

We all play a game where everyone tries to shape the perception of others.

Perhaps the only real difference between a manipulator and an influencer is not their intention, but rather their ability to make their influence appear acceptable.