Philosophy Now Forum

Is it ethical? I would say not.

I first ran across this piece of garbage advice when I worked in sales. Google "Whoever talks first, loses" for an example. Not only doesn't it help sales, this advice actually impedes it (indirectly).

Fortunately it doesn't directly affect sales (there's an underlying mechanism to this that does) so while it may seem unethical in theory, its ethicality or unethicality doesn't matter in practice in sales.

However, thanks to objection rebuttals (another example of controlling the conversation), billions have been lost due to the fairly new do-not-call lists (there's a much better way of handling objections through anticipating them).

Do you regard controlling the conversation as being unethical?

PhilX

"Whoever talks first, looses" only works in some kinds of sales. Usually for small fixed price items, just keep the conversation going and make the sale. For high ticket items where the price is negotiable it might work, - sometimes. My friend had gone to a car dealer, and the deal was set all but the paperwork with a junior salesman, when a pig of a senior salesman came in and tried to show the Jr. how it was done. He tried to push my friend into a higher priced car instead of the one they had already selected. My friend didn't like the high pressure tactics and in the end told the Sr. salesman where to shove his car, and walked out without buying anything, and they didn't ever go back. Even yesterday, to get an estimate on repairs to their current vehicle, he refused to go to that dealer. BTW, after the high pressure pitch there was a silence and it was the Sr. salesman who spoke first, he just couldn't stand not getting an affirmative answer, and then he didn't get the answer he expected.

It also worked on low-ticket items (case in point: newspaper subscriptions when I first tried it). But it wasn't due to pressure. Further testing has proven that.

I wonder if sales can truly be manipulative? I think all attempts at manipulation will backfire (a big example I mentioned before: objection rebuttals).

This long article has estimated that between 100,000 to 150,000 telemarketing jobs have been lost due to the federal do-not-call list (but it also claims that the industry has evolved): http://www.freepatentsonline.com/articl ... 36584.html

PhilX

I've blamed objection rebuttals for being the number one reason for the do-not-call lists and the funny thing about it is they are superfluous, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY.

When I worked for the newspaper (btw they laughingly called objection rebuttals "selling points" in their script), I came up with a new sales point that overcame a particular objection.

The objection raised was that prospect already subscribed to a different newspaper. Any attempts at playing up my paper or downplaying his was doomed to failure. Furthermore the prospect automatically assumed I was trying to change his mind (which I was which I regard as being unethical - btw I was always unsuccessful at changing his mind).

One day I came up with a true selling point that changed a few minds. I told the prospect he can compare his paper with mine (my offer came with a two-month trial subscription with free delivery).

Although I didn't get the opportunity to test this, I could have done better. I would have built that sales point into my presentation to see how it would have affected sales which I've estimated could have increased by 10% - 20%.
And this could have been done with every telemarketing call instead of seeing billions of dollars go down the drain (how's that for an epithet?)

PhilX

"Is it ethical?"

Not seein' how ethics plays into this.

It's a strategy, nuthin' more.


Is it a successful strategy?

Only if the target is weak or stupid.

If pressured (by a salesman), and you haven't the time or will to dicker, tell 'em to fuck off and go elsewhere.


"there's a much better way of handling objections (than) do-not-call lists"

Agreed. Just cuz the phone rings, you're not obligated to answer it; if you answer it, you're not obligated to stay on the line (when you discover it's a sales call, or a survey, or your mother-in-law).

henry quirk wrote:"Is it ethical?"

Not seein' how ethics plays into this.

It's a strategy, nuthin' more.


Is it a successful strategy?

Only if the target is weak or stupid.

If pressured (by a salesman), and you haven't the time or will to dicker, tell 'em to fuck off and go elsewhere.


"there's a much better way of handling objections (than) do-not-call lists"

Agreed. Just cuz the phone rings, you're not obligated to answer it; if you answer it, you're not obligated to stay on the line (when you discover it's a sales call, or a survey, or your mother-in-law).

Even if the target is "weak or stupid" doesn't mean the strategy is successful. If no contract is involved, the target can cancel the deal later on (after all, the real goal is repeat business and business derived from friends and associates of the target).

PhilX

"Even if the target is "weak or stupid" doesn't mean the strategy is successful."

Agreed. No strategy is a sure thing.

It's all about degrees of success.

As a strategy, 'controlling the conversation', is liable to net the mercenary more when used against the weak or stupid than when used against a body in charge of his or her head.

henry quirk wrote:"Even if the target is "weak or stupid" doesn't mean the strategy is successful."

Agreed. No strategy is a sure thing.

It's all about degrees of success.

As a strategy, 'controlling the conversation', is liable to net the mercenary more when used against the weak or stupid than when used against a body in charge of his or her head.

Here I disagree because when the mercenary gets paid a commission, then a sale that's cancelled will be chargebacked against his commission (and time has been wasted picking up a dissatisfied customer).

Many people do know what they want (contrary to sales myth). Trying to control the conversation will backfire.

PhilX

If we are talking to a person whom we don´t trust (yet) then we always watch what we say and thus control the conversation.

It is often a tedious fight.

duszek wrote:If we are talking to a person whom we don´t trust (yet) then we always watch what we say and thus control the conversation.

It is often a tedious fight.

I presume by we, you mean a husband and wife situation and the person you're talking to is a sales rep. The better sales reps will look out for your interest and won't push.

PhilX

I wish I knew how to control a conversation! I am the weakest communicator I ever knew. I think because my mom had a 'gift for gab' and she dominated the conversation...I couldn't get a word in...lol.

She was always good at sales and getting dates. But I think that was more because she was pretty than because of her ability to talk. The only reason I say this is because now, in her old age, she is alone and she still has the same 'gift for gab' only it doesn't sound as 'pretty' coming out of a not so pretty mouth. I think that is the true test of a personality...can it survive the test of time? At least for a woman...

Anyway...getting back to sales. My mom did have one trick that I did notice worked. If a customer picked up an item for sale and couldn't decide to buy it or not...she would take the item out of their hand and place it back on the shelf. They always seemed to purchase it after that. Weird. She was a great sales person in the day as far as making money.

I, on the other hand was awful. Once when I was a teen I found myself behind the counter at a bakery selling donuts. A person came in and told me that the donuts were 10 cents cheaper down the street. I was too naive/stupid to understand why he was telling me this instead of just going down the street to buy them. So I asked, in all seriousness, why he didn't just go down the street?

Today, I can imagine how rude I must have sounded...but honestly...I liked people then and I like them now...I wasn't being snotty....just saying is all. lol

So in answer to your question, no, I don't think controlling the conversation is always unethical....sometimes it's just out of ignorance.

artisticsolution said:

"She was always good at sales and getting dates. But I think that was more because she was pretty than because of her ability to talk. The only reason I say this is because now, in her old age, she is alone and she still has the same 'gift for gab' only it doesn't sound as 'pretty' coming out of a not so pretty mouth. I think that is the true test of a personality...can it survive the test of time? At least for a woman..."

Isn't there a saying that goes "Women should be seen, not heard" LOL?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:artisticsolution said:

"She was always good at sales and getting dates. But I think that was more because she was pretty than because of her ability to talk. The only reason I say this is because now, in her old age, she is alone and she still has the same 'gift for gab' only it doesn't sound as 'pretty' coming out of a not so pretty mouth. I think that is the true test of a personality...can it survive the test of time? At least for a woman..."

Isn't there a saying that goes "Women should be seen, not heard" LOL?

PhilX

LOL I think the saying is, "Children should be seen, not heard".

I also think that saying was created by a person who saw certain people as 'lesser than'. Which I kinda get...I see people who have this type of mentality as 'lesser than'.

Aristotle says that the glory of a woman is silence. )))

Perhaps in Greece women talked a lot and were not to the point.

If you control a conversation you engage in a sort of civilized fight.
It is important to interpret the body language and to detect a lie and to lie back, to show that one is up to the attack and to get some respect from the opponent.

Is a conversation possible that none of the two controls ?
What would it be ?
An exchange of funny stories ? Or of jokes ?