The paper begins by contrasting marketing and nudges, using examples such as candy placement at checkouts (marketing) and well-lit staircases (nudges). Marketing, defined as influencing choices through framing, aims for immediate purchases. Nudges, conversely, subtly guide decisions towards beneficial behaviors without restricting choice. The author highlights the microdonation nudge as an example of promoting pro-social behavior by minimizing costs and effort. The paper emphasizes pro-self nudges that benefit the individual's long-term well-being. The central question is how to distinguish between marketing framing and nudges, particularly as companies increasingly employ nudges for marketing purposes. This distinction is vital, as misrepresenting marketing as nudges can damage consumer trust and the efficacy of genuine nudges in public policy. The paper aims to clarify these distinctions by focusing on the interpretation of "the chooser's interest," the role of time preference, and the development of a unified behavioral model.

The paper reviews existing literature on marketing and nudges, emphasizing the differences and overlaps in their approaches to choice framing. It acknowledges the debate surrounding "nudge marketing", noting differing interpretations of the term. Some view it as using choice architecture for sales, while others define it as prioritizing the individual's best interests. The literature on the "better off as judged by themselves" criterion is discussed, highlighting the complexity of defining "best interest" in terms of immediate versus long-term preferences, impulsive versus reflective preferences, and ex ante versus ex post preferences. The paper also reviews the literature on time preference, explaining its influence on decision-making and its role in the marketing-nudge distinction.

The paper's methodology is primarily theoretical and analytical. It constructs a behavioral model to explain the mechanisms by which marketing and nudges influence time preference. This model is based on existing behavioral economics and psychology research. The model incorporates three key behavioral tools: prospect framing (using gain/loss to influence choice), choice bracketing (narrowly or broadly considering choice consequences), and editing framing (integrating or separating outcomes). The paper analyzes how marketing and nudges utilize these tools differently to achieve their contrasting objectives. For marketing, the focus is on reducing the pain of payment and increasing the immediate pleasure of consumption. For nudges, the aim is to reduce the pain associated with delayed gratification and increase the appeal of long-term benefits. The paper draws heavily on existing literature to support its analysis of how these mechanisms interact to shape behavioral choices. The analysis combines behavioral economics theories, such as prospect theory and mental accounting, with neuroscientific findings on reward processing to support its claims.

The core findings are presented within the developed behavioral model (Figure 1). The model demonstrates that marketing and nudges utilize the same three behavioral tools (prospect framing, choice bracketing, and editing framing), but with different objectives. Marketing leverages time preference to drive immediate purchases by reducing pain associated with payments (e.g., installment plans) and enhancing the immediate pleasure of consumption (e.g., promotions, highlighting discounts). Nudges, in contrast, mitigate time preference by reducing the pain associated with the target behavior (e.g., hiding temptations, breaking down large tasks into smaller ones), and by providing immediate gratification for efforts towards long-term goals (e.g., reward systems in health apps). The model illustrates how both strategies manipulate the pleasure/pain trade-off to influence behavior, though with opposing long-term effects. The paper further clarifies that the difference between a nudge and a marketing strategy lies in their understanding of "what is good for you." Marketing aims for immediate pleasure, whereas nudges prioritize long-term well-being. The example of a smartwatch promoting exercise is analyzed; this is classified as marketing because it aims at immediate gratification, rather than genuine long-term health improvements.

The developed behavioral model provides a framework for distinguishing between marketing and nudges. It demonstrates that despite using similar behavioral tools, their goals and methods differ significantly. This clarifies the ongoing debate about the nature of "nudge marketing" and offers practical guidance for distinguishing between genuine nudges and marketing strategies masquerading as such. The paper emphasizes the importance of transparency and ethical considerations in the use of choice architecture, particularly in avoiding manipulation or misleading consumers. The analysis of how marketing and nudges manipulate the pleasure-pain trade-off highlights the power of choice architecture in shaping behavior and the ethical responsibility involved in using these tools.

This research provides a unified behavioral model that explains the mechanisms underlying both marketing and nudges, offering a framework for distinguishing between them. The paper shows that while both use similar behavioral tools, their goals regarding "what is good for you" diverge significantly. Marketing aims for immediate pleasure, while nudges emphasize long-term well-being. The model clarifies the use of prospect framing, choice bracketing, and editing framing in both contexts, providing insights into ethical considerations and practical applications. Potential future research areas include strategies to resist marketing manipulation and exploring self-nudging to promote sustainable long-term behaviors.

The study's limitations are primarily its theoretical nature. It doesn't present empirical data testing the model's predictions. The model relies on existing research in behavioral economics and neuroscience, and the generalizability of the conclusions is dependent on the validity and scope of this existing literature. Further research is needed to empirically test the model's propositions and explore its applications across various contexts and behavioral domains.