Why prevention is a hard sell

Sometimes the driver behind a temporary spike in product sales is beyond our control. In such cases, certain events may occur that, to some people, a preventative product suddenly looks like a cure. A classic case of selling a preventative involves products like anti-theft technology, such as burglar alarms, steering wheel locks for automobiles, and bicycle locks.

People may not buy a burglar alarm for their house because they think they live in a safe neighborhood. In this case, a burglar alarm is just a preventative for something that is unlikely to happen. It would be a hard sell.

Another factor that contributes to product strength is the size of the market it caters to. The market size can be broad or narrow. If an e-commerce product can only be sold as a preventative and it can only cater to a narrow niche market, the product is weak and unlikely to make much money.

But if a product can be sold as a cure and appeals to a large market, this product is very strong. It will make lots of money by commanding higher prices and selling at high volume. Products sell better when you play up its curative aspects and underplay its preventative benefits. Conversion Copywriting. One pill would prevent cancer from occurring later in life. The other pill would cure cancer. Massage can prevent pain and injury.

Facials can prevent premature aging of the skin. Nail care can prevent damaged cuticles and ingrown toenails. Right now everyone is telling you to stay home. That is prevention. If it works, you may never know.

How do you know that wearing a reflective vest kept a car from hitting you on your evening run? Tragedy that is avoided is not considered.

Prevention success is about statistics, and statistical lives saved have little emotional effect even though there is a story, or even a tear behind each number, according to Fineberg. The rewards of prevention are delayed and not tangible in the here and now. Most people want quick fixes such as those often associated with surgical interventions. Benefits do not always accrue to the insurer or payor for the prevention activity. The incentives in a system such as ours are to treat people.

They are not aligned with activities designed to eliminate the need for treatment in the first place. Preventive advice changes as we learn more, and this appears inconsistent to the public. Fineberg used the example of mammography screening guidelines for women under 50 to make this point.

He said that the guidelines which changed the existing recommendations were not aptly interpreted and proved confusing to the public. Behavior changes tied to prevention often require implementation over long periods, and this is difficult to accomplish. He quoted Mark Twain who said quitting smoking was easy since he had done it hundreds of times. Individuals have a bias against adverse consequences due to action compared to those following natural causes errors of commission.

In clinical medicine, the bias is more against errors of omission. Many accept preventable harm as normal because it exists and may be commonplace. For example, the right number of murders is zero, said Fineberg. A double standard is used in evaluating prevention compared to treatment.

We require that preventive measures be cost saving when in fact we should be prepared to pay for whatever the benefits of prevention are even when above zero cost. Financial conflicts of interest can occur when financial interests are not aligned with prevention activities. In this situation, conflicted persons can fail to perceive the virtues of a preventive approach.