Selling the Invisible: a field Guide to Modern Marketing \(Biz Books to Go\) pdfdrive com

Familiarity breeds business. Spread your word however you can.
How Prospects Decide: Using the Most Recent Data
Now, what do you do against a competitor who is more familiar to your prospect
than you are—someone who simply is taking up more space in your prospect’s
brain?
You try to take advantage of another bias of people: the Recency Effect.
The IRS understands this principle very well, too. Every March, the IRS
plants in papers across the country the story of a huge tax evasion prosecution.
(In his valuable book Influence, Robert Cialdini points out that the IRS-planted
stories have become so common that the Chicago Tribune headlined its 1982
story “Annual Tax Warning: Twenty Indicted Here.”) That recent information
makes it easier for people to decide not to take phony deductions.
Companies that often present competitive pitches know how the Recency
Effect works. These companies—at least the smarter ones—do everything
possible to be the last company to present. It’s the home field advantage in many
service industries.
There are several ways to take advantage of the Recency Effect; they could
fill a chapter by themselves.
The essential point is that you should always take advantage of this effect,
with a follow-up that is as well conceived and powerful as anything in your
presentation.
This is not the time to sound predictable and only slightly enthusiastic.
Do that, and a shrewd competitor will say something stronger and more
effective—and grab the business.
Take advantage of the Recency Effect. Follow up brilliantly.
How Prospects Decide: Choosing “Good Enough”
Two years ago, I lost in a presentation for a client for whom I was clearly the
superior choice. No one within two time zones knew as much as I did about the
client’s industry. No one had more success generating business in that industry.
My competitors had no business pitching the account.
That’s just what I thought. And unfortunately, that’s just what I
communicated.

---

I lost, of course. That loss reminded me of a basic fact in human decision
making. People do not look to make the superior choice; they want to avoid
making a bad choice.
Experts on decision making call this Looking for Good Enough. It happens
day after day, in decision after decision. It happened, in fact, the day I wrote this
section.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune featured that event in a headline: “Breyer Was
Third Choice.” Bill Clinton had to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court left by
the retirement of Harry Blackmun. Clinton wanted Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary
of Interior. But that would have created a cabinet vacancy and might have
produced an embarrassing confirmation fight. Babbitt was risky.
Clinton also liked appellate judge Richard Arnold. But Arnold had health
problems and a record that might have aroused opposition from women.
So Clinton chose Stephen Breyer, despite Breyer’s limited judicial
experience. As Clinton’s Special Counsel Lloyd Cutler told the press, “Breyer
had the fewest problems.”
Clinton, like millions of other people every day, did not choose the most
qualified candidate, the jurist with the best chance of achieving greatness.
Clinton looked for “good enough,” and chose the man with the fewest minuses.
Looking for Good Enough happens repeatedly in business, too. So whenever
you make your pitch, ask yourself, “What risks might a prospect see in hiring
us?” Then, without reminding the prospects of those risks—which will only
remind your prospects of their fears—eliminate the prospect’s fears, one by one.
In my case, I needed to eliminate two fears. Because I was an expert, they
feared I would be prohibitively expensive and uncompromising. And because I
had worked for larger clients on larger projects, they feared I would not consider
their project important.
But I never addressed those fears. I got so carried away telling them I was a
superior choice that I forgot to assure them I would be a good choice.