My friend was looking for a new car recently and was drawn
in by the ‘great deals’ advertised by car dealerships in the local area.
However I fear she may have been conned by experienced sales people through a
‘that’s-not-all’ technique.
Let me explain. She was looking for a car and we all want a
good deal. So she went into a dealership where I can be pretty certain she was
exposed to a multitude of sales techniques including flattery, imagery and
distraction. I think we can all empathise with the fact that buying a new car
can be an unpleasant experience. But she prepared herself against these social
techniques and was still caught out with a less than cheap deal.
Once she had decided on a car, all that was left was the
price. What you must remember is that a sales person will never sell for a
loss. You MUST negotiate (a lot). When you decline a sale and they reduce the
price, they compromise. And the socially correct thing to do is reciprocate the
favour and buy the goods. However the reduction in price is taking away from a
sales person’s commission and therefore they want to avoid lowering the price
by making the deal seem better. Cue the ‘that’s-not-all’ technique. (Working in
furniture sales I’m guilty of this myself). By adding low cost items onto a
sale you can ‘sweeten the deal’ providing the basis for a reciprocal reply. For
her it was an additional insurance policy (these have HUGE profit margins
because the likelihood of claiming is very low when you already have car
insurance) and floor mats (worth £17.99). The cost of the ‘free’ additions was
about £250. In relation to a brand new car, that’s about a 1% ‘saving’. Likely
far less than if she had simply negotiated the price. And she didn’t want these
things in the first place, they just meant more profit for the sales people.
So why was this terrible deal so effective?
Research by
Burger (1986) demonstrated the power of the ‘that’s-not-all’ technique. In this
study experimenters used bake sales to see whether adding items to a fixed
price sale increased its popularity. 66 people approached one of the three bake
sale tables where no details of the prices were displayed. Participants were
randomly assigned to a control group or a ‘that’s-not-all condition’. In the
second condition participants were told that a cupcake from the table was 75
cents, however before the participant could respond, the two experimenters at
the table had a discussion, and the participant was then told that the price
also included 2 cookies. In the control condition, the cupcake and cookies were
presented from the start as 75 cents. The results showed that participants from
the ‘that’s-not-all’ condition purchased significantly more than those in the
control condition. The graph below shows the number of sales from each of the
two conditions:
Figure 1: The
number of sales by condition
So it turns out the
technique from a 75 cent bake sale can apply to all sorts of sales, including
those for expensive new cars. This example shows that the add on items don’t
even need to be of similar value, as long as something is added by the seller,
the deal is sweetened, making the customer victim to paying more than they have
to. The social power of reciprocity can be successfully manipulated in the
sales person’s favour.
I don’t think I’ll tell my friend about this. And I also
won’t tell her that, although we have the same car, I spent far less, even if
it did mean buying car mats for £17.99.
References:
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by
improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(2),
277.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.