Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

5
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
65% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
AI-konsulenttjenester i Norge | Strategi, Implementering & Dataanalyse
AIkonsulenter.no

AI-konsulenttjenester i Norge | Strategi, Implementering & Dataanalyse

Spesialiserte AI-konsulenttjenester for norske bedrifter. Vi hjelper din virksomhet med AI-strategi, implementering og dataanalyse for økt effektivitet og vekst.

By AIkonsulenter no
View original →

Perspectives

Both analyses agree the copy reads like a conventional AI consulting brochure that lists services and makes a modest benefit claim without supporting data. The critical perspective flags the positive framing, vague authority, and missing risk discussion as signs of modest manipulation, while the supportive perspective emphasizes the lack of emotional or urgent language, viewing it as a straightforward sales pitch. Balancing these views suggests limited but present manipulation potential.

Key Points

  • Both perspectives note the unsubstantiated claim "Opptil 35% økning i salgsteamets produktivitet" and the absence of supporting evidence.
  • The copy omits discussion of implementation risks, costs, or privacy concerns, which both analyses see as a gap.
  • The critical perspective highlights vague authority ("erfarent AI‑team"), whereas the supportive view sees limited use of authority as neutral.
  • Tone and language are informational without urgency or emotional appeals, supporting the supportive view of low manipulation.
  • Overall manipulation is modest—present in framing and omissions but not amplified by sensational tactics.

Further Investigation

  • Obtain the source or study behind the "35% productivity increase" claim.
  • Verify the credentials and track record of the referenced "erfarne AI‑konsulenter".
  • Gather information on typical costs, risks, and privacy considerations for similar AI consulting projects.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The article does not present only two extreme options; it offers a range of AI services without forcing a binary choice.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The copy does not create an "us vs. them" narrative; it addresses businesses generally without assigning blame or opposition.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
While the benefits are presented positively, the content does not reduce complex AI adoption to a simple good‑vs‑evil story, resulting in a modest score.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Search results revealed no coinciding news events or upcoming political milestones that would suggest strategic timing; the posting appears organic.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The promotional style does not mirror documented propaganda playbooks; no historical disinformation templates were identified.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
Investigation shows the service is offered by a private consultancy with no disclosed political donors or beneficiaries, indicating no clear financial or political gain beyond commercial sales.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The text does not claim that "everyone" is already using AI or that missing out is a risk; it simply lists potential advantages.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No evidence of trending hashtags, bot amplification, or sudden spikes in discussion was found, so there is no push for rapid opinion change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only the original website hosts this exact wording; no other outlets repeat the same messaging, suggesting no coordinated campaign.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The text uses a testimonial appeal (“AIkonsulenter.no hjalp oss…”) which is a form of anecdotal evidence, but broader logical errors are minimal.
Authority Overload 1/5
Only a single client testimonial is provided; no expert credentials or independent studies are cited to bolster authority.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Benefit figures (e.g., "Opptil 35% økning i salgsteamets produktivitet") are presented without supporting data or context, indicating selective presentation.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Positive framing words like "effektiv", "konkurransefortrinn", and "verdifull" shape the service as inherently advantageous, steering perception toward a favorable view.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
There is no mention of critics or any negative framing of opposing viewpoints; dissent is simply absent rather than actively suppressed.
Context Omission 2/5
Potential downsides of AI—such as implementation risk, data privacy concerns, or required upfront investment—are omitted, limiting the reader's full understanding.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
All claims (e.g., AI‑strategi, prediktiv analyse) are common industry offerings; the content does not present them as unprecedented or shocking.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
The copy repeats benefit statements but does not repeatedly trigger the same emotion; there is no looping of fear or anger cues.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No language expressing anger, scandal, or outrage is present; the piece stays neutral and promotional.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
The only time‑sensitive phrase is "kontakt innen 24 timer," which is a standard service promise rather than a pressure tactic demanding immediate action.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The text focuses on business benefits such as "Økt effektivitet" and "Betydelige kostnadsbesparelser" without invoking fear, guilt, or outrage, indicating little emotional manipulation.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Repetition Doubt Whataboutism, Straw Men, Red Herring
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else