Persuasion – Page 5 – understand-culture

Buyer‘s Market

The United States has been growing since its birth. Growing in territory, in population, in economic output. For the most part the U.S. has striven for open markets, domestically and internationally. Americans also believe in meritocracy. People should benefit directly from their hard work.

Americans believe in competition. And America has always been a buyer‘s market, with supply outpacing demand. In such an environment, success cannot be attained without active effort to win customers. In America, sales and marketing are critical to success. Simply „building the better mousetrap“ is not enough.

An Amazon.com search on “Buyer’s Market” generates 13,959 results. Book titles include Solution Selling: Creating Buyers in Difficult Selling Markets by Michael T. Bosworth, The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly by David Meerman Scott and Buyer Beware: Finding Truth in the Marketplace of Ideas by Janet Parshall. 10.5 percent of native-born Americans between the ages 25 and 64 are employed in the sales industry.

Lemonade Stand

Many American children are encouraged at a young age to earn pocket money by selling a product or service. The lemonade stand is a metaphor for getting out there and selling something, whether it be used toys, books, or helping older people with their shopping. Sales is believed to be a skill which is always in demand regardless of the state of an economy.

Pharma Sales Reps

According to a recent estimate, American drug companies spend $4 billion a year marketing directly to the American public, and an additional $24 billion marketing to health care providers. In 2014, a poll showed that 9 out of 10 big pharmaceutical companies spend more money on marketing than on research and development.

The median annual pay for pharmaceutical sales representatives in the U.S. is $66,814, compared to $37,316 for research technicians, $47,279 for research associates, $60,951 for civil engineers, $64,853 for mechanical engineers, $65,388 for physical therapists, and $66,823 for product development scientists.

Closing Techniques

Wikipedia lists the following kinds of closes (asking for and making the sale, getting the order):

Alternative Choice

Alternative Choice close, also called the positive choice close, in which the salesperson presents the prospect with two choices, both of which end in a sale. “Would you prefer that in red or blue?”

Apology

The Apology close, in which the salesperson apologizes for not yet closing the sale. “I owe you an apology. Somewhere along the line, I must have left out important information, or in some way left you room for doubt. We both know this product suits your needs perfectly, and so the fault here must be with me.”

Assumptive

The Assumptive close, also known as the presumptive close: in which the salesperson intentionally assumes that the prospect has already agreed to buy, and wraps up the sale. “Just pass me your credit card and I’ll get the paperwork ready.”

Balance Sheet

The Balance Sheet close, also called the Ben Franklin close, in which the salesperson and the prospect build together a pros-and-cons list of whether to buy the product, with the salesperson trying to ensure the pros list is longer than the cons.

Cradle to Grave

The Cradle to Grave close, in which the salesperson undercuts prospect objections that it is too soon to buy by telling them there is never a convenient time in life to make a major purchase, and they must therefore do it anyway.”

Direct

The Direct close, in which the salesperson simply directly asks the prospect to buy. Salespeople are discouraged from using this technique unless they are very sure the prospect is ready to commit.

Indirect

The Indirect close, also known as the question close, in which the salesperson moves to the close with an indirect or soft question. “How do you feel about these terms” or “how does this agreement look to you?”

Minor Point

The Minor Point close, in which the salesperson deliberately gains agreement with the prospect on a minor point, and uses it to assume that the sale is closed. “Would the front door look better painted red? No? Okay, then we’ll leave it the colour it is.”

Negative Assumption

The Negative Assumption close, in which the salesperson asks two final questions, repeating them until he or she achieves the sale. “Do you have any more questions for me?” and “do you see any reason why you wouldn’t buy this product?” This tactic is often used in job interviews.

Possibility of Loss

The Possibility of Loss close, also known as the pressure close, in which the salesperson points out that failing to close could result in missed opportunity, for example because a product may sell out, or its price rise.

Puppy Dog

The Puppy Dog close, in which the salesperson gives the product to the prospect on a trial basis, to test before a sale is agreed upon.

Sales Contest

The Sales Contest close, in which the salesperson offers the prospect a special incentive to close, disarming suspicion with a credible “selfish” justification. “How about if I throw in free shipping? If I make this sale, I’ll win a trip to Spain.”

Sharp Angle

The Sharp Angle close, in which the salesperson responds to a prospect question with a request to close. “Can you get the system up and running within two weeks?” “If I guarantee it, do we have a deal?“

“Mark your man”

Typing “close the sale” in amazon.com led to 282,687 book titles. That tells us how much Americans in sales focus on that one aspect of a customer-supplier relationship. Typical titles are:

Secrets of Closing the Sale. Sales, The Science of Selling! Changing the Sales Conversation. Sales: How to Master the Art of Selling. Close the Deal! The Art of Closing the Sales!

“how to close the sale” led to 3.67 billion hits in Google. Selling in the U.S. is critical to success. Many Americans work in sales. They all have to know how to “close the sale” (or they go hungry).

Cargo Cult Science

There have been attempts in the U.S. to convince people to stop presenting only the good aspects of products and instead present both the good and bad. In 1974, Richard Feynman, a renowned physicist, gave the Caltech commencement address. In his speech, he spoke primarily about something which he called “cargo cult science“, which is something that looks like science, but is lacking scientific integrity. Feynman denounced this form of “science” wholeheartedly.

One of the examples he used to illustrate the point was an advertisement for Wesson cooking oil, which claimed that it doesn’t soak through food. Feynman said that although this was true, the advertisement failed to mention that no oil soaks through food at certain temperatures, and that any cooking oil, including Wesson’s, will soak food at other temperatures.

Another example Feynman used was one of his colleagues, a cosmologist/astronomer, who tried to explain the “everyday” applications of his work. When Feynman heard this, he told his colleague that there weren’t any everyday applications. Although the colleague readily agreed with Feynman, he said that he still had to make it look like there were applications, otherwise he wouldn’t get any more funding.

Feynman was very angry and said “If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing – and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.”

Despite Feynman’s warning in 1974 (and similar warnings from other scientists), cargo cult science has continued in the U.S. One of the more prominent examples of this was the cold fusion debacle. In 1989, at the University of Utah, chemists Stanley Pons (American) and Martin Fleishmann (British) made headlines.

They called a press conference proclaiming that they had produced fusion at room temperature – much colder than the high temperatures that were thought to be required for this process. At the conference, the chemists glossed over most of the details of how they had achieved cold fusion, and stated that their paper would not be available for several weeks.

Because of their conference the two chemists were granted a high amount of extra funding. However, even before their paper became available, several scientists managed to find unauthorized copies of their work. Most of these scientists quickly denounced it as full of errors, and both Pons’ and Fleishmann’s reputations were ruined.

“I am not convinced!“

Entschuldigen Sie, ich bin nicht überzeugt! – “Excuse me, I am not convinced!“ In 2003, at the International Security Conference in Munich, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer ended the debate against his American colleague Donald Rumsfeld with this reproachful outcry.

But what had happened? Of what was Fischer not convinced? The debate was on the topic of aiding the intervention of U.S. military forces in Iraq. Rumsfeld wanted support from Germany, but the German government under the direction of Chancellor Schröder and Fischer strictly declined his request.

At the conference, Rumsfeld was making one last attempt at getting the still-doubtful Germans on board with his agenda. Nevertheless, his reasoning that Iraq was working on weapons of mass destruction, supporting terrorist groups, and ignoring the UN, was not enough to convince the German side.

The evidence was too scant, the intervention plans too poorly prepared, and the timing of the operation seemed badly selected. It would be better just to give diplomacy another chance, rather than send German soldiers into an adventure with an uncertain end and questionable justification.

Presumably, Fischer (a former participant in the student protest movement of 1968) was drawing on more recent German history to strengthen his resolve in declining. And in this case, he now has history on his side; the Iraq war indeed evolved into just the disaster which he had always warned it would be.

2003. The Munich Security Conference. Then German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer challenges then U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, “to make the case” for war in Iraq. Watch mins. 1:00 to 1:25, where Fischer speaks directly to Rumsfeld.

Auskunftspflicht

Auskunft, information. Pflicht, obligation. Auskunftspflicht. The obligation to inform.

When persuading (presenting, informing, describing), the Germans believe that they have an obligation to present all of the facts. The good, the bad. What works, what doesn’t work.

They do not believe that they should wait until critical questions are raised, exposing the negative or downside of what they are presenting or proposing. Competent, professional and honest are those who forthrightly reveal the less positive.

Are Germans more honest than others? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Who can judge? Not our topic.

If you are presenting to Germans, and they find that you have not forthrightly addressed serious weaknesses in your argument, proposal, concept, solution, they can draw one of two possible conclusions. Either you are not fully competent. You did not identify and address those weaknesses. Or you are well aware of them, do not have a solution, and have therefore attempted to hide, ignore or avoid the discussion.

Neither conclusion reflects positively on that presenter. The German audience is not only not persuaded. Far worse, the presenter has lost credibility. Germans have a shared logic. The presenter should address both the positive and the negative. And not wait for critical questions which tease out the negative. Auskunftspflicht. The obligation to inform.

Rarely the final step

Formal presentations are rarely the final step in a German decision making process. Rarely do German managers make a critical decision shortly after having listened to the presentation of various options.

Instead they will take time to reflect, discuss with their direct reports, get additional input from subject area experts, use colleagues at different management levels as sounding boards.

The act of persuasion in the German business context is seldom aimed at getting a specific decision. Truly persuasive argumentation seeks to influence, steer, route the thinking to or in the direction of a desired decision.

überzeugen, not überreden

The German word überzeugen – literally over-witness; more than enough witnesses – means to persuade or convince with plausible arguments, evidence, proof that something is true, right, correct.

überzeugen for Germans means to use rational arguments only, to appeal to reason, without attempting establish a personal (subjective, emotional) relationship with the target audience.

The German word überreden – literally over-talk; more than enough talk – means to coax, plead, cajole, browbeat, armtwist the other person to do something they originally did not wish to.

überreden for Germans means to use subjective-emotional argumentation, to appeal to the emotions, to the non-rational. Germans reject überreden. Germans expect überzeugen.