What we want from a salesperson is advice presented in the form of a sound argument – a set of reasons or evidence in support of a conclusion. Only this gives us as consumers the opportunity to make an informed decision.
Ideally, then, arguments for and against a particular conclusion should be assessed to determine how strong they are. If the salesperson is unable to provide stronger reasons in support of his conclusion than those we offer against it then we should not buy.
But this is seldom what actually happens.
Sales presentations are often not rational processes, but rather emotive ones. While we might reasonably expect advice following logically from the reasons or premises to a conclusion, what we get is often anything but logical. Under these circumstances there are often no good reasons to buy, yet we do. The reason we still buy is because it is often too much effort on our part to weigh the evidence. In fact the salesperson is counting on our laziness. But even if we are willing we often fail to spot the flaws in the salesperson’s argument. As a result we are persuaded to buy by mere plausibility.
So in this guide to the Top 10 Sales Tricks I will examine two types of unethical selling frequently committed by salespeople when presenting us with arguments - fallacies and rhetorical ploys. A fallacy is simply a violation of one of the rules of good argument, or is a mistake in the line reasoning. A rhetorical ploy is non-argumentative reasoning that masquerades as justification for accepting a claim.
By exposing these ‘tricks of the trade’ I will show just how unsound some arguments used by ‘ethical’ salespeople can be. If they are unsound we should not be persuaded.
First I will look at some classic examples of rhetorical arguments designed to manipulate rather than provide justification for buying a product or service.
False Dilemmas and Poisoned Well arguments:
In the introduction I said a sales presentation is essentially an argument; often an unreasoned argument that fails to provide a convincing case to buy. Instead rhetorical ploys are used to manipulate the conclusion. This invariably is that you need to buy the product or service on offer.
In this asection I will look at two very common ‘tricks’ or logical fallacies to illustrate how a salesperson can make the case for buying their product or service more compelling than it actually is.
The False Dilemma:
In formal terms the argument looks like this: either A or B, not B, therefore A. Now there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the structure of such arguments, so long as the alternatives on offer to us are the only alternatives. Here’s a classic example.
Either we cut welfare or the government goes into the red. We cannot allow the government to go into the red. Therefore, we must cut welfare.
Here we are forced, perhaps unreasonably, to accept the conclusion when there are other alternatives the Government can explore; e.g. increase taxes, cut defence spending and so on. However, the way the argument is presented to us has already concluded that welfare should be cut. But the case has clearly not been made honestly if it relies on a false premise; namely the assumption these are the Governments’ only alternatives.
Either/or type arguments are common in sales presentations particularly when closing the sale. Again, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the structure, just the content.
Either you take out payment protection insurance (PPI) on your loan, or you risk losing your home if you are ill. You don’t want to lose your home, do you? So, you need PPI (what a £billion scam that turned out to be in the UK)
Or take this example I heard recently involving a claim that the National Grid will cease to function in the near future.
Either you buy this solar panel heating system, or you will be without any form of power in the future. You don’t want to be without heating and lighting do you? Therefore, you must install the system.
These arguments have been simplified for illustrative purposes. But in each case we have a closing argument that attempts to foster the idea there are just two alternatives when clearly there are others. It is not surprising given the prevalence of such arguments in sales presentations that the false dilemma is often referred to in textbooks as the salesperson’s trick.
Any salesperson knowingly creating a false dilemma is fundamentally dishonest. But even offered unwittingly they are still grossly misleading and manipulative. The alternatives offered are not a true indication of our actual choices. Instead it is an attempt to railroad us into making a choice between false alternatives with only one possible outcome – we must buy.
As consumers we need to be aware of what choices we are being offered. In particular we need to be on guard against arguments offering us an either/or choice. They are unlikely be the only choices.
Poisoning the Well:
Another common practice is the use of loaded language. This is used to disparage any dissenting argument we might have for not buying; often before we even mention it. In the sales books this is known as anticipating the objection. By using this kind of argument the salesperson attempts to make his argument look good and any opposing position implausible, false, or absurd. Hence, poisoning the well.
If we are uncertain about whether to a purchase a service contract on an expensive item we are not necessarily ‘leaving our future prosperity to chance’. Similarly, we may be hesitant about whether or not to purchase private health care, but this does not necessarily mean we are ‘taking a risk with our family’s future’.
What we require from salespeople is an honest argument where the reasons and evidence in favour of their proposals can be assessed and verified. Arguments whose only function is to sway the emotions of the consumer are manipulative. Such arguments might be effective but hardly fair. But here’s an interesting point often overlooked in the quest for sales. Fair and honest arguments also have the power to persuade!
So be vigilant when the salesman comes to call – caveat emptor - false dilemmas and poisoned wells.
In #2 I will look at Selective evidence and Complex Questions arguments.