It would be nice to earn fat commissions by selling ridiculously expensive homes, cars, factory equipment, electronics, medical devices, and other big-ticket items, but many of us are selling things that wouldn’t break anyone’s bank. That means in many cases that not as much mental horsepower is required to move the convincer needle.
That’s where cues come in. We touched on this earlier in the book, but now let’s jump in with both feet. To refresh your memory, cues—as we’ll discuss in this section—are elements that influence buyers through the use of images, symbols, logos, testimonials, photos, reviews, and endorsements. Cues can also be psychological strategies that cause people to think or behave in certain ways on the basis of the information we provide.
Six Shortcuts to Influence
The six shortcuts to influence were originally presented by Robert B. Cialdini, Regents Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University. In preparation for writing his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (1984, revised 1998), he spent three years literally undercover. Posing as an average employee, he took on a variety of jobs to watch how employees in those industries used words and behavior to influence others. One week Cialdini hawked used cars. Another week he manned the phones as a telemarketer. Then, as a fund-raiser, he persuaded people to donate money for various causes. His objective? To see persuasion at work firsthand. Clever, no?
From this living laboratory, he developed a cues of life model that describes how people are persuaded through the use of six general cues of influence. Think of them as mental shortcuts because they have the ability to persuade quickly, as opposed to tactics that require seasoning, such as rapport and relationships. They’re effective in many different situations in which deep and careful thought isn’t required or expected. You can use these cues when you’re selling something that requires only a peripheral route to persuasion. If your product requires significant thought, evaluation, deep reasoning, justification, and consideration (cars, houses, large investments), cues can add punch to your presentation, but the buyers of such things generally rely on more than cues before pulling the buy trigger.
It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.
Thomas Jefferson
Known by the mnemonic CLARCCS, Cialdini’s six cues are comparison, liking, authority, reciprocation, commitment/consistency, and scarcity. We’ll begin with the comparison cue and discuss the others in the following sections of this chapter.
Don’t think that only children are susceptible to the power of peer pressure. In actuality, your thoughts, speech, and decisions are influenced by those around you almost every day. As much as you might like to deny it, you consciously or unconsciously look to others for how to act, dress, and think, especially in social situations in which you may feel that others are watching.
“No way, Drew! Only weak and immature people use others to guide their everyday living. I’m a mature, self-actualized adult. I make my own decisions. I keep my own counsel. This doesn’t apply to me at all. Not one bit.”
Really? Let’s talk about the clothes you’re wearing. Are you sporting a hot pair of 1970s “ooh la la” Sasson, Bonjour, Sergio Valente, or Jordache jeans with gaudy double-row gold stitching down the legs and a horse’s head emblazoned in gold thread on the back pocket? How about an “oh so stylish” Chams De Baron muscle shirt? If you’re a man, would you go to dinner in bell-bottom jeans or a Nehru jacket? If you’re a woman, would you feel good wearing a shiny flesh-colored spandex leotard, headband, and leg warmers at your local gym?
You wouldn’t be caught dead in public wearing any of these out-of-date styles for fear of being snickered at by everyone you passed. Even if you still liked these fashions, you probably wouldn’t dare wear any of them today, at least in public.
Why? Peer pressure, pure and simple. You’re wearing pretty much what everyone else is wearing. Oh, perhaps you’re wearing a better, different, or more exclusive brand of it, but it’s still the same fashion in the end.
That’s the power of comparison. It exerts itself by causing consumers to jump on the bandwagon: “the probability of any individual adopting it increasing with the proportion who have already done so” (Coleman, 2003).
Don’t assume that those affected by it—almost every human on the planet—are weak-minded in some way. We are social creatures, and we have an inborn need to feel a sense of belonging. This isn’t because we like to be around others to keep ourselves entertained; it’s in our genetic makeup to belong.
For example, to maximize their chances for survival in the wild, our ancestors formed like-minded groups whose goal was to ensure the success of the group. By living, hunting, caring for, and defending one another, their chances of survival increased exponentially versus simply going it alone.
As a member of the group, you took your cues from the tribe. When an animal was hunted, caught, and cooked, you didn’t remain in your hut juggling stones and playing mancala. No, you were right alongside everyone else, helping, prepping, and eating. When the tribe slept, you did too, and when the watering hole dried up, you packed up your stuff along with everyone else and moved … or you shriveled up like a prune and dropped dead in three days.
I know. You live in a house, not a grass hut, your idea of hunting is swiping your credit card at the checkout line, and what on earth is mancala?”
Fact is, even for us modern-society folk, belonging to and identifying with some type of group is very important for leading a happy and fulfilling life. Why do you think we actively seek friends, join groups, get married, attend religious services and community events, and join business organizations such as chambers of commerce and social groups that reflect every interest imaginable? Like the new puppy that follows you around everywhere you go, human beings like to be with the pack.
The American psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested that the need to belong is a major source of human motivation, ranking an important third on his well-known hierarchy of needs pyramid, after basic physiological needs (food, water, sleep, sex) and safety needs (security, order, stability).
Other highly regarded psychologists and researchers agree with Maslow. For example, psychology professors Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary say that much of what we do every day—our cravings for power, approval, achievement, and intimacy—is fueled by our desire to belong to a group or have a relationship of some kind. Social groups provide a source of self-esteem and pride. We even wear T-shirts and caps that tell outsiders that we belong. We can walk together in numbers—all wearing those T-shirts and caps—and feel a sense of strength and increased self-worth.
By belonging, we are somebodies because we are recognized as having whatever it takes to be accepted. This applies equally well to one-on-one romantic relationships. Think about it! And then think about why it hurts so badly when a relationship ends. Not just because you lost that person but because you no longer belong. You’re no longer accepted. The pride of knowing that another person sees value in you has disappeared. Of course, all this applies only to relationships that you found positive and beneficial. With the others, you’re thrilled to no longer belong!
When you associate with a particular group, you tend to focus on similarities between yourself and the other members. Enter the liking heuristic, which I’ll discuss in just a moment. Also, many times buzzwords are used within organizations: terms that outsiders don’t understand. Intentional? Of course. The purpose is to perpetuate both the need to retain your membership (otherwise you wouldn’t know what everyone’s talking about) and, consequently, the organization itself (you can’t belong to an organization that doesn’t exist).
Whereas similarities are focused on by members, nonmembers (outsiders) tend to focus on differences and usually exaggerate them (“Those people are not like me”) as a way to rationalize their not belonging. A kind of “sour group-grapes,” so to speak.
“Okay, Drew; thanks for the sociology lesson. But does this really apply to me and my desire to sell? How do I use this information to fatten my bank account?”
Yes, if you’re selling to human beings, it applies directly. When you understand this instinctive need, you can tap into it by crafting a sales presentation that suggests that purchasing your item puts the buyer in a group of like-minded individuals who X, with X being whatever your particular target consumer would admire, appreciate, respect, or otherwise feel good about.
To employ the principle of comparison and tap into your prospects’ innate psychological need to belong and to be associated with or compare favorably with others, you want to imply that purchasing your product or service will put people in the admirable position of being part of an exclusive and appealing group that by membership or association alone provides a sense of security and/or ego satisfaction. Here’s an example.
“Gail, you mentioned that you recently started in the graphic design business, so congratulations on your new career. My brother has been in the business for 10 years, so I know you can make a lot of money with just a handful of loyal clients if you serve them well. And the one thing I can tell you—since I have over 15 years’ experience selling software to graphic designers in many of today’s largest and most successful ad agencies [credibility enhancer early in the pitch]—is that you do not want to mess around with cheap amateur design software like [product names].
“Your design software is your number one business tool. It’s like a paintbrush to an artist or a chisel to a sculptor. It helps you create. Apart from personal interaction and the customer service that you provide your clients, it’s the heartbeat of your business. [metaphor suggests product’s importance] That’s why today’s top designers invest a few more dollars [immediately broaches the cost difference and labels it as insignificant] and choose either Adobe InDesign or QuarkXPress. That’s because amateur software [redefinition: the consumer products are “amateur software”; this encourages the prospect to disassociate from them.] limits your creativity because it doesn’t have a fraction of the features that pro design software gives you. The newbie-designer software [redefinition: “Those other products are for beginners, not you.”] also frustrates the heck out of serious designers because it’s made for ordinary Joe Blow users who expect very little except being able to make a quick birthday card or simple flyer for their kid’s birthday. [disassociation, the final blow]
“When you invest in Adobe InDesign or QuarkXPress, you join today’s elite designers, like Milton Glaser, Stefan Sagmeister, Paul Sahre, and David Carson, the ones working on multi-million-dollar accounts at the world’s top ad agencies and publishing and design firms, the ones creating the advertising, product, publication, and package designs and logos that win the awards, get people talking, and consistently break sales records. [Name-dropping encourages desire for aspirational-group membership: the desire to be part of a group to which one doesn’t currently belong.] These guys laugh at newbieware like [product names]. They wouldn’t touch them with a 10-foot pole. [The effect, after aspirational-group association, is “I want to be like the pros just mentioned. If they laugh at that software and wouldn’t touch it, neither would I.”] And you definitely don’t want to spend weeks learning new software only to find out why the pros don’t waste their time with it, so why should you waste your time? You want to put all that learning time and effort into a software package that’s been proved over decades by thousands of world-class pros. The bottom-line question to ask is, ‘Why do designers of this caliber choose Adobe InDesign or QuarkXPress over all other design software?’ And the answer is obvious once you start using them.”
Of course, these scripts don’t represent an entire sales presentation. It’s critical to establish rapport so that your prospect feels some sort of affinity with you. (If he or she doesn’t like you, everything you say—no matter how great your presentation—will be filtered through that feeling of dislike or distrust.)
You’d ask questions and listen closely to responses. You’d load your pitch with a detailed comparison of each product’s capabilities and features. You’d want to pour on the benefits so that it’s abundantly clear exactly what your buyer gets in return for $699 for Adobe InDesign or $849 for QuarkXPress.
Particularly effective in this example would be showing your prospect a chart illustrating how Adobe InDesign and QuarkXPress compare to cheap design software and how they excel in all the ways that are important to professional designers. This way, your buyers see in just a glance exactly where the newbie software shortchanges them.
Do you have competitors you’d like to quash? Is your product or service truly superior? Then such a chart can be a lethal sales weapon because it demonstrates pure advantage in black and white. Its high-data format cues up the length-implies-strength heuristic (“InDesign and QuarkXPress have so many more features and benefits. Look at all the check marks in their columns compared to the other software. They’re clearly better products.”). Also, it tells the whole story quickly, saving the prospect hours of research, comparison, and mind-numbing study, thus giving the consumer brain a face-saving out for not doing his or her own time-consuming and labor-intensive due diligence.
Man is by nature a social animal; an individual
who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either
beneath our notice or more than human.
Aristotle
Comparison, which is similar to the bandwagon effect, doesn’t limit you to persuading your prospects to buy products that reflect or reinforce current memberships or associations to which they already belong: “You’re a professional exterminator, so you should be using only professional-grade insecticides, not the weak stuff they sell in local hardware stores.”
Using the idea of associative-group linking, I can also suggest that my product is one they should choose because it could somehow elevate their status through this new association: “Just because you’re not a professional exterminator doesn’t mean you can’t get the same results by using the very same products they use.”
Now when Joe spends his Saturday morning spraying the exterior cracks and crevices around his insect-infested home, he’ll have the feeling of doing it like a pro and thinking that he made a smarter decision than did the uninformed hoi polloi who buy their cheap, weak bug killers at Home Depot. It’s laughable, I know, but you can even tap into the consumer ego on the level of killing roaches.
There’s also a third approach—dissociative-group linking—which entails pushing your prospects away from groups from which they’d want to actively dissociate themselves.
For example, let’s assume you’re in charge of product sales at a fancy new gym that features an exciting array of the latest workout equipment and fitness classes. One of those classes is a torturous 45-minute, nonstop rope-jumping, sweat-inducing marathon called RopeBurnz. This is not your grandfather’s rope jumping. Lightning speed. Tricks that seem impossible. Double unders, triple unders, double-arm crossovers, single-arm crossovers, tricky rope-defying footwork, and other impressive moves that not only are challenging to learn but make the cardiovascular system scream for mercy.
You’re talking to Stan, a longtime member who often peeked through the window at the class but never had the guts to step in and give it a shot. After all, those men and women looked so pro. Although Stan was in pretty good shape and decent with a rope, he wasn’t confident enough to take the plunge for fear of looking like a rope-swinging boob.
One of your newest products is the CrossRope, an impressive high-tech rope-jumping system that costs significantly more than ordinary old-school ropes. Not only is the quality vastly superior, it’s a complete rope-jumping system.
After a few minutes of questioning, Stan works up the guts to sign up for the class. You recognize that as your cue to encourage Stan to part with $69.99 on the spot for his own set of CrossRopes. The following script helps persuade Stan to disassociate with users of cheap jump ropes that don’t put a penny in your pocket.
“Happy to sign you up, Stan. The class is awesome, and it’ll burn off body fat faster than a hot knife through butter. Okay. you already have a CrossRope, right? No? Hmmm. That’s what most people use in the class. Did you ever hear of the CrossRope? It’s the high-tech Rolls-Royce of jump ropes and was invented by a former navy pilot. It’s now used in many hardcore CrossFit centers across the country. Once you use one of these things, you’ll throw the cheap rope in the trash. No kidding.
Cheap ropes twist up because there are no swivels; the cord is just fed through a hole in the end of the handles and held with flimsy plastic collars like this one. [visual demo shows rope-handle connection] This makes them slow, which makes it much harder to do double unders, let alone triple unders. CrossRope has stainless steel ball bearings so the rope rotates effortlessly. And most people don’t know that ball bearings are graded—just like eggs—and run from cheap to high precision. The ball bearings in most of the cheap ropes—at least the few that have them—are an inferior grade compared to the ones in CrossRope. Here’s how you can tell. Look at the difference in handle rotation; listen to how smoothly and wickedly fast the CrossRope handles spin. [auditory demo: spins both products’ handles] Also, cheap ropes use thin plastic handles that not only feel cheap—here, feel these [kinesthetic demo: hands them to Stan]—but also get slippery when your hands get sweaty.
“Did you ever try to do any rope tricks like crossovers?” (Stan: “Yeah, but I’m not that great.”) “Well, don’t blame yourself. A lousy rope can kill your crossovers because they don’t uncross quickly enough. Those cheap things at the gym that they use for aerobic classes are basically schoolgirl playground ropes. [redefinition] Really, they’re the same ropes that the schools buy. They’re only 5 to 12 bucks because that’s all they’re worth. This CrossRope package is called Double Under Domination, and it’s a set of three interchangeable coated steel cables of three different weights—five ounces, three-quarters of a pound, and one and a quarter pounds—along with a set of these very grippy switchable handles; feel the difference [kinesthetic demo]. This quick-connect feature [visual/auditory demo] lets you cycle through the different cables during class so that you can change the intensity of your workout. If you want speed, you use the lighter cable. If you want a high-intensity muscle burn, you clip on a heavier cable. You can’t do that with a single rope.
“It’s really awesome, and that’s why almost everyone in the class uses a CrossRope, including the teacher. They all laugh at the cheap ropes now because the difference is pretty mind-blowing. You can’t believe how good a jumper you can be when you have a totally responsive rope. Of course, you don’t have to buy a CrossRope. You could use a plastic schoolyard rope if you had to. That’s what the boys and girls use in our kiddie jump rope class.” [disassociative-group/dissatisfaction generator]
This script should effectively cause Stan to want to dissociate from identifying with cheap-rope users and want to join the ranks of the elite CrossRope pros. Did you notice that we blended in the bandwagon principle (“that’s why almost everyone in the class uses a CrossRope”) to stir up a little peer pressure? We also name-dropped a bit (“designed by a navy pilot” and “used by many CrossFit centers”) for a shot of credibility. We threw in demos that intentionally incorporated several sensory-specific experiences (it was more than simply talking to Stan), including visual (“flimsy plastic collars”), auditory (“listen to how smoothly and wickedly fast CrossRope handles spin”), and kinesthetic (“cheap ropes use thin plastic handles that not only feel cheap—here, feel these” and “very grippy switchable handles—feel the difference”). We also incorporated the principle of redefinition, similar to the Neuro-Linguistic Programming principle of reframing, and devilishly turned the standard PVC cord jump rope into an unacceptable “cheap schoolgirl playground rope that everyone laughs at.” This wickedly off-putting label will stick in the prospect’s brain and effectively dissuade him from using whatever rope he now owns. Most important, it will encourage him to buy what’s considered the socially acceptable jump rope for the class: the CrossRope.