Summary: Manipulinks make users feel bad about themselves in order to convince them to accept an offer or sign up for a newsletter.

A problematic trend is spreading like an epidemic on the web. In a desperate attempt to nudge users towards conversions like newsletter signups some websites are adding manipulative link text to their popup modals. These user-shaming labels are called manipulinks (a clever term coined by Steve Costello): they employ the practice of what is often referred to as confirmshaming — making users feel bad for opting out of an offer (logically, this practice might better be described as declineshaming).

This pattern typically appears in a modal overlay (sometimes, a please-don’t-go popup) containing some variety of offer — sign up for our newsletter, join our service, register for an account. Below the offer are two options — yes or no — with label text phrased in the first person.

Here’s where the pattern gets nasty. The acceptance link (“Yes, I want the best deals,” for example) is generally bigger, brighter, and more noticeable. Then, the rejection link (the manipulink) is some variety of undesirable statement about the user’s personality or priorities. For example, “No thanks, I hate saving money.”

Manipulinks represent a new spin on an old pattern. For years, traditional popup windows have been using large eye-catching acceptance buttons meant to lead users toward opting into whatever was offered. However, these old-school popups were a little more polite when it came to letting users opt out. Users could select “No Thanks” if they weren’t interested. The manipulinks add a new level of hostility with their approach.

Manipulinks are just another example of needy patterns — desperate attempts to influence user behavior. However, whereas many needy patterns are simply annoying (like the above popup example), manipulinks are more aggressively negative for the user experience. They are user interface elements that are deliberately designed to have an adverse emotional impact. We can distinguish 3 levels of bad emotional design:

Negative emotions caused by mistake: the designer didn’t think things through (or didn’t conduct usability testing), and thus created something that people don’t like. A design that was initially pleasant becomes unpleasant through repeated exposure. Such long-term turns into negative territory are often the fate of attempts at surface delight, such as text animation. The design is deliberately intended to feel unpleasant.

All these outcomes degrade the user experience, but at least #1 and #2 are side-effects of a less-than-perfect design. Nobody’s perfect, so we can’t blame those designers too much. Let’s save the blame for the people who want to hurt users.

Manipulink fans argue that the logic behind using them is to make users pause before selecting the rejection link. Designers using this strategy are attempt to manipulate the reflective level of emotional design by connecting a user’s rejection to a negative self-image.

In one of our usability studies, a user saw two modals — one containing a manipulink from Women’s Health, and another more traditional offer from WebMD.

The offer from Women’s Health didn’t resonate with the user because, although she was interested in other types of information from the magazine, she didn’t care about workout plans. She also recognized that Women’s Health was trying to trick her into signing up for its newsletter with this offer. She said, "This is essentially a newsletter signup form disguised as a promotion. I guess I would just click No thanks I don’t need to work out, even though that sounds funny, because Women's Health has more to offer than just workout advice.”

When the same user received a newsletter-subscription popup from WebMD, she preferred the direct and polite approach, saying

“I like that since this is more serious, they aren’t trying to do any type of snarky commentary like, Oh no, I’ll just be sick. I appreciate that they’re being a little more serious. I like that they’re right up front with it, ‘Look here’s a newsletter, subscribe if you want to. Here’s an X button if you don't want to.’ It's very clear what is happening here and they aren't trying to mislead.”

This is just one user’s qualitative reactions to two modals, but it illustrates the impact that a condescending and manipulative tone can have. In fact, this practice has inspired so much resentment that someone created a tumblr account dedicated to criticizing confirmshaming. Your users aren’t stupid, and if you treat them like they are, they’ll be offended. Duh.

Why Manipulinks Don’t Really Work

Proponents cite A/B studies that result in higher proportions of micro conversions as proof that their tactics are successful. Sure, manipulinks might result in a slightly higher proportion of users signing up for a newsletter. But focusing on conversions to the exclusion of common sense is a recipe for disaster. It doesn’t matter if more people signing up for your newsletter if you had to bully them into doing it.

Although manipulinks may in fact cause people to pause, consider, and even convert in higher numbers, there’s a hidden tradeoff involved. This approach will negatively impact your user’s experience in ways that aren’t as easily quantified with A/B testing. The short-term gains seen by increased micro conversions will come at the expense of disrespecting users, which will likely result in long term losses. Are a few more newsletter signups worth lower NPS scores? Or a negative brand perception? Or a loss of credibility and users’ trust?

There’s another reason why claims of “huge” microconversion increases may be misleading. In many cases, the modals containing manipulinks are often dishonest about what they’re offering. The delish.com modal above is a good example of this — it asks for users’ email addresses to “unlock” recipes, and doesn’t clarify that providing an email address will also register it for the delish newsletter. After users provide their email addresses to unlock recipes, Delish promptly sends them an email welcoming them to the newsletter.

When companies use dirty tactics like this and then see conversion increases, it probably has less to do with “clever” manipulink text than with the fact that they’re straight up lying to their users. And that’s not just a needy pattern, it’s a dark pattern.

Don’t Disrespect Users in Pursuit of Micro Conversions

It’s just common sense that you shouldn’t be mean to your customers. Sacrificing your relationship with your users just to get a few more email addresses misses the forest for the trees.

Each and every user interaction on your site is a conversation — you’re communicating with your users, and the interface is just the medium. Imagine a waiter at a restaurant saying, “Would you like pepper on your entree, or do you prefer your food to be bland?” Manipulinks are the digital equivalent of that interaction. If it’s rude to say it in person, it’s rude to say it in copy.