Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
We are back today with another technique that falls under the category of Compliance Strategy. But first, let’s do a quick review of a fallacy we covered earlier this season: the Alphabet Soup fallacy. Hit pause real quick and see if you can remember what the Alphabet Soup fallacy is! Alphabet Soup is when someone uses lots of acronyms, technical language, buzzwords, figures & codes, or abbreviations in a conversation, or in a speech or in an argument… and they do it purposefully in order to confuse people or to make themselves feel & sound more knowledgeable and credible.
The question to ask yourself when someone is using Alphabet Soup language is this: “Are they doing that to try to impress me or make themselves seem like an expert?”
If you want to hear more about this fallacy, check out Episode 76.
Ok, today we're talking about another Compliance Strategy, this one is called the Low-Ball technique. The Low-Ball technique happens when someone gets you to agree to a really good offer knowing full well that after you’ve agreed to it, they’re going to change the offer into something they didn’t think you’d agree to…but they’re hoping you’ll accept anyways. In fact, they’re counting on the fact that you already committed and won’t want to back out of your commitment. That’s how & why this Low-Ball technique works.
Here’s a simple example of how this might sound in your own house: Sofie asks her Mom if she can spend the night at her best friend’s house, to which she says, sure, no problem. Only after she’s said yes does Sofie say, “Oh, and just so you know there’s going to be 10 other girls there and we’re watching a movie called The Leprechaun Zombie. Thanks Mom!” Ok, do you see how she got her Mom to agree to one thing, a sleep over with her best friend, and then after her mom said yes, she changed the deal. She added a bunch of other girls and a zombie movie into the deal - that’s not what the Mom had agreed on, but Sofie is hoping that her Mom won’t want to go back on her initial Yes.
Another example happens in the used car sales world. Let’s say you go to a used car lot to buy a car. The salesperson quotes you a good price, let’s say $10,000 and he offers free oil changes for 2 years. You’re like, “That sounds great, I’ll take it!” Well, then the salesperson goes to talk to their manager and they come back and say, “Ah, man, I just talked to my manager and he said the lowest he can go is actually $12,000 and I can only give you 1 free oil change.” What would you do? According to studies, most people would accept the change. They’d feel like they already went through this whole process, they like the car, they’ve already committed verbally & mentally to buying the car and so they just agree to new terms. Do you see how the salesperson low-balled them and then changed the deal? It’s manipulation, and in my opinion, it’s a form of lying.
The real problem behind this technique is that it’s a bait & switch! They offer you one thing to get you to commit, then they change it on you, hoping you won’t want to back out after you’ve committed. They’re banking on YOU being the one who has integrity, when their whole plan is built on a lie b/c they knew all along they were going to be changing the deal. Yes, these are techniques that are taught and used intentionally often in sales & business. You have to see the technique for what it is and be able to stand up for yourself and say, that’s not the deal we made. And be ready to walk away if they don’t keep their end of the bargain. Because the reality is, whatever their second deal is, isn’t what you agreed to originally, and you most likely wouldn’t have agreed to it if they had started with it. Don’t let a false sense of obligation rope you into a bad deal.
I kind of feel like we, the American people, get a version of this when our representatives are writing bills & passing laws. It seems like some representative will write a law or a bill for one specific purpose and they’ll go around talking about that purpose and getting support for that bill but then once they have support for it, a bunch of other stuff gets snuck into the bill…stuff that has nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill, or that adds to it or changes it way more than we would have agreed to. So what do you think? Are we getting low-balled when this happens?
Maybe we should ask ourselves this question to see if we’re getting low-balled: “Did they change the deal we agreed to?” *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
