A brand is a red highlighter in your brain.

A brand is a red highlighter in your brain.

Brands have a number of useful commercial purposes. They can build margins, gain distribution, provide a base for expansion, and a whole lot more, but that is all from the perspective of the brand owner.

From the opposite perspective, that of the customer, and potential customer, a brand also has a whole lot of purposes, none of which have anything at all to do directly with your prosperity.

A brand is the end result of all the impressions and emotions individuals have experienced while coming into contact with the thing to which the ‘brand’ is attached.

Our individual responses will be marginally different, but as a group, we label those collective experiences  a ‘brand’

Our brains are just massively complex parallel computers, something the boffins in Silicon Valley are trying valiantly to replicate.  In effect, we absorb and process all sorts of things at the one time, mashing them all up to something that gets ‘remembered’ and which our brains can retrieve automatically when presented with the ‘trigger’

This is a combination of rational and emotional inputs that has its roots in evolutionary biology.  It enables all the things going on around us to be sorted quickly and efficiently without resorting to consciously making a series of choices. This applies as much to the choice of yogurt on the supermarket shelf as it does to the rustle in the bushes that last time resulted in your sidekick caveman being a tigers breakfast. You do not forget that, but at the critical point, when you hear the rustle again, your brain registers the rustle, and auto responses kicks in, and you get the hell out of Dodge.

There is a lot of bullshit and hyperbole around the notion of ‘brand’. However, like many things in life, we complicate it past the point of common sense. The challenge then is to dig sufficiently deeply to understand and articulate the trigger/response mechanism in the minds of those we most want to influence.

It sounds a bit creepy, but is just the way we respond to our environment.

 

 

 

 

Indifference is the killer of businesses.

Indifference is the killer of businesses.

 

Successful small and medium sized businesses are always on the lookout for opportunities, which can be a problem.

All businesses, and especially small ones do not have the operational and management ‘bandwidth’ to take on too many opportunities, they lose focus and end up being mediocre in the market that made them successful in the first place, as they compromise in order to enable the coverage.

In this terrific cartoon and accompanying commentary, Tom Fishburne relates the contrasting stories of the Mini, one of the most successful cars ever designed, and the Pontiac Aztec, voted one of the worst ever, despite being in front of the demand curve at the time and therefore in a great position to be truly successful.

The problem can usually be distilled down to indifference.

People buy things to solve a problem, scratch an itch. Sometimes that is a simple thing associated with what will I eat tonight, and sometimes it is a personal thing associated with self-image. When it is the latter, creating a situation where there is indifference, where the purchase decision is not driven by a strong emotion, you will end up failing.

Strategy is all about making choices. It is not just a matter of determining what you will do, it is also a matter of determining what you will not do. It is this  latter dimension of choice that always causes the most problems in coming to a conclusion, there is always that bit of green on the other side of the fence.

‘Find a niche and own it’ should be the mantra of every business, but particularly every small business. Be very, very good at a few things rather than average at a number of things.

A former client has a dominating position in a niche servicing the underground coal market in Australia. A dying market if ever there was one. There are several strategic options: expanding into underground coal internationally, and/or expanding into adjacent hard rock mining operations leveraging some of their technology that is relevant to the challenges faced. As there are limited funds available, choices need to be made. Not easy.

One of my mates is a baker, a creative and driven bloke who has successfully built a business servicing the ‘high end’ market in a major city. His business partners now want to expand by expanding operational capacity in order to service the ‘medium’ market  where there is indeed far more volume, but also more competitors with spare capacity, so it becomes a question of price.

Over 40 years of marketing, I have never seen a situation where the dilution of the value proposition benefits the marketer. Customers are not silly, they make judgements on a range of rational and emotional considerations, and they do not consider your operational and financial priorities in those judgements.

 

Cartoon credit”: is again a wonderful Tom Fishburne production

 

What is the most common question in marketing?

What is the most common question in marketing?

How do we build  this brand?

This question leads to all sorts of strategies and tactics that are all aimed at engaging consumers in some way, to get them to prefer the brand and sometimes even buy  and recommend to their friends.

Marketers cannot decide what the term ‘brand’ means. I just googled ‘What is a brand’ and got 290 million responses.  This post by Heidi Cohen lists 30 definitions from very reputable sources, several of them with ‘gurus’ status. All are correct,(at least in my mind) in some way, but they are all different.  None of them reflect the reality that a brand is an outcome in peoples minds, not a thing. Fundamental to most of this thinking is that It is assumed that the word ‘Brand’ is a verb: To brand.

Wrong.

A brand is an outcome of a huge range of activities that impact, usually unnoticed by consumers and potential consumers, that together mix up and deliver an outcome for the individual that when all amalgamated result in what we conveniently call a ‘brand’.

If you are setting out to build a brand, have a clear view of the outcome  you want, but then align the activities so they all contribute in some  small way, incrementally, to the achievement, to the  journey towards what a customer will call a brand.

These observations by marketing professor Mark Ritson on the repositioning of Burberry is exactly on the money.  The new branding guru assumes that the Burberry brand is a thing, and asset albeit intangible that is separate to everything around it, and able to be ‘managed’ as you would a piece of machinery.

Wrong again.

Burberry like every other brand is an outcome of a host of activities that impact on the way customers, and non-customers see the brand, and describe it in the terms Clayton Christianson refers to it in the context of  the Job to be done.

Brand building is a strategic exercise, taking resources, wisdom, and the power to make long term decisions that stick. It is not a task to be undertaken by the junior brand manager, their job is to execute tactically and contribute data, ideas, and competitive intelligence, not play games with the biggest asset most companies own.

Harley Davidson is one of the best known, most deeply seated brands around. While there have been some hiccups along the way, Harley has been utterly consistent in its promise to riders since the beginning. The promise and its delivery continues to evolve, but in a way that recognises that its huge value is the primary asset of the business.

 

9 forces you must harness to be a successful C21 marketer

9 forces you must harness to be a successful C21 marketer

The tools of Marketing have changed, not just a bit, but totally, since the century clock ticked over.

The scary thing is that it seems to me that we have seen nothing yet. It is becoming more unpredictable than riding a wild bull every day!

While the tools have changed, and will continue to do so, the foundations remain intact. The successful marketer in the rest of the 21st century must reconcile the complexity and technology of the tools, with the simple and unchanged foundations of marketing success.

Following are the nine macro forces I see that businesses, and their marketing leaders should be considering:

The power of information.

Technology has put the power of information into the hands of the consumer, wherever they are. The tools that have achieved this, social platforms, mobile, the ubiquity of the net, have interacted to destroy  all the rules of marketing beyond the basic principals. We used to say information is power, and that remains true, it is just that the power is now in different hands, and they are not afraid to use it.

Brand building.

Building a brand is not what it used to be.  C19 marketing relied on scale, large ad dollars placed by large companies who could scale distribution, supported by the scale of capital intensive manufacturing. The brand powerhouses of the C19 are in trouble as options pop up everywhere, supported by direct to interested consumer marketing.

However, all is not lost, access direct to consumers has enabled a whole new group of brands to emerge based on the direct digital access.

Advertising in crisis.

Advertising as an industry is in real trouble. This is  not  the divide between the analogue TV, radio and magazine Vs the Gooface digital advertising duopoly, but the opportunity that consumers have to remove advertising from their environment by a combination of ad blockers and subscription based streaming services.   The communication challenge will become harder as consumers avoid more and more advertising to minimise the disruption, in the process, removing the opportunity for advertising serendipity.

Bureaucracies no longer work.

The pace of change has been so fast that the siloed and bureaucratic organisation and management structures of the past no longer move  quickly enough to respond in real time to the requirements of the market place. The businesses that succeed into the future will be those that enable the decision making to be decentralised in meaningful ways such that those in direct contact with the market and customers have the power to make often substantial decisions, This is a really challenging prospect to everything that has been true about organisations for the last 150 years. I see it as an external extension of the Lean manufacturing notion of Takt time, but instead of companies using the rhythms of demand to drive their operational responses, they need to reverse it to be able to be in advance of the market Takt time, to understand and respond to the drivers of demand, to remain competitive.

Consumer power.

The locus of power has moved from those doing the selling to those doing the buying. No longer do sellers have the information needed to make a purchase decision that they can dole out to potential customers in any way that best suits their sales strategies. Now, in most cases, a seller does not know of a buyers interest in a market until their decision is made, or almost made. In these circumstances, getting on customers radar early is essential as a means to be on the short list, which offers the opportunity to at least have a conversation.

Brands are no longer the authorities they once were, that role has been taken by individuals who have managed to build a profile, usually digitally, that attracts attention and offers credibility. There are however some exceptions, and these exceptions are mostly brands that have emerged in the C21

Buyer journey.

The journey of  a buyer is a minefield. Back in the old days, last century, it was pretty simple, there were few choices realistically available, mostly serviced  from the local area, and the sellers had the power. Now  there are a huge range of choices, and often confronted by the range consumers either filter out all but the very few, or decide not to decide, becoming hypnotised by the array of choice, with all the competing claims. Therefore, the first battle is the one for attention. In this situation, you would think that brands have a real role to play, but largely, that hole remains to be filled, which will be I believe the challenge for the 21st century marketer.

Big data oxymoron.

The oxymoron of big data is coming. We have all  this data sourced from an array of places, and cobbled together by algorithms to give us insights and detail never dreamed of just a few years ago. However, big data is all really about going to the level of the individual, so it is in some ways, small data. Market segmentation is moving from broad demographic descriptors that had little to do with actual behaviour, to a segment of one. The implications of this are profound, in that customers can choose to do business not just on an ‘algorithmic’ basis, but on a personal one as well.

Marketing is data driven: with a twist.

Marketing used to be all about people, emotion, supposition, instinct, and experience, mixed with often lethal doses of bullshit. Suddenly all the imformation we marketers had ever dreamed of turned up on our desks as data, and we dove in trying to become data nerds, a role entirely unsuited to most, so the new shiny thing, the tools, became the obsession, rather than the insights that the tools could  deliver. The pendulum swung too far, and it is still swinging, but in my assessment, the pace of  the swing is slowing, and slowly the realisation will again emerge that people really do matter, and you cannot learn that from data, you have to go out to where the people are, and actually talk to them, face to face, one to one, to get a grasp of the humanity behind all  the data.,

Marketers in the C-Suite.

Marketers have never been held in high esteem by the ‘C-Suite’  as the Americans love to call it. To a significant extend to my mind this is for two reasons: first, marketers have not often been the smartest people in the room, as measured by the normal things that are all about the optimisation and continuation of the status quo, they have been flaky. Second, they are the future tellers, talking and speculating about what might happen, and then having a number of bets on the table depending on the variables that show up, so holding marketers to a data driven world has been hard. By contrast, the other functions in the c-suite are all about what has happened, the past, so it is relatively easier to produce hard facts and data to describe it. This difference makes the marketers look by contrast they are having each way bets, and perhaps do not know what they are doing, and neither is healthy.  This has to change, and I believe the change is starting, as what has happened is an increasingly bad indicator of what will happen, and it is the informed, creative but analytically capable flakey ones who can demonstrate value are usually best placed to place the bets on the future.

There are several items above that will generate discussion, which I look forward to hearing.

 

Image credit: Tom Driggers via Flikr

Will Apples ad barrier slow down Gooface?

Will Apples ad barrier slow down Gooface?

In September last year (2016), Facebook conceded publicly that they had over-estimated the average  time viewers spent on video on their site by 60-80%. They did not tell us how long they had known of this ‘error’ but I suspect it was for  quite a while, as they aggressively pushed the ‘video first’ bandwagon.

It does not seem to have dented the volume of money going into the coffers of the GooFace (Google/Facebook) digital advertising duopoly, although it may have slowed a little after Mark Pritchard, the CMO of Procter and Gamble with an ad budget in the billions fired both barrels at the stupidity, complicity and fraud that underpins the digital advertising industry.

Digital advertising has been blighted not just by hype, hyperbole, fraud, but by tracking, and we know it is a blight, because something like 700 million devises now have ad blockers installed, and the big platforms are increasingly removing the ‘skip ad’ option that was initially in place.

GooFace make almost all their money from ads, and cross site tracking is a fundamental part of their arsenal, which they will protect at all costs. Making all sorts of claims supported by flimsy data, and more hyperbolic assertions (I suspect they will make tobacco companies look like beginners when they get a bit more practice) is to be expected. Apple  by contrast make almost no money out of advertising, so has loudly rattled the cage by announcing a new feature on an upgrade of Safari that  prevents cross site tracking.

Brilliant.

I wonder who will follow suit, as the march of subscription services without ads together with the blockers, must be biting deeply into advertising effectiveness, assuming we could see and analyse the data objectively.

Follow up Nov. 8, 2017.  Has the charm offensive stated?  This article in Marketing Week would suggest it has.

 

How to make a sale without selling

How to make a sale without selling

Like it or not, we are all in sales.

Not the sales of the aggressive close, but gently, continuously persuasion of those who may have a need for what we can do for them. How many times have you bought something, then wondered, ‘how did that happen?” How did that sales person get me to part with my money, I just came in to have a look.

We live in a complicated world, we need ways to sort out the important stuff from the trivia, we need short-cuts to make decisions, to respond without taking too much intellectual bandwidth, energy and time making up our minds, as we are bombarded with thousands of messages daily, designed to influence our behaviour.

The most effective selling is when you have successfully persuaded someone to buy your product, and they think that not only is it a really good deal, but that it is their idea.

This post is intended to give you a taste of the psychology underpinning some of the tools that a good sales person can use on you, without you even being aware that you are  being manipulated. They are using the auto responses you have against you, or at best, in their own interests, not necessarily yours.

Often these tools they are using are learnt by experience, what has worked for them in the past, but at their core are a function of Evolutionary Biology. These tools can also be learnt, and there is a huge sales training industry, part of which is based on these basic psychological drives.

A really good sales person will use these tools, often several in combination, and unless you recognise them, you will be driven by your automatic responses to a purchase decision.

Human beings are extraordinarily complex, and the complexities all are interdependent, in one way or another, so the tools following will be mostly familiar, although you may not have thought of them as sales tools, simply observe them ‘happening’. It is when a skilled sales person assembles a bunch of  these things, uses them in layers, that they become so potent as you do not need to close any more, people close themselves.

 

An alternative view of the human brain.

We are all human, we evolved over hundreds of millions of years into what we are.

Our brains resemble an iceberg: there is more unseen than there is  to be seen by casual observation.

The part that sticks out of  the water is the part we use to actively think, store language, logic, speech, and all the other things we use every day to engage in everyday life.

The bit that is around the waterline is partly automatic, partly under our control. If we think about it, we can exercise some control,  but there is a huge degree of automation. Breathing, our emotions, attitudes, the cultural stuff we absorb that drives our behaviour.

Finally there is a deeper hidden part, the medulla, or Lizard brain, the part that keeps us safe, and allows us to dream, and improve ourselves. It also manages the insanely complex working of our body. It is the part that enabled our evolution to take place, and it still drives us, automatically, every minute of every day, keeping us safe, enabling those ‘instinctive responses’ we are occasionally aware of.

When our safety is assured, our brains allow us to do other things, consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs we all saw in High school: Safety, food, shelter, ……….

We are all familiar with the ‘flight or fight’ response, that automatic response when danger appears, and the ‘Pavlov’s dog’ response. They are just two of hundreds of frameworks that happen automatically, without us being aware or being able to control them. They all served an evolutionary purpose, and whilst there are no sabre toothed tigers any more, these automatic responses still drive our instinctive behaviour.

Our only defence against them is to recognise what they are, so when they occur so we can consider and manage our response, still a very difficult thing to do.

Think about it as an auto remote button that can get pushed to deliver a reaction.

These responses all evolved to keep us safe, to enable good choices to be made instinctively, but as there are no sabre toothed tigers any more, play a less essential role,  but are still there, still operating.

If someone understands what those auto responses are, and what triggers them, they are in a position to manipulate you.

So, Let’s look at the 6 headline categories into which all the tools fit in one way or another. These categories were first articulated by Dr Robert Cialdini in his book ‘Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion’ first published in 1984.

 

 

The 6 principals that drive persuasion

These are the 6 headlines, the buckets if you like that all the autoresponses go into in one way or another.

Let’s take a look at each very briefly.

 

 

 

 

Reciprocity.

You do something for me, I will do something for you.

Doing something for another, sets up in the others mind, an obligation to do something in return.

This is a powerful instinctive response, vital to us surviving the depredations of those sabre tooth tigers. It means we stick together, help one another, it builds trust, it is a vital component of the glue that holds small groups together.

It also has many forms, can be used in many ways, and can lead to very unequal outcomes. You do something small and easy, then ask the receiver at some point, for something bigger in return, often you will get it. There is a huge body of psychology testing in all this.

Do something for someone, unasked, and they will trust you more. Do it with no expectation of getting anything in return, and they will trust you more again, do something that is against your own best interests, that benefits you, and they will go over the bags for you.

Reciprocity also works in reverse.

If I make a concession to you, you will respond by making a concession to me. Negotiators use this all the time, in industrial negotiations, it is often called an ‘Ambit claim’. Ask for something you know is too big, and probably will not be accepted, then make a concession when the resistance kicks in. The other party will feel obligated to make a similar concession, going towards you, and you will feel further obligated to move in their direction because they have made a concession  to you.

This is generally called anchoring in the negotiation literature.

In industrial negotiations it is generally called making an ambit claim. You are anchoring the negotiation at a ridiculously high starting point in the hope that they will meet somewhere in the middle.

So, start high.

Here is a tip. When your kids come home with a box of chocolates to sell for school fundraiser, cheap chocolate for a couple  of dollars, hard to sell. Go out and buy them a box of OK chocolates, and ask them to sell  them for $10 to adults. They will get almost 100% rejection, but after the rejection, they then ask if they would buy a bar $2 for the original bar.

The adult will feel bad for having rejected the expensive box, they will feel obligated to buy the $2 bar, not for the kid, but for themselves.

Reciprocity and self image at work.

Another one that works. ‘Free sample’.

Amway built their business on this. They would go around and drop off a box of samples, no obligation, no selling, just for you to try what you might like. They will come back and pick up the leftover product in a few days. Guess what, they usually also picked up an order, even if the person had not tried any, and if they had tried, the sale was almost assured. Once you accept the product into your house, even if you do  not use it, there is an obligation created.

Often untrained sales people start at the low price to increase the chances of getting the sale, they think, and hope that can upsell on the extras, to make a buck.

It is much better to start at the top, over the top, and make concessions in the bargaining process. You will end up with a better price in the end.

If I was a waiter in a restaurant, depending on tips, I would deliver the mints separately to the coffee, with some nice words. Then, after having turned around to go away, I would turn back, and give out some extras, with the words, ‘you have been such nice people tonight, I hope you had a great evening, here are some extra mints for the kids’.

Watch the tips soar.

When you are selling, consider what you might give away, something small that creates the instinctive reaction of reciprocity.

 

 

Committed and Consistent

We like to be seen as committed and consistent, it makes us predictable, reliable, trustworthy, so good to have in the cave when the Sabre tooth tiger is outside, looking for a feed.

We are driven to act as we said we would, and consistency is seen as a measure of moral strength and integrity.

They are powerful pressures on us to conform and be a part of a group, so much so that the need to be consistent overrides  the need to be right.

There is a tsunami of information coming at us, we need ways to sort it out, to make the decisions easy, so we tend to either just repeat earlier decisions that have worked out well.

Look at politics. These dills often put aside reason & common sense, just to be consistent. The stupid voluntary mail plebiscite is an extreme example of this pressure to be consistent, as to be inconsistent  in politics is seen as death, a sign of being indecisive, insensitive, and inconsistent, so they throw away common sense to be consistent.

About 15 years ago, in the foyer of the AICD building in the city I was accosted by  a very attractive young woman who wanted to take a few minutes to ask a few questions about the facilities for business people in the CBD. She asked about restaurants, how often I dined out, if I travelled much, and I answered, perhaps exaggerating a tiny bit, after all, she was very attractive, and it is natural for an old fart like me to be flattered by her attention and want to look good. She then set about using my responses to sell me one of those high end books of vouchers to high end restaurants and hotels in the city.

BBBZZZZ

If you can get a small commitment, no matter how small, then follow up with a larger request, the person will usually accept the larger commitment, to be consistent with their previous position.

There is a huge amount about your self-image tangled up in this.

There was a whole library on this written after US POW’s were released at the end of the Korean war.

The Chinese had not tortured prisoners to get what they wanted, they used psychology, bit by bit, increment by increment, and the result was profound, and many servicemen who had been prisoners when they returned were deemed to have been ‘brainwashed’ . After all, how hard would it be to get a black US infantry POW to agree that there was not complete equality of the races in the US?

This is depicted in the movie ‘Unbroken’, telling the story of US Olympic runner Louis Zamperini  in a Japanese POW camp. The parts where they offer him a better deal, for seemingly minor concessions, offering tiny things in exchange for agreeing obvious things such as that everything in the US was not perfect, obviously this is the case, but having got him to agree to that the next agreement was expected to be easier, he just held out.

The Chinese insisted that the concession be written down, even had them copy them if they were not prepared to write them themselves, but once written down, it was the new starting point.

You must get it written down to create the ‘ownership’ in the subject. Not on a computer, on a piece of paper, with a pencil, which becomes a powerful indicator of commitment, even if the writer at the time does not recognise it as such.

The implications for a sales situation are obvious.

Get a small commitment first, a very easy one, even just getting someone to say ‘Yes’ to a simple question about some aspect of a product is a great start.

This tactic is used a lot in digital sales, give away a free book, all you do is pay for the shipping, but once you have made that small commitment, the next is easier. In the vernacular, this is a ‘tripwire’ technique. Get you to put your hand in your wallet for $3.97 for shipping of the ‘Free gift to you’, the next ask is much easier, it just builds on the commitment already made.

When you buy something these days, there is a cooling off period legislated.

When brought in, this caused some problems, as the cooling off resulted in a high subsequent rejection rate. The very simple solution: get you to fill in the form, that way you are committed because you need to be consistent for  the benefit of your own self-image.

Usually, before the legislation, the salesman would fill it in, quicker, easier, and they can read their own writing, but the simple act of getting you to fill in the paperwork commits you.

The next time you are buying a car, and the salesman gets you to fill in your details, you know what he is doing, getting your ongoing commitment to the sale just made.

Another tactic widely used in digital sales: get you to fill in a survey, Facebook even has a tool that enables marketers to easily send out a survey. ‘No cost, no obligation, we are just interested in your opinion’. Surveys have a high fill in rate, but then, when the pitch comes, they refer back to your survey, and create the need for you to be consistent.

Weight loss clinics, this is all public, you get on the scales, you commit to the group to lose a kilo/week, you have made a public commitment, so it is much harder for you to change it than when you are at home, telling yourself to lose a kilo a week. Usually. You are also encouraged to write it down, and show it to your friends, not at the weight loss clinic, makes the commitment even stronger.

I found giving up smoking very easy. I did it every weekend for a couple of years, and sometimes even got to Wednesday before I cracked. The last time I gave it up, I told everyone I knew, particularly those whose opinion I really valued that I would never have another cigarette, and they should hold me to that. It worked. It would have been even stronger if I had written a note and sent it to every one of them.

There is another factor at work here, way more subtle.

It is the degree to which you can encourage someone to ‘own’ the decision they take.

When a behaviour is dictated externally, by authority, it is easier to walk away from it, than if the behaviour is internal. ‘owned’ by the person.

Back to Korea.

The rewards offered for compliance were very small, of relatively little value, so those that did the writing down, in return for the reward did not have the excuse, to themselves and others, that they only did it for the reward. This is counter intuitive, and works powerfully when you can create the situation. It is the difference between long term commitment and short term compliance driven by an external power inequality.

 

 

Authority

Humans are pack animals, we respond to authority in fairly predictable ways, which are all again, a function of our evolution.

We need to stick together, to be able to rely on the other person to stay awake, keep the fire going at the mouth of the cave so the sabre toothed tiger does not get a feed.

It also removes the need, and intellectual bandwidth required to make a decision every time something comes up, you do as instructed by those in authority, or an established set of rules administered by those in authority.

The scary thing is how we respond to authority, the degree to which we automatically defer.

In 1961, Yale psychology professor Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment that was repeated many times with absolutely consistent results, although the experiment has not been repeated recently, as the ethics that underpinned it are a bit confronting.

The experiments set about determining the extent to which people would go against what they knew to be right, by setting up a situation where the subject was required by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to an anonymous third party.

Originally Milgram, set about answering the question of how it was that so many sensible, educated Germans were prepared to inflict huge pain on others, then later claim it is only because of ‘orders’. The question came up in 1961, again, as a result of the publicity surrounding the capture and trial of the Nazi Adolph Eichmann, who was the architect of the logistics of the ‘final solution’.

The results stunned the researchers.

It proved the deep seated sense of duty to authority in all of us.

Deference to authority confers on communities the ability to conform, to move together, to get things done. All religions and cults rely on the notion of a higher authority in order to impose their will, and their doctrine .

We see the use of authority figures in advertising all  the time, even when we know the figure has nothing to do with the product, we know it is a paid endorsement by an actor, we still confer some level of authority and credibility to it.

There are many sources of authority: titles, clothes, trappings, uniforms, we defer to them.

If you can build authority in the eyes of your potential customer, you can get them to buy from you without a high pressure close.

 

 

What others think.

We had to act together, as a group, to survive, as individually we are the weakest predator around.

Conformity regulates our behaviour in groups, again making the choices easy, unconscious.

Psychologist Solomon Asch did some experiments in 1951, which have been repeated many times with the same results.

Participants, who were all actors, except 1 person were shown the two cards, then asked which of the lines on the second was the same length as on the first, and to write the answer. Almost 100% correct.

When the question was asked, but the answers were spoken, and the actors deliberately all said the wrong answer, the target also changed their minds and gave the wrong answer in most cases.

What others think, what the group thinks is a very strong tool that helps us navigate the multiple decision we would otherwise have to make, sorting through the options.

We take the actions of others as a guide to our own actions. BBBZZZZZ

Social proof acts as an auto pilot, great most of the time, until there is some dodgy data fed in.

Ever heard the term ‘Calque’ or ‘Clacking’?? It started in show Biz in France and Italy, around opera, in the early 1800’s. As a promoter, there were people who were paid to be loud clappers, yelling support for the show, with a sliding scale of charges based on the level of enthusiasm. Everyone knew about it, but it works.

The evidence is everywhere. Canned laughter on TV shows, we all know it is fake and is annoying, so why use it?? Because the research says it works, it tells us when something is funny, or supposed to be funny, it makes the un-funny, just a little funny.

Cults act this way, they remove from the individual the burden of making choices, and taking any responsibility for the consequences, which appeals to a few people.

What this means, use testimonials in your marketing. The more specifically identified is the testimonial giver, the better.

 

Like.

Unfortunately, this word has been hijacked recently, what it really means is that we have some level of positive emotional engagement with another. Dunbar’s number is 150, an evolutionary reality, you can only have an emotional connection to others up to about 150, beyond which, we humans are incapable of maintaining those connections.

Like has a second dimension: people who are similar to us.

Again, this is an evolutionary drive, based on family and close blood relatives, we can trust them, and they look, feel, think and act like us.

It is not a ‘semi-auto’ tick on a website.

None of us like to say no to someone we know like and trust.

When we get invited to a Tupperware party, we know the objective is to sell us stuff, but it is our friends asking, so we go along, and buy more bloody Tupperware. Pretty much all MLM’s work this way, leveraging personal networks.

The most successful car salesman in history, (Guinness book of records) Joe Girard, who sold Chevrolets in Detroit, had a 1:2 rule.

  • Offer a fair price
  • Be someone they like to buy from.

Joe ran a CRM system before anyone had heard of it. He wrote birthday wishes, car anniversary wishes, change of season wishes, when a car he sold was in for service he made sure he saw the owner, and reassured them of his continuing service, he made people like  and trust him. All the cards he sent out simply said. I like you.

Clarence Darrow regarded as Americas greatest trial lawyer said ‘The main work of a trial attorney is to make the jury like his client’. Once they like them, the odds are that they will be found innocent.

We are more likely to like someone similar to ourselves. The oldest sales strategy in the book is to find some trait of the target and take it for yourself. Eg. Walk into an office and see golf memorabilia around, you would likely start talking about golf, how you loved the game, to build some rapport.

We also like people with whom we share a goal and when no party has all the necessary information to reach the goal, so collaboration is essential. People will collaborate, we know this, but is also increases the degree to which they like each other when they are forced to interact by serving their own best interest..

Imagine the car salesman who takes your side and goes in to bat with the sales manager to get you a better price. You will like him.

A part of liking is association. We like to be associated with things that go well, and avoid being associated with things that do not go so well. Nobody would ever volunteer to be the messenger from the generals in the field back to the King in ancient Persia. If the battle was won, the messenger was feted as a hero, but when the battle was lost, he was beheaded.

When you get to like someone, your liking for them rubs off on the value you see in the deal. If you were buying a car, and you found you were really liking the salesman, because he also had kids who loved soccer, and went camping on his holidays, it might pay to think that it will be you driving the car, not him, so look at the merits of the deal on the merits, not on the person communicating them.

 

Scarcity

Who has not played musical chairs as a kid, felt the tension of there being 10 kids and only 9 chairs?

We all want more of what we cannot have, scarcity adds to the value.

Good sales people create scarcity in any way they can. It is usually a combination of numbers and time. This is a tactic used all the in time sales, it is so common the impact is unrecognised, but it is a powerful driver.

Grab it, it is the last one!! Creates tension and a compulsion to buy.

This is another reason why there are cooling off periods in many situations, to work against the tension sales people can generate to buy immediately, not to wait, not to miss the great deal.

Sales people create competition for an item, there is only 1, and when we are in competition, we want it more. This is why all houses in Sydney are auctioned currently, there is  not enough stock to go around, and agent can goose the price by both scarcity and competition at an auction, and why it is illegal to take blind bids.

 

Perceptual contrast

Good cop bad cop

The more expensive it is the better

The fewer the seats at the musical chairs game, the greater the tension.

Creating a contrast between the options open to a buyer works across all of the 6 strategies, highlighting the benefits to be derived from buying. Weight loss products are particularly obvious, and common users.

 

 

A last word

I am not sure where this fits into the headline categories, but I have seen it work.

Try and sneak into a line at a checkout by saying “can I just nip in, I only have a few items’ will get you into some lines.

Add the word Because. ‘can I nip in, because I only have a few items’ and you will roughly double the number of times you are let in.

This has been a skate across the top of the huge range of complexity in the sales environment, and generally does not apply to small sales that are more one off  transactions than a sale requiring some level of human interaction, like picking up a newspaper on your way to the train (does anyone do that any more?). Your choice however on your way to the train, of whatever small item you have just bought has been influenced by all sorts of marketing activity that is also covered by these sales foundations. It is a huge, and deeply complex but engaging area of human activity, vital to our commercial success and standard of living.