Facts, figures and statistics – we’re bombarded with them. We just came though another election and most of us were inundated with political ads. It’s amazing how two candidates can talk about the same facts in such different ways. Democrats touted lower unemployment and a rising stock market. Republicans debated the legitimacy of both claims when it came to helping people and the economy. Had the tables been turned and Republicans been in power they’d have bragged about the declining unemployment rate and all time highs in the stock market. And it’s very likely the Democrats would have debated those same facts.Another example; sometimes we hear that average household income is up. On the surface that’s good. However, if you dig a little deeper and realize the increase only went to a very few people at the top and that most people’s income was stagnant or lower, would it still be such a good thing? Not if you’re in the mass of people who are not benefitting.As noted earlier, the stock market is at an all-time high. Again, a good thing on the surface but if the growth in revenue and profits isn’t leading to job creation then are we (or at least the majority) really better off?I’ll never forget seeing the debate over a potential increase in the state tax for Illinois. One group said it was a 66% increase and another group said it was a 2% increase. And both were right. The state tax was 3% and the proposed increase to 5% was raising it two percentage points but people would pay 66% more in state income tax compared to what they’d pay without the increase.I hope you can see statistics can be used to portray whatever someone wants you to believe. I won’t say it’s unethical because in each instance facts are being shared but the vantage point can make all the difference. Two homes could look out over the same land but can have very different views depending on where each home sits. And so it is with stats.Mark Twain once said there were lies, damned lies and statistics. His point was simply this; sometimes facts and figures can be used to justify the position of the person communicating. As noted earlier, all you need to do is listen to politicians from opposite sides of the aisle to realize this. They may talk about the very same issue and you’d think they were from different planets. You’ll get some very diverse viewpoints if you scan CNN, MSNBC and Fox.What does this mean for you? Simple; don’t take everyone or everything at face value. Ask questions, dig a little deeper into the claims being made, occasionally play devil’s advocate. In doing so you’ll give yourself a fuller picture and better opportunity to make the best decision possible.Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Free is Great Except When We Don’t Want What’s Being Offered
Normally people go nuts for free stuff. It seems like ads touting “Buy one get one free,” or “25% more for free” cause shoppers to almost salivate. I bet you’ve been places where things were being given away for free and you found yourself taking items (pens, card holders, travel mugs, post it notes, etc.) that ended up in the trashcan within weeks of getting home. And still, we take the goods because they’re free. After all, you can’t loose by taking advantage of free…or can you?Have you ever ordered something on Amazon for less than $25 then found yourself ordering another book or item just to bump you over the threshold in order to take advantage of the free shipping? I bet you have and you probably ended up spending $33-$38 in total. Sure, you convinced yourself you needed that extra book or CD but in reality you would not have purchased it were it not for the enticement of the free shipping. Dan Ariely highlights our obsession with “free” things in his book Predictably Irrationalin a chapter he calls “The Cost of Zero Cost: Why We Often Pay Too Much When We Pay Nothing.” He convincingly shows readers sometimes they end up worse off because of free.The obsession with free has its limits and this came to light recently with Apple’s promotion with the Irish rock band U2. It seemed innocent enough, and generous of Apple and U2, to have the band’s latest album, Songs of Innocence, automatically added to the iTunes library of some 500 million people. Unfortunately for both, many subscribers didn’t appreciate the free album and voiced their opinion rather loudly on social media. In fact, there was an article titled Free U2 album: How the most generous giveaway in music history turned PR disaster. Ouch!I think what was missed by Apple and U2 in their well-intentioned giveaway was this – free isn’t really free if it’s not freely chosen. While there may have been no purchase cost for the album, people lost their freedom to choose whether or not they wanted to add it to their libraries. In other words, forced isn’t free no matter how good the intention.What should they have done instead? In my opinion offering the album for free for a limited time would have enticed many people to take advantage of the giveaway. Think about it; U2 is an iconic band that’s done a lot of good for people across the globe through charitable work that could only have come about because of their fans. They could have positioned the opportunity for the free album as their way of saying thanks. I’m sure each band member is probably set for life financially so they don’t need the money and could have really made a splash.By putting a timeframe on it they would have engaged the principle scarcity, which would have caused many people to want the album even more and act quickly. This is important because when things are free and abundant we usually don’t value them nearly as much as when they are restricted in some way. Think about air and water. Without air we die within minutes and without water we won’t survive for very long either. There may not be two things more necessary for life and yet they are an afterthought for most people…until they’re in short supply. When that happens we’d pay more for either than just about anything else in the world because our lives might be at stake.I don’t think Apple or U2 deserved the intense backlash they got but let it be a lesson to all of us – no matter how beloved we, our company, our products/services, may be, never infringe on people’s freedom to choose. Understanding that and correctly positioning a gift could make all the difference in how it’s received and how we’re perceived. Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence Officer influencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Win or Lose, You Can Do Better!
A few months ago I had the pleasure of addressing nearly three dozen lawyers. I know some of you are thinking “pleasure” and “lawyers” don’t always go hand in hand. However, in this case it really was a pleasure because the topic was a one-hour overview of influence for legal professionals. It was my first time talking with attorneys and it was much different, and a bit more challenging, than working with supervisors, managers and salespeople.A bit of irony is one description used to define the principles of influence. They’re often referred to as proven rules or laws governing human behavior. Personally I shy away from calling them laws (even though I was talking to lawyers) because when I think about laws, such as the law of gravity, they describe phenomenon that will happen each and every time unless an outside force intercedes in some way.The principles of influence will not get a yes response each and every time, even in the sterile environment of a campus laboratory. It becomes more problematic in the real world because of the myriad of outside forces. With that in mind, when I talk with audiences I generally tell them the principles are proven rules for human behavior. I emphasize if they’re used ethically and correctly they will lead to yes responses more often. I’m confident of that because more than six decades of research from social psychologists and behavioral economists proves this. We could call the principles “brain rules” because they describe how people typically think and behave in different situations.As noted above, the attorney crowd was challenging. They asked very pointed questions about using liking with juries, admitting weakness in a case, looking for common ground with opposing attorneys and even how the principles work when raising kids.At one point during my talk I described the principle of scarcity – we value things more when they’re rare or diminishing. Then I segued into a concept known as “loss aversion.” Loss aversion labels the truth that people hate to lose and when we think we’re going to lose we take steps to avoid that. If you’re a football fan think about the “prevent defense.” When a team gets up on the opposing team and time is winding down quite often the team in the lead changes what they’re doing because the thought isn’t about winning as much as it is about not losing. All too often the team playing from behind throws caution to the wind, gambles and ends up winning. It’s quite frustrating for the fans of the team that used the prevent defense and that’s why so many joke about how it prevents your team from winning!Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky studied loss aversion and came to the conclusion that most people feel the pain of loss anywhere from 2.0-2.5 times more than the joy of gaining the very same thing. This is probably why the sting of a loss in a big game stays with us so much longer than the joy we feel when our team wins the big game.After my presentation a few attorneys came up to talk with me and one of them shared something profound. He said he rarely thinks back on cases he won but he dwells on the ones he loses. Could it be that’s why we learn so much in defeat as opposed to victory?I often tell salespeople whether you win the sale or lose it you should learn from the experience. If you win, what did you do that you can replicate into future success? When you lose, analyze what you could have done better then look for ways to change going forward. Victory is usually celebrated with little reflection and losses are replayed over and over in our minds. It’s just how we’re wired. But, the best athletes work on doing things right and commit as much of their game to “muscle memory” as possible. They become so conditioned through practice that they barely have to think in order to execute properly during their chosen sport.We can learn from the elite athletes. Next time you win – whether in business, sports, or life in general – discipline yourself to take time to figure out why and look for ways to build on that. The more you repeat winning behaviors the more like you are to repeat as a winner.Brian Ahearn, CMCT® Chief Influence OfficerinfluencePEOPLE Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- …
- 64
- Next Page »