Over the past couple years, there have been a number of times where I've seen emails that deploy the same tactic, which is some variant of the following:
"Is it your intention to not do {X}?"
where {X} is usually something like move forward with a purchase or further engage with an opportunity.
I've been witness to this tactic yielding amazing results (such as bringing opportunities back from the dead). I've also seen this tactic being used laughably incorrectly.
So, what makes a situation ripe for using that tactic, vs a situation where it barely moves the needle?
To understand the difference between the two situations, it's helpful to go back to Chris Voss' explanation of why the tactic works in the first place (Chris Voss is the person from whom I first heard of this tactic, and is a former FBI hostage negotiator - he knows a thing or two about influence).
There are two main reasons why the tactic works when it does:
- It puts the other person in the drivers seat by giving them an opportunity to say 'no'. Think about this for a moment, and the situations where you've had to say 'no' to something. Would it have been a lot easier or more comfortable to just 'go along' and say yes, even though you didn't really mean it? Saying 'no' inherently puts a stick in the ground, and helps put the person saying 'no' back into a position of control. The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' is designed to elicit a 'no' response.
- Loss aversion. People, in general, do not like to lose something they think they have, even if they don't own it yet. To illustrate this, think about the feelings people had in March 2020 when the market tanked, vs the reality of most peoples situation when it came to the value of their investments vs the original cost basis (read: they were still doing OK - the 'losses' were on paper only). The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' puts the possibility of NOT having the deal go through into their psyche, which triggers the loss aversion response.
So with the explanation of why the tactic works, we can look back at situations where it is effective, and where I've seen it used completely ineffectively.
Effective
In order for the loss aversion response to get triggered, the person receiving the 'Is it your intention NOT to...' line has to feel they have something to lose by responding in any way other than 'no'. Usually, that occurs when they have already put some sort of investment in, or they feel they are just a 'yes' response away from realizing a benefit. In other words, when a proposal or quote that they have been a major part of is on the table, and has been for a period of time.
I have seen this tactic used, and garner a response back within an hour (after weeks of silence), in situations like that.
Ineffective
Promotional or unsolicited emails or other communications. I've been the person receiving a solicitation email out of the blue from some vendor. Then, a week later, a follow up with 'I reached out to you last week' blah blah blah. Then, a week later, an email asking 'Is it your intention NOT to move forward?'
In these cases - yes, it is my intention to NOT move forward. I never asked for the product and I have no interest. I have zero investment of my time in pursuing said product, so there is no loss aversion response to be triggered.
Closing Thought
The other thing this illustrates is that one can read about strategies and tactics in a book (really, about anything - from sales to parenting), but deploying them effectively is a whole other ballgame, and this scenario with this particular negotiation tactic was one where I've seen it attempted in multiple scenarios and it really illustrated how there are certain times and situations where a tactic can be used effectively, and others where it completely falls flat.
No comments:
Post a Comment