You’ve seen it before: an app’s landing page says “Free trial” in bold text, but once you click, it turns out a credit card is required and billing begins automatically in 7 days.

Technically, they haven’t lied. But something feels off. That small twinge of distrust you’re feeling is the result of implicature falling apart.

What your users sense isn’t legal dishonesty, but communicative dishonesty. One of the clearest frameworks to understand this comes from philosopher H.P. Grice and his theory of the Cooperative Principle.

If your communication feels manipulative or untrustworthy (even unintentionally) you might be flouting what are known as Grice’s Maxims.

Let’s explore how they apply to communication, marketing, and product messaging, and how ignoring them might be silently killing your conversions and long-term trust.

Grice’s Maxims

Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975) proposes that effective communication relies on an unspoken agreement: both parties are trying to cooperate. And this principle is supported by four maxims:

  1. Quantity. Say as much as is needed, and no more.
  2. Quality. Say what you believe to be true.
  3. Relation. Be relevant.
  4. Manner. Be clear, brief, and orderly.

When these are followed, communication feels seamless. But when they’re flouted, even subtly, they create gaps between what is said and what is implied. These gaps are often filled with user suspicion.

Grice argued that when a maxim is intentionally violated, it often creates conversational implicature — a kind of implied meaning. In marketing, however, these violations are rarely deliberate acts of clever inference. They come across instead as manipulative or evasive.

Research in Information Manipulation Theory supports this idea. McCornack and Levine (1990) demonstrated that violations of Grice’s maxims — particularly Quality and Relation — significantly increase perceptions of deception, even in the absence of outright lies.

Their findings suggest that users don’t only detect what’s factually untrue; they also respond to communicative strategies that feel evasive or incomplete. That sense of distrust arises not from falsehood, but from a perceived breakdown in cooperative communication.

Put simply: even if you’re not lying, people still feel misled when you’re unclear or leave things out.

Let’s look at how this plays out in real-world communication from WordPress product sites, Shopify apps, and SaaS tools.

Examples of Real-World Communication That Flouts Grice’s Maxims

Quantity: Saying Too Little or Too Much

  • Shopify App Pricing Pages. When an app says “Starts at $9/month” but hides the fact that core features require the $49/month plan, users feel duped. The page is flouting the Maxim of Quantity by omitting necessary detail.
  • WordPress Plugin Feature Lists. A plugin claims to offer “Full SEO functionality,” but upon installation, most features are gated behind add-ons or integrations. Again, too little is said up front.
  • E-Commerce Store Product Descriptions. A clothing store lists a jacket as “100% waterproof,” but the fine print (buried in a separate FAQ) clarifies it’s only water-resistant for light rain. This flouts the Maxim of Quantity by overstating upfront and withholding clarifying detail, leading to returns and lost trust.

Quality: Saying What You Don’t Actually Believe

  • WordPress Theme Developers. Claiming “fastest WordPress theme on the market” without test results, data, or context. Even if true, the lack of substantiation flouts the Maxim of Quality.
  • SaaS Tools. Buzzwords like “AI-powered” or “game-changing” appear without evidence or even a basic explanation of functionality.

The issue isn’t exaggeration. It’s the lack of good faith that users can sense when you assert something you wouldn’t defend under scrutiny.

Relation: Irrelevant or Misplaced Information

  • Plugin Comparison Tables. Many plugins create comparison tables filled with arbitrary feature rows just to appear more comprehensive than competitors. These often include irrelevant comparisons that aren’t meaningful to buyers.
  • Food Blogs with Recipes. A recipe page starts with five paragraphs about the blogger’s childhood memories or travel experiences before showing the actual recipe. For users who came to cook, not read, this flouts the Maxim of Relation. It inserts irrelevant communication that interrupts the user’s intent and often leads to frustration or bounce.

Manner: Obscurity and Ambiguity

  • Pricing Page UX. Using light grey font on white backgrounds, hiding critical pricing details in tooltips, or relying on footnotes to explain basic concepts — all of these things make communication harder than it needs to be.
  • App Onboarding Flows. Long, jargon-heavy explanations without inline help or visuals confuse users. The Maxim of Manner is violated when communication lacks clarity, brevity, or structure.

The Science of Trust and Implicature

So why does this matter?

According to Grice (1975), when people observe communication, they don’t take statements at face value. They infer intention.

In 2003, Fogg et al. at Stanford conducted a study on web credibility and found that design and content clarity were top indicators of trust. When users sense that something is left unsaid or the message doesn’t match the medium, their default response is suspicion.

More recently, research in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) emphasizes the concept of cognitive friction i.e. when interfaces or communication require excessive mental effort. Violations of Manner or Relation increase cognitive friction, leading users to disengage or bounce.

A systematic review of trust in HCI frameworks analyzed 47 empirical studies and found that clarity, relevance, and predictability in content are central to building and maintaining user trust. Conversely, ambiguity, inconsistency, and cognitive friction — such as requiring users to infer or dig for key information — were consistently linked to user frustration, drop-off, and lower perceived credibility (Corritore, Marble, Wiedenbeck, Kracher, & Chandran, 2005). These findings reinforce the idea that content design directly impacts how trustworthy a product feels.

Put simply: if your communication is hard to understand, people stop trusting your product.

Furthermore, Clark and Brennan (1991) studied the concept of common ground in communication. If your user feels you’re not trying to establish shared understanding (e.g. hiding details or using vague phrases), they assume you’re working against them, not with them.

These are not just communication breakdowns. They are business liabilities.

How Product Teams Can Speak to Their Users More Clearly

Let’s ground this further in examples that apply to your specific target audiences.

WordPress Plugin Businesses

  • Don’t say: “Seamless WooCommerce integration”
  • Instead: List exactly which WooCommerce features are supported, with links to documentation. Add tooltips where needed. Make integration steps visible.

Shopify App Developers

  • Don’t say: “Boost your conversions instantly”
  • Instead: Include anonymized results from test stores, or at least a case study. Cite which metric improved, how, and under what conditions.

SaaS Companies

  • Don’t say: “No coding required”
  • Instead: Clarify which parts are drag-and-drop, and which parts might need help setting up. Offer links to walkthroughs or demos.

Web Designers and Developers

  • Don’t claim: “Custom-built websites that convert”
  • Instead: Talk about how you define and measure conversions. Describe your process. Let the clarity of your methods do the convincing.

Communicate Like a Cooperative Partner

Your communication should operate like a conversation between equals. Here’s how to align with Grice’s Maxims in practice:

1. Quantity

  • Use accordions or toggles to let users drill down when needed.
  • Don’t hide important info below the fold or in help docs.

2. Quality

  • Cite evidence. Link to feature documentation, test results, changelogs.
  • Be ready to defend every claim as if it were in a peer-reviewed journal.

3. Relation

  • Tailor copy to context: don’t pitch when the user wants support.
  • Match messaging to where the user is in their decision-making process.

4. Manner

  • Keep copy legible, scannable, and logically ordered.
  • Avoid jargon unless it’s part of the domain language, and even then, explain it.

The Business Case for Gricean Communication

All of this isn’t just academic theory. Flouting Grice’s Maxims can directly hurt your bottom line:

  • Lower Conversion Rates. Users drop off when they feel uncertain, overwhelmed, or manipulated.
  • Higher Support Costs. Vague documentation and ambiguous claims lead to more questions and refund requests.
  • Brand Damage. Once users feel misled, they often don’t return. Worse, they talk.

Research from the Nielsen Norman Group confirms that clarity and specificity lead to higher trust and user satisfaction. And user satisfaction is a leading indicator of retention.

Build Trust Like You Build Features

If your communication leaves users feeling like something is missing, or like you’re hiding behind half-truths and marketing euphemisms, you might be flouting Grice’s Maxims.

This doesn’t mean your team is unethical. But the net result for the user is the same: distrust, friction, and disengagement.

Grice gave us a simple, powerful lens through which to examine communication. As product owners, app developers, and web professionals, it’s our job to ensure our communication reflects the same integrity we bring to our products.

Because when your communication is cooperative, your marketing builds relationships.