Sweet Now, Sour Later: Why Dark Patterns Aren't Worth the Bite

Sweet now, sour later: the revenue math behind dark patterns

Inside the trade-offs that push companies toward deceptive design, and why the spreadsheet gains rarely match the trust costs.

A few weeks ago, I signed up for Google Workspace. You can see below my tier options. All I wanted was the cheapest plan — €6.80/month.

Instead, I was pushed into a "free trial" of the €21.10 Plus plan.

As the title states, Google "recommended" me this plan (based on what … crickets?) and they won't let me select another plan… obviously they would quietly start charging me unless I remembered to downgrade later.

As a user, I was frustrated. As a product manager, I knew exactly what had just happened. It's a classic dark pattern, design built to serve the company first, and the customer second. Google relies on me to forget to downgrade my plan.

Why dark patterns happen

Dark patterns don't usually come from bad people (please, we are just trying to do our job). They come from tough targets and tight deadlines.

Inside the product team, it often looks like this:

The "fastest lever" can sometimes translate to:

For big companies with network effects or few competitors, it's tempting to think: We can afford to annoy a few people.

And often, they do. (let's not even mention Meta's new ads block… )

How the decision gets modeled (Google Workspace example — assumed)

Let me just take a shot and assume how this might have gone down at Google. These numbers are assumed for the sake of the argument — I have no real data from Google, let's just roll with it…

Let's assume Google has 100,000 new users signing-up in a month.

Now, let's assume 80% of users select the Starter Plan and 20% the Plus plan.

Scenario A: Transparent Choice

Users can start where they want with a free trial (Starter or Plus plan).

→ 80% pick Starter → 80,000 × €6.80 = €544k → 20% pick Plus → 20,000 × €21.10 = €422k Total = €966k/month

Scenario B: Dark pattern nudge

Everyone is pushed into a free trial of the Plus tier by default, downgrade is hidden or confusing.

→ 20% genuinely want Plus → 20,000 × €21.10 = €422k → 80% would prefer Starter, but: → 30% forget to downgrade → 24,000 × €21.10 = €506k → 70% downgrade in time → 56,000 × €6.80 = €381k Total = €1.309M in the first month

That's an extra €343k in one month (over €4M a year) from people who didn't really want the Plus plan.

On a spreadsheet, if I was a Growth Manager, I'd think this looks like a no brainer and it's worth experimenting with.

The model rarely stops there. A PM or growth lead will also ask: "What's the risk?"

The real math after costs

So what's left if you strip out churn and support costs?

Scenario B revenue: €1.309M/month Minus silent churn (~€8k) Minus support costs (~€4–8k) = about €1.293 — €1.297M / month.

That's still a lift of ~ €327–€331k compared to the transparent flow. And that's why these patterns keep getting shipped. Even after risks, the spreadsheet still says "worth it."

So… is it worth it?

Here's the uncomfortable truth: in many companies, yes, it still looks "worth it."

The extra ~ €327–€331k a month is concrete and immediate. The trust erosion is invisible and slow.

How would Google run this and decide?

They'd almost certainly A/B test: Group A = transparent flow, Group B = nudged flow.

They'd compare short-term revenue vs. churn, NPS, and support volume.

If the extra ~ €327–€331k/month "sticks" and churn doesn't spike visibly, the nudge wins.

That's how these patterns get rolled out. Not because someone said "let's trick people", but because the spreadsheet math beats the long-term story.

But even for them, spreadsheet or not … in my book it's a cookie crumbling away slowly — clear trust erosion.

Startups vs. giants

For startups, it's a different story, a dark pattern can be fatal. When every user matters, you can't afford bad word-of-mouth.

Big companies have a safety net: brand recognition, market, share, and users locked in by habit. That's why they can push harder without feeling the pain right away.

Other patterns you've probably seen

You've likely run into these without knowing their names:

They work because they exploit habits: we're busy, distracted, and default to the path of least resistance.

For more definitions, see Deceptive Design by Harry Brignull, who first coined the term dark patterns.

Why they're a bad bet

As a PM, I hope I never have to build one of these patterns. More than once, I've caught myself thinking:

"I'd hate my job if I had to implement a dark pattern. I'd rather redesign the business model."

And that's really the point. Yes, dark patterns can bring in a quick bump. But if the bump comes from people forgetting, giving up, or feeling trapped, it's bad revenue.

Bad revenue leaves a bad taste, the kind customers remember. The kind that I will remember.

There are better ways:

The takeaway

If you're a PM, ask yourself:

Will I be proud of this in a year? Am I counting on people's mistakes to hit my goals?

I know we don't always have the luxury of choice. The pressure to hit targets while staying "customer obsessed" (but not necessarily customer loyal) can push our hand.

But if it were up to most of us, these patterns wouldn't exist. They're not born from intent, but from pressure — pressure to hit numbers, metrics, and ROI targets, often at the expense of solving real user problems.

Either way, the sweet hit you get today might turn sour tomorrow. And no one comes back for a second bite of something that left a bad taste.

Have you ever been asked to implement a dark pattern? How did you handle it?