Tag Archive for: scarcity

Manipulative Email Marketing? You Decide

/0 Comments/by

I received an email one Thursday a while back with “Monday’s ‘oops’” in the subject line. The opening of the email read as follows:

 

Dear Brian,
Monday we accidentally sent an email to you,
which was intended for our members.
Please accept my sincere apology for any
inconvenience this may have caused.
If you’d like to see the video referenced in the
announcement
please click here.
It’s actually a “commercial” of my daughter
telling the story of how she was struck in her car,
5 months pregnant, with her two-year-old son
in the back seat …
…
And how her insurance agent was there to
help her deal with the aftermath

I didn’t recall seeing any email from this company on Monday and wondered why the company would have sent emails like this to any non-members. I looked up the sender online and didn’t see that I was connected with him on LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter or anywhere else. And by his own admission I wasn’t a member of his group.

Also, if it was indeed an accident then wouldn’t a short apology have been appropriate rather than a second attempt to get people to watch the commercial?

This smacks me as manipulation pure and simple. First, I think a simple apology would have been sufficient if it really was an accident. If it wasn’t an accident but rather a ploy to get people to watch the video then we can add dishonesty as one more reason to not watch.

The principle of scarcity tells us people want things more when they can’t have them or think they’re being taken away. When I share this principle with groups I like to cite a study that’s referred to in Influence Science and Practice. The study was conducted with law students at the University of Chicago where they acted as a mock jury for a test case. They were presented facts and asked to give a judgment for the defendant. In the control group the average award was $33,000. A second group was told the same fact and one more was added – the defendant had insurance. Knowing there was more ability to pay, the average award increased to $37,000. A third group was told about the insurance but then the judge said that was inadmissible and should be struck from the record. He instructed the jury to not consider the insurance when deciding on the award. For the third group the average award was $46,000, a 39% increase!

It might seem counterintuitive that mock jurors awarded the most when told not to consider the insurance but what we clearly see is the psychology of scarcity at work. As soon as we’re told we can’t have something we tend to want it even more. When they were told they should not consider the insurance they placed even greater weight on it.

And think about this; you can’t not think about something. In other words, if I tell you not to think about pink elephants you will think of a pink elephant, even if for just a moment. I can imagine jurors talking about the very thing they’re not supposed to consider which means somehow, some way, it will factor into the decision.

So back to the email I received. By telling people they received it by accident, that it was only supposed to go to members, the company was trying to invoke some scarcity. They were hoping people would think, “I wonder what members get to see that I don’t?” While most of you reading this might see right through the tactic I guarantee a large number of people who are unfamiliar with the influence process didn’t see it for what it was and out of sheer curiosity watched the video.

Not one to let things go I sent a short, simple reply to the sender, “If you were really sorry the apology line would have been enough rather than an attempt to get people to watch your video.” I never heard back from them.

Here’s my suggestion – when you sense people are using the psychology of persuasion in a manipulative way call them out on it. I could have gone on Twitter and done that in front of the world but I don’t think that’s right and that’s why I refrained from using the name of the person or the company. A private reply was enough and now I have more important things to move onto.

Brian, CMCT

influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Maximizer or Satisficer: Does it Make a Difference?

/0 Comments/by

Remember when mom, dad, or maybe grandpa would espouse their philosophy about people, starting with something like this, “Ya know, there are two kinds of people in this world…” and then they’d give you their broad take on the human race? I’m here to add another grouping of two to the human race: maximizers and satisficers.

In the book “Welcome to Your Brain,” the
authors describe maximizers as people who “spend a lot of time worrying about differences, no matter how small. In a consumer society with choices everywhere, maximizers suffer from an inability to recognize when an alternative is good enough. Indeed, from an economic perspective, spending the additional time on maximization doesn’t make sense since your time itself has some monetary value.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum we have satisficers who are described as individuals who “look until they find something good enough, then stop. Satisficers are decisive, don’t look back, and have little regret, even about mistakes.”
So what does this have to persuasion? Plenty, because in an information overloaded society in which some experts estimate the average person sees more than 3,000 marketing messages a day we cannot possibly process all the information that comes to us through our five senses. And put on top of that the fact that so
much can change in a single day, sometimes it’s all we can do to not just cover our ears, close our eyes and start screaming.
For example; I can’t process all the features of all the smart phones and balance them with all the pricing options while weighing all the new features and options I hear might come out in the next few months. TMI – too much information! Therefore, if I’m like most people I will “satisfice.” Satisficing refers to “the act of choosing an alternative that is just sufficient to satisfy a goal.” I do it, I bet you do it and so do most other people.
Dr. Cialdini’s six principles of influence act as mental short cuts, decision triggers if you will, in an information overloaded society because they help us quickly process information in a way that allows us to make a quicker decisions that we’re satisfied with. Here are some quick examples related to buying a smart phone.
Liking – A good friend of yours owns the phone you’re considering and has nothing but good things to say. He encourages you to buy the same phone and you trust his opinion because you have the same tastes in a lot of things.
Reciprocity – When you were comparing phones and asking questions the store clerk spent a lot of time with you. You’d feel kind of bad not buying from him after he did all that for you.
Authority – You read Consumer Reports and it rated one phone you’re considering highest in three of four categories. The magazine is the most reputable, unbiased source you know.
Consensus – Everyone has the brand you’re looking at and people are raving about it. They can’t all be wrong.
Consistency – When you told the salesperson the general features you were looking for she pointed you to a phone that had almost every single one. How can you not buy it after you
said that’s what you wanted in a phone?
Scarcity – You’re shown a phone and told a newer model is coming out in a few months. Now you worry because you might not be able to get this one at the low price because everyone else will buy them up while it’s still a great deal.
As noted earlier, most people engage in satisficing but that still leaves the maximizers so how do we deal with them? Maximizers by nature are probably more analytical so my advice would be to concentrate on these principles of influence:
Authority – Let them know what the experts are saying and show them hard data because this appeals to their strength – logic.
Consistency – Get them to tell you in detail what they want. The more detail the better because if you can show them how your offering matches up then it’s only logical for the deep thinker to go with your request.
Scarcity – No one likes to lose so show them their lost dollars, time, and opportunity by not going with your recommendation relatively soon. Remind them that new features and upgrades will always come out but they’re losing the opportunity to enjoy your product in the meantime.
So whether your mom, dad, or grandpa were right about their two tier classification systems, science tells us there’s at least one other category, maximizers and satisficers. It would do you well to not only understand which category you fall into but which category those you’re trying to persuade fall into because it will make the persuasion process much easier.
Brian, CMCT 
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear
“Yes”.

The Saddest Kodak Moment

/2 Comments/by

Many of you reading this might remember the Kodak commercials in the 1970s that introduced the world to the “Kodak moment.” This phrase referred to those times – happy, heartwarming, fun – you wanted to preserve forever on film. That ad campaign helped Eastman Kodak, founded in 1889, reign supreme in the photographic film industry with a 90% share by 1976! That dominance began to slide in late ‘90s with the advent of digital photos and culminated in the company declaring bankruptcy in January 2012.

When I read an article recently, Barriers to Change: The Real Reason Behind the Kodak Downfall, it brought me back to a conversation I had with Dennis Gilbert, owner of Appreciative Strategies, LLC. During our talk Dennis told me he found the fall of Kodak fascinating and wanted my take on it from an influence and persuasion perspective.
According to John Kotter, author of the article noted above, “The Kodak problem, on the surface, is that it did not move into the digital world well enough and fast enough. Recent articles dig a bit more and find that there were people who saw the problem coming — people buried in the organization — but the firm did not act when it should have, which is decades ago.”
What really caught my eye was, “there were people who saw the problem coming — people buried in the organization — but the firm did not act when it should have.” Some people in Kodak knew what to do but couldn’t persuade the ultimate decision makers to make the necessary changes.

 

In hindsight, do you think Kodak would have made the necessary changes two or three decades ago if they had a mulligan? Of course they would have. I won’t claim to have any clue on what Kodak should have done, when they should have done it, or how they should have implemented those changes. What I do know is the lack of persuasion skills by those who had a pulse on the market has cost this once great company dearly. And let’s not forget, Kodak’s fall isn’t just about shareholder value, it’s about the people who’ve poured their heart and soul into the company who might be facing major life changes as the company restructures. Jobs may be lost, benefits will probably be restricted and pensions could be impacted to name just a few things that could create hardship for tens of thousands of current and former employees.

Is persuasion an important skill? You bet it is! There’s no substitute for expertise in your chosen field but expertise isn’t enough. Knowing the most about stocks does you little good of you can’t persuade people when to buy and sell. Likewise, a manager knowing her company and the industry inside and out isn’t enough if she can’t persuade her team to take the necessary actions that will lead to success.

I’m sure the mid-level managers at Kodak knew the business, competition and could clearly see the trends. However, despite their skills they were unable to convince people up the corporate ladder to start making the necessary changes. I don’t know what they did or did not do but knowing they were probably dealing with a lot of pragmatic and analytical personality types I’d have suggested some variation of the following: Tapping into scarcity – here’s what we stand to lose if we don’t act now – might have helped. Maybe tying the needed changes back to Kodak’s mission statement – consistency – might have done the trick. Perhaps sharing more stats – authority – with attention grabbing methods would have arrested senior management’s attention.
Convincing someone to change is never easy but we cannot put the blame on others anymore than a teacher can blame students for not learning. I’m a sales trainer and when someone asks me for sales advice the number one thing I tell them is this: no matter what the outcome, take full responsibility for it. If you made the sale, figure out what you did right then keep doing it and refining it. Likewise, if you didn’t make the sale ask yourself why then set out to learn from your mistakes and figure out ways to overcome them in the future.
The further removed management is from the customer the more difficult it is to make good decisions unless they have excellent communication with the field people. Sun Tzu said as much in his classic, The Art of War, when he warned readers to beware of high-level dumb saying, “Those who are not at the scene of action and do not know what is going on should not give orders.”
Sun Tzu also told the world, “Those who know where and when the battle will be fought can marshal all of their resources to the right place.” Some Kodak employees knew when and where the battle was to be fought but senior managers acted too late. Now it remains to be seen how many Kodak moments are left.
Here’s my advice for you – continue to become an expert in your field because that gives you the credibility you need to have a platform that people will listen too. But don’t stop there! Make sure you learn the science of influence so your great ideas turn into projects or your great presentations turn into sales. That will ensure your professional success.If you’re viewing this by email and want to leave a comment click here.

 

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

The Worst Kind of Loss

/0 Comments/by

In this month’s Influencers from Around the
World post we get the distinct privilege of hearing from Anthony McLean, CMCT.
Anthony is the only Cialdini Method Certified Trainer in Australia. His
background is unique, having spent more than a dozen years as a police sergeant
and an intelligence officer, he now uses the skills he learned on the job in
his study of behavioural intelligence, the role of emotions and most
importantly, influence and the science of persuasion. He’s currently the
Executive Director of NewIntelligence.
You can connect with Anthony on Facebook,
LinkedIn
and Twitter.
 
Brian,
CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear
“Yes”. 
The Worst Kind of Loss
We are all familiar with Dr Cialdini’s Principle
of Scarcity
and the notion that it motivates people to act to avoid losing something of
value.  As a universal rule that guides
behaviour, it is as prevalent in Australia as elsewhere around the world. 
But is all loss the same? 
A study found that 75% of people polled
said they experienced greater regret for the things in life “they did not do” over the regrettable
actions “they did do” (Gilovich and
Medvec).
A second study asked people between the
ages of 20-64 if they could live their life over to do something different
would they rectify a regrettable inaction or a regrettable action.
Overwhelmingly the study found people would rectify a regrettable inaction
(Kinnier and Metha).
Anyone who has experienced a situation in
which they did not act and later came to regret this inaction knows the
sensation of opportunity lost.  This is
opposed to the regret associated with a decision we have made but due to the
consequences that often involve loss we come to regret the active decision made.
Personally I know that I reflect
differently on the regret of not taking the opportunity to live overseas when I
had the chance, over decisions that I have made that later proved to be a loss,
such as when I sold a property for twice what I paid for it only to find out it
would double in value again within a few short years with absolutely no
improvements made.
When we add time into the equation we find
that people who were asked what their biggest regret of the past week was, they
were more likely to report things they had done. Those asked about the biggest
regrets over their life would report regrettable inaction, i.e., the things
they did not do.
An explanation for this is when focusing on
the present we are perhaps still in damage control, looking for ways to rectify
a regrettable action. Therefore in the short-term regrettable actions can be
remedied to some degree.  Whereas with
missed opportunities or regrettable inaction the opportunity is often fleeting
and difficult to recapture and therefore there may never be an opportunity for
a second chance. 
Implication
If you are considering an action but fear
the consequences, as part of your decision consider how difficult it will be to
reclaim ground through apologies, subsequent action, etc., if it goes wrong.
Then consider the consequences if you fail
to act altogether and ask yourself, “What are the chances of this opportunity
ever coming around again?”
If you get your decision wrong, you will
have an emotional event such as anger, embarrassment, etc., but this will fade
with time. If you fail to act and you later regret this inaction you are far
more likely to experience despair and other associated emotions that are more
likely to persist (Gilovich, Medvec and Kahneman).
Therefore in the words of Ekhart Tolle, “Any action is often better than
no action,” because we can often recover from an action gone bad;
inaction can haunt us for life.
The caveat on this of course is you are all
rational-thinking people so actions and inactions in your life will be guided
by your own personal circumstances. A decision not to act is still an action,
so regret the action taken and learn from the decision’s failure rather than
ponder what may have been.
If you have not seen it I would encourage
you to watch the video 50 People: 1
Question Gallway Ireland 2011. In this video participants are asked about
their biggest life regret and it is interesting to look at the regrettable
actions, inactions and those who say they have no regrets. If you’d like to watch
the video click
here.  
If you’re viewing this by email and want to leave a comment click here.  
Anthony McLean, CMCT

Even Superheroes Rely on the Powers of Persuasion

/2 Comments/by

As I was watching Spiderman 2 with my daughter on a lazy Sunday afternoon something leaped out at me. No, it wasn’t Peter Parker from the top of a tall building; it was Spiderman’s need for the power of persuasion when his superhero powers couldn’t do the trick.

As the movie concludes, Spiderman battles Dr. Otto Octavius who had become the evil Dr. Octopus. Spiderman momentarily bests the evil doctor and pulls off his mask to reveal his true identity. Dr. Octavius recognizes Peter Parker, a former student. The following exchange ensues as Peter tries to convince the doctor to shut down the octopus-like machine he’s created.
Spiderman: You once spoke to me about intelligence; that it was a gift to be used for the good of mankind.
Dr. Octavius:  Privilege.
Spiderman:  These things have turned you into something you’re not.
Dr. Octavius:  It was my dream.
Spiderman:  Sometimes we have to give up the thing we want the most.
Dr. Octavius:  You’re right.
 At that point the doctor having regained his old notion of right and wrong proceeds to help Spiderman defeat the tentacle monster.
Despite his “spidey” super powers our superhero decided the better course of action was to tap into a different super power; the power of the principle of consistency. This principle of influence tells us people feel the psychological need to be consistent in word and deed. This need arises from the fact that most people feel bad about themselves when they say one thing and then go back on their word. This principle is so powerful that sometimes we even find ourselves doing things we don’t really want to do just because we said we would.
An example of this might be the appliance salesman noticing you looking at a particular refrigerator model. Knowing full well there’s plenty in stock he might say, “I think we just sold the last one earlier today.” This taps into scarcity and makes you want it all the more. Then he taps into consistency, “I could go in the back and take a look if you like. If we have one left do you want it?” Feeling the tug that it might be the last one then giving your word that you do want it might lead you to make a purchase you might not have otherwise. After all, it will be hard to back out when he returns and tells you, “Great news, I was wrong. We do have one left. Let’s go get the paperwork started.”
Fortunately Spiderman didn’t rely on stretching the truth like the salesman might have. During that final exchange between Peter Parker and his former professor, Peter simply reminded Dr. Octavius he told students his goal was to use artificial intelligence for the good of mankind. The doctor acknowledged it was indeed a privilege and this was the turning point where foe became friend and the two worked together to defeat the evil machine.
Tapping into the power of consistency is available to us more often than you think. We can do so by asking questions or learning about the other person in advance of the conversation where you need to be persuasive.
So here’s my persuasion advice: next time you want to persuade someone do your homework first. Can you find out something about the other person’s values and beliefs? Can you learn their stated position on things or uncover some of their prior actions? If you can and you figure out how to align your request with them, the odds of them saying “Yes” to you will go up rather dramatically. You might not be in a battle for the supremacy of good versus evil or trying to save a city from a mad man but nonetheless, I’m sure your request is important to you.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

How We Deal with Information Overload

/2 Comments/by

We’re in the dead of winter in Columbus, Ohio, and that means each morning as I make my way into work, it’s pitch black outside. As I drove to work recently, traffic was heavy and moving slowly so I had time to reflect. As I looked around I was struck by how much there is to see but which goes unnoticed when I’m driving closer to the speed limit.

During the drive I paid particular attention to the buildings and myriad of lights. The lights were easily distinguished from the car lights as were buildings from the trees and many other objects. Having worked for State Auto Insurance for more than 20 years, I’ve conservatively made the same drive about 4,000 times and yet, on this day, I noticed certain things for the first time.
In the midst of all this my mind wandered to persuasion and how the principles of influence work on people. Just like my brain doesn’t need to process certain input – many objects in the distance – when making the drive, neither do our minds process all the information that comes our way each day. Here’s an interesting quote that tells us just how bombarded we are:

“This year, the average consumer will see or hear 1 million marketing messages – that’s almost 3,000 per day. No human being can pay attention to 3,000 messages every day.” Fast Company – Permission Marketing by William C. Taylor

You might be thinking “Wow!” right about now, so I’ll wow you even more. That quote is now 14 years old! Imagine how much more marketing material comes your way though the proliferation of the Internet, Facebook, and smart phones. There’s no way you can process it all and that’s why Martin Lindstrom, author of Buyology, asserts that 85% of what you do every day is processed by your subconscious.
Because we cannot process all the information that comes in through our senses, our brains develop shortcuts to help us manage. The principles of influence tap into this subconscious processing quite often. While there are certainly times when they lead to mistakes and other times where manipulative people use them to take advantage of us, more often than not they lead to good decisions and that’s why we come to rely on them so heavily. Below are
some examples of the principles at work in your decision making.
1. When your neighbor gets his house painted and you think it looks nice you’re probably very willing to use the same painters. Your friendship – liking – lets you rely on their recommendation much more than those of mere acquaintances. After all, friends want to help friends.
2. Someone invites you to a party and you enjoy yourself. Even though you’ve never asked them to a movie or dinner before, you do so next time because you appreciate their hospitality. We tend to “return the favor” because that’s how reciprocity works.
3. You’re not too interested in seeing a new movie but four people in your group of six want to see it, so you go along. Consensus, what everyone else is doing, impacted your decision. You may or may not like the movie but odds are you still enjoyed yourself because you were with your friends and that was better than going to a movie alone.
4. You’re watching your regular news station – could be FOX or CNN – and hear political commentary from a news anchor quoting a prominent politician from the party you support. You’re more likely to believe the report without investigating it further because of the authority of both the news anchor and the politician.
5. Your friend asked you to help him move next Saturday because you once said, “If you ever need anything just call me.” You really wanted to watch the ballgame but you help him instead because if you didn’t you’d feel like you were backing out of your word. That’s consistency at work in you.
6. You love IKEA and hear they’re having a huge sale but it ends on Sunday. You hop in the car and make the drive to the store even though you don’t really need any new furniture. Scarcity is prompting you to do something you wouldn’t have done otherwise.
In most of these examples, critical thinking is largely bypassed. When I give a talk or lead a training session I always have people who insist they don’t fall for any of this. I just smile because I know those are typically the people who respond to persuasion attempts the most and their strong reaction is a way to convince themselves they don’t, because it makes them feel as if they’ve lost some freedom of choice and have been duped. But they also miss the point that most of the time people are not trying to take advantage of them. There’s nothing wrong with going to the movie most people want to see or inviting a couple out to dinner because they first invited you to a party. As I noted earlier, the principles of influence generally guide us into good behavior and that’s why we continue to use them “on automatic pilot” so often.If you’re viewing this by email and want to listen to the audio version click here. If you want to leave a comment click here.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You
Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Why We Put Up with Hazing

/1 Comment/by

Hazing is defined as the act of forcing someone to perform strenuous, humiliating, or dangerous tasks. It’s especially prevalent with new or potential recruits in the military, college fraternities, and various other clubs. Hazing is typically part of the right of initiation; passages people must endure before becoming a full-fledged members of some groups.

Who can forget National Lampoon’s Animal House and the classic scene where Faber college freshmen pledges to the Delta Tau Chi fraternity were repeatedly spanked with a wooden paddle, each time responding with, “Thank you sir, may I have another!” The portrayal of what the Delta Tau pledges had to go through in the movie was seemingly innocent, albeit humiliating, college fun. Unfortunately life isn’t always like the movies. Last fall Robert Champion, a 26 year-old Florida AM University student, “died within an hour of a hazing incident” according to an autopsy.
Champion was the band drum major and allegedly was repeatedly hit by other band members in a hazing incident. Roland S. Martin addressed this dangerous practice in a CNN article he called “Only students can truly end hazing.”
One question that needs to be asked is why Robert Champion would choose to go through such hazing? Why do fraternity pledges endure “Hell Week”? Why to military recruits and others voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way just to join a group? I think two principles of influence address a good bit of the psychology behind the decisions of people who want to become members of certain groups.
Consensus, also known as social proof, is the principle of influence that alerts us to the reality that people look to the behavior of others when deciding what the right course of action is. We are influenced by what many other people are doing or by the behaviors of people we view as being similar to us. Imagine for a moment you’re a part of a dozen people who are trying to get into some club. When you see those ordinary people who appear to be just like you willingly submitting to some form of hazing it would be extremely hard to be the first, or only person to stand up and say no. Mom and dad would have called what you’re experiencing in that moment “peer pressure.” It’s not unlike teens and smoking. They all know it’s bad for them – in addition to being expensive – and yet many do it because their friends are all doing it.
To make matters more difficult, researchers find that consensus is even stronger when people are not sure what the right course of action is. Never having pledged a fraternity or joined the military you can see why pledges and recruits find it that much tougher to say no.
The next principle at play is scarcity. This principle addresses the psychological reality that people tend to want things more when they think they’re less available or harder to get. Groucho Marx was famous for saying, “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” In other words, if any club openly accepted Groucho then maybe that club wasn’t such a great club after all. The harder it is to get in the more people value membership. That’s a big reason some clubs, fraternities and other organizations make it difficult to join.
However, hazing is only one way to make joining a club difficult and thus gaining the benefits of scarcity. Getting into Harvard or Yale is tough because of the grades required. In order to qualify for the Boston Marathon runners need to run certain times to earn the right to run the race. The Marines are famous for saying they’re “The Few, The Proud, The Marines,” implying not everyone can join. In each case, apart from the need for hazing it’s still very, very difficult to be a part of those groups.
Roland Martin is right, only students can end the hazing and that admonition extends to anyone else in positions of power in exclusive or semi-exclusive groups. Exclusivity can be built in through other means and as pledges and recruits see others going through the new, non-hazing, initiation rites they’ll probably fall in line and see them as acceptable and normal. In time, as class after class goes through the new passages perhaps hazing as we know it today, and the tragedies that sometimes result, will become a thing of the past.If you’re viewing this by email and want to listen to the audio version click here. If you want to leave a comment click here.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

/4 Comments/by

It was in Hamlet that William Shakespeare penned the famous line, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I came across this quote while doing some research for a training class I’ll be leading on attitude but the more I thought about that simple sentence the more I thought about how persuasion differs from manipulation. Some people are uncomfortable with the psychology of persuasion because they think using that knowledge gives them an unfair advantage over others.

It’s true that understanding how people’s minds work and knowing more effective ways to get someone to say “Yes” gives you an advantage. However, I don’t see that being any different than good looking people having a leg up when it comes to modeling, math whizzes doing better in fields like accounting, or people with great voices having a better chance at a singing career.
In each case those people possess something most others do not but we don’t consider it an unfair advantage. To be sure, if a good looking person uses their looks to take advantage of you or if the math genius knowingly confuses you with numbers to get the best deal then we’d say those people were not acting in a fair manner.
Richard
Shell and Mario Moussa, authors of The Art of WOO, have a wonderful quote that goes to the heart of the matter so to speak. They wrote, “An earnest and sincere lover buys flowers and candy for the object of his affections. So does the cad who succeeds to take advantage of another’s heart. But when the cad succeeds, we don’t blame the flowers and candy. We rightly question his character.”
Flowers and candy are neither good nor bad because, as Shakespeare rightly pointed out, we are the ones who ascribe meaning to them. Flowers can be wonderful when a man gives them to a woman when he asks her to marry him. They can also signify profound sadness when displayed at a funeral. Candy might not be so good if
you’re on a diet but it’s usually received with great joy by little kids on Halloween.
So
what does this have to do with understanding the psychology of persuasion? The six principles of influence as defined by Dr. Cialdini are neither good nor bad. They simply describe how people respond to one another and each can be used in positive ways or each can be used to take advantage of another person. Let’s take a brief look at each principle to see how this can happen.
Reciprocity tells us people feel obligated to return the favor when someone first does something for them. This is a great principle to know if you helped a friend move and need help down the road because your friend will be very likely to want to return the favor and help you. Of course there are always people who give you things or do things for you just so you’ll feel obligated to help them in some way.
Liking is the natural inclination to enjoy working with or being around people we like. Finding ways to like other people and get them to like you makes life much easier. Don’t you enjoy working with people you like? Sure you do. And I bet you want to like your neighbors and hope they like you. Deceitful people will tap into this principle by flattering you just to get you to do what they want.
Consensus is the tendency for us to go along with the crowd. Much of the time this is the right thing to do because “there’s safety in numbers” and “everybody can’t be wrong.” A dishonest person might try to sway you by telling you how “everyone” is doing something because they understand you’ll feel a psychological pull to go along with the crowd.
Authority is all about our reliance on people we view as experts. When you don’t have time to do a lot of research it’s a big time saver to defer to an expert. For example, most people don’t want to do their own taxes so they hire an accountant. On the flip side, there are people who prey upon this by creating a false impression of authority just so you’ll trust them.
Consistency is all about people doing what they say they’ll do or doing what you’ve done in the past. That’s very good because we can rely on people to continue in a consistent manner when we engage them. Of course, the manipulator seeing that can dupe the unsuspecting person by referring to something they said just to take advantage of this principle.
Scarcity comes into play when people’s actions are impacted by the thought of something becoming less available. Quite often this is good because we don’t miss out on opportunities that might go away. However,
this can be used against us when untrustworthy types create a false sense of urgency to get us to act in the moment rather than giving us time to consider all options.
As you can see, each of the six principles has an upside. In fact, I’d say the upsides are huge because they typically help us make good decisions faster. After all, if they didn’t lead to good decisions most of the time we’d quickly figure that out and stop responding to the cues. But just as flowers and candy aren’t
always good, the principles can be used in manipulative ways by some people who are only looking to get their way no matter the cost to the other, unsuspecting person. Just like the honest and sincere lover and the cad, it comes down to the motive of the person wielding the principles. I trust that you as a reader have come to see my focus is on the ethical use so win-win situations are created. Even if you don’t see yourself as the influencing type, understanding the principles will also help you protect yourself from the cad.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World – My Favourite Principles of Influence Used by Online Marketers

/1 Comment/by

This month our Influencers from Around the World guest post comes all the way from Ireland courtesy of Sean Patrick. Sean owns his own sales training company, Sean Patrick Training, and writes a blog, Professional Persuader. We met through Facebook several years ago because of Dr. Cialdini and we’ve maintained regular contact ever since. I know you’ll enjoy what Sean has to say this week.



My Favourite Principles of Influence Used by Online Marketers
The following is a list of my all time favourite principles of influence used by online marketers and how I see them used; the good, the bad and the ugly.
1.     Authority
Marketers use this principle to create a sense or feeling of how the potential customer is in safe hands because they make the prospect feel as though they’ve found someone who has or can demonstrate ability, credibility and proof of concept by knowing the exact pain, dissatisfaction and problem that the prospect is currently feeling. It’s a demonstration of experience by telling a story of how the knowledge to overcome the problem or dissatisfaction came about, the journey of anguish and frustration followed by one “Eureka” moment that just blew the problem apart and facilitated a solution.
Solutions imply success and this is where testimonials come in handy. The marketer will supply oodles of proud and happy customer testimonials which make the prospect’s imagination itch with anticipation. Unfortunately all too often the testimonials are nothing more than cronies and affiliates who have an interest in the product’s success by earning commissions on each sale.
The real heavyweight to this principle is when the marketer offers a cast-iron guarantee or assurance as to the efficacy of the product that the prospect will only ever experience success. This deflects any come back to the marketer by implying that it’s the customer’s problem if they don’t experience the same results as all the other customers.
The last piece of the authority principle that the marketer needs to employ is by bringing in the heavy-weight celebrities, famous affiliates or mentioning some major event they sponsor.  The principle of authority when used credibly creates and confirms expertise, but when done in an egotistical manner it implies “Guru Status.” There is a world of difference between the two and self-appointed gurus are best avoided.
2.   Scarcity (Fake Urgency)
When done properly and all other conditions are met this is the one principle to send a would-be buyer over the edge. It makes them buy, especially when potential customers are spoon-fed the notion that what they are pondering is about to be taken away from them due to two things:
a. Limited stock or supply, or
b. Time limited price offer
Scarcity is often perceived as the one to watch out for because it’s been used over and again, but if all the other principles are used effectively then scarcity becomes the trigger that’s easily pulled. The easiest way this is done on the web is by stating right from the start that what is about to be sold is scarce either because of limited supply or because the guy in the stock room messed up and priced all the labels incorrectly, stupidly at a much lower price so therefore the marketer can’t afford to sell the product at the launch price for an extended period.
The reality is that scarcity is quite often fake and the sense of urgency is false; just a ploy. The majority of products sold on the web are information products so how can something produced digitally be of limited supply? The same rule applies with price simply because no one sells anything at a loss; unless it’s a liquidation sale where all stock is liquidated at low prices in order to pay the exorbitant fees of the liquidator. This why a time limited price offer can be extended and often is when the guy in the stockroom screws up again and finds a ton of stock that was hidden under a polythene cover.
In my opinion scarcity is really powerful when people travel and they see something that is scarce back home but is abundant in the region they are travelling through. But the conundrum is either to buy there and then or to go on the web and buy via direct mail when they get back home. Generally, the window of opportunity is narrow for both seller and buyer and most of the time the tourist will succumb and purchase on the spot.
3.   Reciprocity (Concession)
The principle of reciprocity has been killed to death by marketers on the web. The usual tricks follow the pattern of exchanging an email address in return for some pointless or semi-useful report, whitepaper or mp3 that contains only self promoting messages rather than ready-to-use-instantly-valuable information.
A new wave of reciprocity is to receive an invitation from a marketer to a live web-conference where you can learn X and Y and achieve Z for free. It’s like a 3 for 2 offer. This tactic achieves both receiving the identities and email addresses of prospects that sit at the beginning of the sales cycle and during the lead nurturing process the marketer can choose to offer more freebies of varying scales to the prospect with the aim of qualifying the prospect further. The principle of reciprocity states that I’m more compelled to do something for you because you gave me something first that was both personal and timely.
Prospects will begin to find the marketer as a source of authority through a repetitive experience of this principle.
4.   Contrast
Perceptual contrast is one of the sneakiest tricks that a marketer can play out in the online world. The same tricks that a mentalist employs are played out online all the time.
This principle plays stage to how a menu of prices can confuse and distract and leave the customer financially worse off. Just the like the 3 for 2’s you see in the shops a similar price structure ensures that the marketer is maximizing every dollar from every customer. But the pricing structure can be a lot more complicated if bonus materials and legacy products are offered at supposedly discounted prices.
Just like price, how problems are solved can be distorted very easily by using this principle. Questions a lot of people don’t ask themselves before buying include:
a. What will this product really do?
b. How much time do I need to invest in order to get a return?
c. How does the product really work?
More often than not the obvious gets blurred by the use of other principles melding together that creates dissonance in the prospects mind. This in turn creates a contrasting perception of where they are and where they’ll be in the future but at the same time seeing their potential future self in the present because they’ve convinced themselves to buy the marketers product and now feel a part of a tribe of successful like-minded people. They trust wholeheartedly the marketer to be their sole authority over their problem.
5.    Liking
I like you because you appear to be similar to me because of experience, status, color, race, sexuality, football team, or our stamp collection.  ; )
Liking is powerful because it brings about a sense of trust that is long lasting. We all want to be a part of the same crew, tribe, team and corporation or we like people who value our sense of freedom and independence and therefore feel camaraderie. This tactic is very popular with online marketers who launch membership sites that take in monthly fees or marketers who create pre-launch events that bring together the entire pool of prospects who suffer the same dissatisfactions and allow them to network, mingle and produce fellowships by way of interacting in web-chat facilities, forums and social media sites.  It also goes hand in hand with the social proof principle that facilitates the need to purchase even more because people who we came into friending are buying, and those who bought before had huge successes and you know what they were pretty cool people too and I like them!
Hopefully your eyes are open a little wider now and you can spot legitimate use of certain principles of influence vs. illegitimate use.
Cheers,
Sean

To read about Influential Negotiations on Sean’s site click here.

Influencers from Around the World: Secrets of an Aussie Debt Collector

/0 Comments/by

This month’s Influencers from Around the World article comes to us from down under courtesy of Anthony McLean, CMCT. Like me, Anthony is a Cialdini Method Certified Trainer, the only one in Australia. Reach out to him on Facebook or LinkedIn, or feel free to leave a comment below.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.


Secrets of an Aussie Debt Collector

I was recently at a social function where I met a guy who, from the outset, sparked my curiosity. When asked what he did he simply replied, “debt collection.” After a bit more discussion he said something that really intrigued me, “I only work with two types of clients; those who can’t pay and those who won’t pay.

This comment resonated with me because I immediately thought of the complex influence problems we encounter. I thought the most difficult situations often involve a target of influence who believes they can’t say YES or simply won’t say YES.
I probed further into the world of our debt collector and found that he not only ran a very successful business but the more he spoke, the more it became obvious he was intuitively employing all of Dr. Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence in some way.
Of note: Dr. Cialdini originally discovered these principles by watching those masters of influence in a covert manner and then reverse engineered their strategies and validated them through research. Just as Cialdini had done, I quickly realized I was in the presence of an artisan; someone who was effectively employing Abraham Maslow’s fourth stage of learning, unconscious competence. Influence was a part of this guy; he just did it and was successful because of it. We arranged to meet to discuss this further and below are the secrets of a very successful debt collector.
Those who can’t pay
We started off agreeing that those who were happy to pay never made it onto his books so we would commence with those who believe they can’t pay.
Our debt collector (DC) started by saying the introduction to the phone call is critical. He had to be “firm but fair.” DC commences by introducing himself by title and appropriately demonstrating his knowledge in the field. He knows that if he is to influence those who believe they can’t pay he has to get their side of the story in order to understand what happened and, if possible, why. Going too hard will shut them down and that’s not to anyone’s advantage. With the introduction over he commences by getting their side of the debt story and uses this context to start to work through strategies to see how they can start to pay. DC highlights to the debtor that even small amounts are okay and reassures them that others don’t have to know about this situation. This second element is critical because for many “saving face” is integral to the process.
DC says that truthfully telling the debtor that “others have told him that they begin to feel better once they start” often opens the door to further discussions. He stated he highlights that this simple step will also stave off any legal proceedings and will give the debtor time to work through the problem in many respects under their own terms.
DC said that while working through options he avoids putting debtors in a position in which they feel they have to say “No”. Once a pathway is identified he gets the debtor to voluntarily commit to a repayment start date and to outline how they will go about making that first payment and the subsequent payments after that.
What DC has found is those who can’t pay are far more receptive after providing their side of the story. This also allows a time and space for him to outline the various consequences and to highlight the options they have open to them. Of course DC said he always finishes by commenting on what the debtor honestly stands to lose by not going down this path, including the widespread attention that is often drawn to public hearings like this.  He’d added his approach is unlike many in his industry and his staff is recruited because of their ability to engage with and talk to people, not just make demands and threats upfront.
During our conversation I was able to quickly note where DC was intuitively using the principles. They were:
·       
Introduce himself with the title of debt collector.
·       
Engage in a very different way to what people expect thus allowing for the contrast to be drawn to other debt collectors and even the debt recovery efforts of the initial service provider.
·       
Providing debtors the opportunity to tell their side of the story and allowing them to do so.
·       
Allowing debtors to make their own choices with one alternatively ensuring confidentiality.
·       
Providing flexibility in repayment options and terms.
·       
Cooperating with the debtor to find solutions allowing for payment rather than making demands.
·       
Genuinely looking at the situation from the debtor’s perspective and letting them know that it was not DC’s job to make this any harder but to in fact help them resolve it without causing further hardship.
·       
By highlighting that others like them have felt better once they commence the payment plan.
·       
Introducing himself by title and organization and quickly explaining the role.
·       
Demonstrating knowledge of options and legislation in the introduction
·       
Carefully ensuring the debtor doesn’t commit to “No” in the early stages thereby taking a stand not to pay.
·       
Getting the debtor to voluntarily commit to a payment plan with a start date and method of payment of their choosing.
·       
Highlight what they stand to lose by this becoming public or by going to court.
Those who won’t pay
DC informed me that as far as those who won’t pay, it’s more a situation in which they often have the capacity to pay, but felt wronged in some way. This could mean they didn’t receive the service or goods they initially paid for or they weren’t told the whole truth about the product and/or service initially. With this history of the service provider under-delivering or failing to deliver, often the debtor has not and will not take proactive steps to repay the debt. In many instances the debtor is happy for the matter to come to a head, such as to go to court, so they have a viable platform to vent their disapproval and highlight the injustice they feel has been perpetrated against them.
At the other end of
this continuum however are those that have learned that if they don’t pay the debt there is a strong chance in the settlement phase the service provider or debt collector will discount the debt in some way to get the debt cleared. Alternatively, if they go to court there is a chance they will have the debt admonished. Either way, by holding out, they “win.”
DC told me that once he identifies someone in the “won’t pay” group he doesn’t waste any further effort and simply serves a summons on them and commences legal action. DC said he does this because history tells him that if they won’t pay they either want their day in court, in which case he gives it to them, or they want to stall on the smallest detail and/or amount to ensure they “win.” Neither of these is worth DC’s time to engage in this lengthy and often non-productive interaction.
DC then stated that in his business only 3-5% of his cases progress by way of summons to court proceedings and almost 100% of this group were from the “won’t pay” sector. Knowing this allows DC to recognize that for 95-97% of his cases, if he or his staff invest time in the debtor and create an environment in which they can work together they will usually get a positive result. The contrast here to others in the industry is evident in that the stereotype suggests that the debt collector will stand-over, threaten or coerce the debtor, making them feel they “have to” repay the debt today and building resentment or resistance.
DC further backed this up with some more statistics saying that when he expanded his business from Australia to New Zealand, by using this approach he was able to immediately achieve a 50% payment of debt level whereas the previous provider could only achieve a 22% repayment rate.
Implications
In any influence situation we deal with three types of people:
1.      Those who are willing to entertain our messages/requests/proposals, or at least willing to engage with us and provide an opportunity to influence them.
2.    Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because while they may be able to be influenced, they feel they are not in a position to be influenced, i.e., because of organizational structure, financial constraints, perceived conflict of interest and so on.
3.    Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because they choose not be influenced. Whether it is because the outcome may challenge their status or expertise, they may feel wronged in some way and are reacting against us, or they have surrounded themselves with barriers or obstacles so you can’t actually get to them to influence them.
It is important in any influence situation to do your homework and know as much as you can about the target of influence. In DC’s case this is done partly before picking up the phone and partly while on the phone. What DC shows us though is even for those who think they can’t do something, by working with them, doing the small things well, you allow the opportunity for things to at least be considered and influence to come to play. Occasionally the person we are influencing may ultimately not be able to say YES but they will know the person who can.
For those who won’t be influenced because of choice, culture or organization design, you as the agent of influence need to reflect on the time and effort that will be required to break through the barriers and to ask yourself can you spend your influence efforts better elsewhere. If you engage with someone else, whether it is a competitor, a colleague of theirs or even one of their own influencers and they don’t have a seat at the table, scarcity is a great motivator.
Anthony McLean, CMCT
newintelligence
Changing the way people think