This essay will look at examples of compliance strategies
which will then be discussed to see what extent they relate to the relevant
compliance theory. As someone who ran a door-to-door business, I have used many compliance strategies in a various ways: recruitment, opening-pitch,
closing the sale, and training. However, in this essay I will focus on my
experience from knocking on a door until I have closed the deal. In this pitch
there are a variety of compliance strategies that I will point out, however,
the main focus that will be related back to compliance theory will be the
examples of ‘foot-in the-door’ and ‘door-in-the-face’.
I worked for the charities sector of Cobra, essentially I
would sell charity. The job was 100% commission. A sign-up of £5 per month
would earn me £5; however, a sign-up of £6.50 would earn me double - £10. The
commission continued to rise compared to sign-up but since remaining signed up for
at least 3 months was a condition for us to get paid we aimed for the magic
number £6.50. Here are the techniques I used to achieve this.
When the door opens there tended to be someone there who was
not too impressed to see a guy in a suit selling something. So first thing you
have to do whilst wearing a genuine smile and maintaining eye-contact is greet
them and wait for a response. This is part foot-in-the-door; engaging them in
conversation vastly reduces the likelihood of the door being slammed in your
face. Second, you are setting them up for your ice-breaker because almost
everyone will ask:
‘What are you
selling?’ This is where you laugh while saying:
‘Don’t worry! I’m not
as bad as I look….. I promise you, I’m not selling anything!’
Technically this is true but it is an example of low-balling
because I’m giving the impression that I don’t want anything from them when
actually I want them to commit to a long-term direct debit.
Next comes the classic foot-in-the-door technique, however,
for us it was called ‘card-in-the-hand’. The card was just a laminated A4
brightly coloured information card with the charity logo and some pictures, but
getting it in the customers hand was highlighted as the most crucial aspect of
the pitch. The reason why this card is given is not to give the person
information; actually, you don’t want them to have more than a glance at it. If
they are looking at the card that means they are not looking at you. If they
are actually reading the card; not only are they not looking at you, they
aren’t listening either. The reason the card is placed in their hand is so they
cannot shut the door without giving you it back.
In this situation, the card is the foot. It serves as a
physical barrier stopping the door being shut. Furthermore, by placing it in
their hand a small request has been agreed to; your request that they hold your
card. In theory by complying with this small request, they are more likely to
agree to a larger one. Freedman and Fraser (1966) investigated this phenomenon by
contacting suburban housewives in their homes first with a small request and
later with a larger more consequential request. They found that subjects who
had complied with the trivial request were much more likely to comply with the
larger one two weeks later. From my own experience, this is true; if the person
does not take the card, there is no chance of a sale and most often your pitch
will be interrupted and door abruptly closed. Whereas, in most instances where
someone takes the card; they will at least hear you out. The small request of
‘hold this’ facilitates the larger request of ‘listen to me for a few minutes’
in this instance, and in combination with the various other compliance
strategies may even lead to a sale.
Freedman and Fraser believed that happened
because people perceive their own compliance with the initial task and
rationalise that they are the type of person ‘who does that sort of thing’
(p.201) which may result in an attitude change. Daryl Bem (1972) described individuals
coming to know their own attitudes, emotions and internal states by inferring
them from observations of their own behaviour and circumstances in which they
occur. He states that when the individual’s internal cues are weak, ambiguous,
or confused; they are in the same position as the outside observer. He called
this the ‘self-perception theory’.
So far we have covered the ‘introduction’, where you
establish a conversational tone and break the ice and the ‘presentation’ where
you get the card in their hand. Now begins the ‘short story’ which is filled
with compliance strategies.
‘I’ve just been running round letting all your neighbours
know about a big-fundraiser that kicks off in a month for these kids (point to
pictures on card). Have you heard about it?’
This one in sales is called
‘keeping-up-with –the-Joneses’; where you speak about all the neighbours
getting involved.
Next tell them a little about what the charity does but finish
the short-story with:
‘…but to keep up all these local projects up and running, we
need raise £50,000 from this community fundraiser….Have you got a few grand you
can help us out with?’
This is the ‘door-in-the-face’ technique and can actually
have that effect. I have been reported as a con-man a few times because I got
to this stage of the pitch before having my card thrown at me and the door
slammed in my face. However, the more common response is laughter at such a
ridiculous request.
‘No? You sure you don’t have a few grand in your back
pocket? Hahaha….
Funnily enough, your neighbours couldn't spare that much
either…
But since we want to keep these projects running for as long as we can,
they felt that they could spare a couple of quid a week and keep it going for
as long as possible…
I take it like everyone else that’s ok with you?’
Door-in-the-face can be understood through the theories of
‘perceptual contrast’ and ‘reciprocal concession’. The contrast effect is a
psychological phenomenon that has been shown in countless situations. Dating as
far back as John Locke (1690) who noted that lukewarm water felt hot or cold
depending whether the hand was previously exposed to cold or hot water.
Cialdini (1985) states that if we see two related things in sequence that are
in some way different, we tend to see the second as being more different from
the first than it actually is. Compared to thousands of pounds, £2 seems like
nothing.
Cialdini claims that we are socialised to feel uncomfortable
if someone has given us a gift or done us a favour that we have not returned. In
this instance, a concession was made. The smaller figure does not sound like
that much money when compared with the larger sum on the table a moment before.
In addition, the person may feel that by accepting a lower number they “owe” you
and make the small donation wanted all along.
References
Bem, D.J. (1972) Self-Perception Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4,
1-62
Freedman, J.L. and Fraser, S.C. (1966) Compliance without
pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202
Locke, J. (1690/1964). An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding. Fontana Library, London, (5th ed).
A. D. Woozley (ed.), Abridged
No comments:
Post a Comment