Bertrand Russell, "On Sales Resistance"

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/Hearst_Essays/On_Sales_Resistance.html

by cousin_it • 17 years ago

87 65 17 years ago

cscs.umich.edu

shrikant5• 17 years ago

The 'customer' in the anecdote doesn't really fall for the actual sales pitch, and makes his purchase solely to get rid of the salesman. So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility? Cry me a river.

Also, 'sales resistance' is hard to quantify. Does he not want to buy because the widget being sold carries no value to him? Or because he doesn't perceive any such value? Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?

jacquesm7• 17 years ago

You took that literally ?

shrikant5• 17 years ago

I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'that'?

(Anecdote: My dad ended up buying a set of the World Book encyclopaedias by a pushy salesman - ended up tremendously enriching my life over the next couple of years.)

I realise that anti-consumerism is viewed as a Good Thing, but some of the onus is on the consumer - his 'duty' is to think and buy. The producer will gladly cater to the second half of that, and manipulate the first bit to the fullest extent he can to enable the buying. This hardly makes the producer (and his agents) a 'bandit'.

cousin_it2• 17 years ago

So.. one is supposed to feel sorry for the guy who prioritises his immediate convenience over any future utility?

No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.

Who's to say the 'older daughter' in the story wasn't Constance Keene?

Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.

shrikant5• 17 years ago

No, for the resulting inefficiency of the economy as a whole. How you choose to divide the blame between salesman and customer is your own business, of course.

I don't see how this makes the economy inefficient. Could you elaborate? And in this particular analogy, the purchasing decision was clearly the buyer's, so the worst you could say about the seller was that he was pushy and obnoxious. I can't see why one would 'blame' him for the inefficient economy.

Statistics can say that with over 99% confidence.

That's disingenuous. What I meant was, based on the story of the pushy piano purveyor alone, without knowing what use was made of the instrument, you can't really say it was a useless purchase. Serendipity happens.

krauses• 17 years ago

I agree with you, even though your opinion seems to be unpopular in this thread.

I read nothing about a gun being held to this poor old man who was obviously crippled by his lack of a back bone.

Why was this man talking to the salesman about a piano in the first place? He must have wondered into a piano store, thinking it was a travel agency in hopes of booking his summer vacation. But right at the moment he realized he had stumbled into the wrong store, the salesman caught him with his tractor beam and would not let this poor man leave.

I agree with most comments, there is something wrong with society, but I'm not so quick to judge the salesmen. Why not blame the guy shopping for a piano when what he really wanted was a vacation?

mseebach7• 17 years ago

What do you know, this whole holier-than-thou anti-sales/advertising trend is that old?

The essense is of this entire, and apparently 80+ years old, movement is that "the little man" spends his money and otherwise prioritises in ways that we, the holders of truth, find odd, even repulsive. We therefore conclude that the error must clearly lie with salesmen and advertisers pushing unvirtuous products and service.

That said, there's a line being crossed when apt salesmanship and glossy advertising becomes threatening, harassing or are downright scams.

gjm113• 17 years ago

Eh?

Russell's complaint is not that "the little man" prioritizes in ways Russell dislikes. It's that he prioritizes in ways that (a) he doesn't like when he can think it through clearly, and (b) produce results that he doesn't like when he experiences them; and that what salesmen and advertisers are doing is to interfere with his ability to think it through clearly and anticipate the likely results of his actions.

Or, to put it differently: the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole.

I've no idea what's supposed to be "holier-than-thou" about that, even if it turns out to be dead wrong; perhaps you could explain?

(It need hardly be said -- but I'll say it anyway -- that the sneer at "the little man" here is mseebach's invention, and doesn't e.g. occur anywhere in Russell's piece. Russell introduces his victim as "some hard-working professional man", and if mseebach sees that as patronizing or insulting, so much the worse for mseebach.)

mseebach7• 17 years ago

My rant including the "little man" was no so much directed at the article in question as it was at the movement in general. But Russels depiction of this hard-working professional as a victim is condescending. He can provide for his family, but can't in the face of a simple salesman say "no, go away, and if you come back next week I won't be this polite"? This is obviously a contrived example, because the real world don't lend itself well to the point he wants to make.

> the goal of (many) salespeople and advertisers is to make their targets sillier and stupider, and that's seldom in their interests or those of the community / nation / world as a whole.

Obviously there are scammers out there, but the average advertisement/sale caters to the average consumer, and by declaring that the actions of these consumers make them "sillier and stupider" (than what?) and that they don't act in their own interest or "those of the community / nation / world as a whole" is "holier-than-thou".

How do you objectively define the best interest of the "community / nation / world as a whole"? To take a very current example, the current financial crisis is caused in (a large) part by the political system (a democratic president and a republican house -- no-one gets away clean) deciding that is was in the best interest of the nation and its citizens is to lend a lot of money to a lot of people who couldn't really afford it to buy their own home.

jwhite2• 17 years ago

I don't mean to be impolite, but your response to the article seems a little defensive to me. The illustrative story he uses is contrived, but if you read his other writings at that URL, it seems to be that his general style leans towards hyperbole. That doesn't mean the point is invalid.

I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of value that people might not think they want currently?

We have seen a decade or more of intense innovation in which many new things were created that people had to be convinced to buy, but that did ultimately provide them with great value. At the same time, we still have MacDonalds marketing junk-food to kids. Was it "Supersize Me" that showed an interview with a fast food sales/advertising type brazenly describing how they can convince kids/parents to buy just about anything, whether they need it or not, whether they previously wanted it or not? [1]

I have an experiment to suggest to you and anyone else on HN who might be interested: sell your TV, cancel your cable, and don't watch anything that you didn't specifically choose, for one year. (i.e., DVD's, etc. that you make a conscious choice to buy/rent are ok). When the year is up, start watching TV ads again. My guess is that a lot of the advertisements will look ridiculous and cynically manipulative [2], and you'll wonder how they could convince anyone to buy the product they promote. But you know they work, because people pay for them.

[1] If you recall the scene I'm referring to please feel free to correct me if I got the details wrong.

[2] If they don't already seem that way to you.

shrikant5• 17 years ago

The approach and phrasing might be different, but aren't you and GP making essentially the same point?

The world of B2C marketing (especially FMCG) is generally a murky affair, but then again you can hardly expect the purveyors of such products to say "Here's my toothpaste, see if you feel the need to try it out, then continue to do so, if you like it. K thanks."

Most basic marketing courses in college lay the foundation to "convince kids/parents to buy just about anything, whether they need it or not, whether they previously wanted it or not?". McDonald's does it because they have the pockets to do so - Old Poppa Joe's deli across the street would do so too if they could, and you can be assured they wouldn't warn you of the health hazards.

There's little to no point in bad-mouthing the sellers - that's precisely their business. Caveat emptor, though. That's his duty.

mseebach7• 17 years ago

It is defensive. I'm sick and tired of this movement. As I replied to gjm11, I believe that this story is a hyperbole because the real world don't lend it self well to the point he wants to make.

> I think it is certainly valid to question the merit of using known techniques of influence to convince others to buy things that may not be of value to them. Where is the line between this and the promotion of things of value that people might not think they want currently?

There are two parties to this, the sender and the receiver. The receiver needs to process and act on this information for the sale to take place. I see this movement as extremely condescending because it all too readily assumes that because consumers make "wrong" choices, they don't have free will. The line goes where people chooses to make a purchase. McDonalds: it's not healthy, and everyone, including kids, know this, still consumers want the product, because they like it. I like it, and no-one else provides the convenient package of fat, protein and sugar I need at 3 am returning from a night on the town, and no-one else can give me that small energy kick as fast as a cheeseburger can to get me through the last hour of a long drive. (I haven't seen Supersize Me, but I'm familiar with it's conclusions)

Regarding your experiment, I've all but stopped watching programmed TV, but yeah, I find ads obnoxious. Manipulative? It's not like they lie about their purpose.

thisrod• 17 years ago

If you don't know who Bertrand Russell was, you should Google for "Russell paradox", "On Denoting", and "Russell-Einstein mainfesto".

msie2• 17 years ago

I find that the older I get the more 'sales-resistant' I get. Maybe it's because I'm running out of room to store everything. :D

Leon• 17 years ago

It may be that the older you get the more oblivious you are to sales-marketing; since you can point out several blatant sales-marketing techniques, you fool yourself into believing you are safe from them all. Don't become too overconfident or you'll end up buying something ridiculous and not even know it.

msie2• 17 years ago

Don't become too overconfident or you'll end up buying something ridiculous and not even know it.

Heh, I try not to make the same mistake twice!

There must be some website where users post pictures and descriptions of ridiculous things they've bought and the money they've spent. How about calling the website: ThinkTwiceAboutThePrice.com or IOughtNotToBought.com or BuyersRemorse.com. Then with enough membership you can turn it into a swap/auction site. :D

timcederman• 17 years ago

For me, part of it has been realizing the actual cognitive reasons behind sales tactics (I was a sucker for buying wine at wine tastings up until a couple of years ago thanks to the reciprocation principle of sales), but part of it is realizing "I just don't need this."

You can't realize you don't need it, or won't use it, until you've bought something like it in the past, or as you say, you run out of room and think "do I really need something else here taking up space?"

The paradox is that I am now buying less as my income increases. The good thing is it puts me in a better position to buy a house, start a family, etc.

sethg• 17 years ago

When I was a teenager, my parents and I were in a piano store, and I remarked that I could tell that the expensive pianos had better sound quality than the cheap ones. This fact seemed to help the salesman close the deal.

Of course, ungrateful wretch that I was, I hardly played the piano after it arrived. Maybe they should have bought a more expensive model. :-)

edw519• 17 years ago

...skill is shown in making people buy what they don't want rather than what they do...

This is where he gets it wrong. There's a big difference between "buying what they don't want" and "buying what they don't need". Of course they don't need it. Hardly anything we buy is actually needed.

But "want" is a different story. Of course we want it. We want all kinds of things we don't need. Any good salesman will tell you that all he has to do if find that emotional want and the rest of the sales cycle becomes natural, like judo or ballet. Driven by the buyer's emotion and justified by the salesman's logic.

Funny a philosopher as brilliant as Bertrand Russell didn't understand something so fundamental. I guess that's why he was a philosopher and not a salesman.

jrwoodruff2• 17 years ago

But sales, or maybe more accurately, marketing, is the art of making people want. 10 years ago, I wasn't dreaming of owning a Cadillac. In fact, I probably would have told you I would never buy a Cadillac in my lifetime, too much of a grandpa car. Now, a little marketing magic, some slick sales moves on TV, and that which I did not want, I now want.

I believe this is what he is talking about. So much of what we purchase, what we 'want' is created by the companies selling the product. So much so that we are no longer aware of it, it's just part of life.

hughprime• 17 years ago

Surely the Cadillac thing is not just clever marketing, though -- there have also been vast improvements in Cadillac's actual products. They combined a marketing push for younger drivers with an actual product (the CTS) with genuine appeal to younger drivers. Marketing alone couldn't make me want a Mercury Grand Marquis.

Confusion• 17 years ago

Firstly, his first paragraph is an example, whose details don't matter. It's the third paragraph that is most important.

Secondly, if you initially have no need for something and wouldn't have felt any need for it if no one had pestered you about buying it, then 'I did not want it' is an entirely acute way of phrasing the way you felt about it, before you were brainwashed into buying it.

Thirdly, your use of 'want' and his use of 'want' may be different. In 'ye olde English', "having want of something" means: needing it. For Russell, want and need may be more synonymous than for you. You could read "buying what they don't want" as "buying something they don't have want for". I'm not sure this is the case, but having read other writings of Russell, I am sure that his English and our English are different creatures, with some differences that can cause strange misinterpretations.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, there is a world of difference between wanting something because you think you need it and wanting something because you have been assaulted with so much glorious reports on the goodness of 'it', that not having 'it' leaves you with a nagging feeling that you should want it.

As an example of the last bit: I consider a car a utility. I have an ugly and scratched car, but it serves me very well and I like it this way. However, that doesn't mean that I can avoid conversations about shiny Ferrari's or someone's brand new SUV and I can't avoid being given the feeling that I should care about my car. I constantly have to stand up to the cultural indoctrination and reconvince myself that what I'm doing is perfectly fine. I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I want one. That is what Russell is talking about and that is still something that is very wrong about our society.

gruseom• 17 years ago

Thirdly, your use of 'want' and his use of 'want' may be different. In 'ye olde English', "having want of something" means: needing it. For Russell, want and need may be more synonymous than for you.

Great point! I completely missed that reading the piece, but you're right: the evolution of "want" from "need" to "wish" was far from complete in 1932. A famous example of the older usage is "That soup wants salt". It also survives in proverbs like "Waste not, want not".

In this case it's not just a linguistic curiosity, but affects the meaning of the whole thing. Edit: it also provokes thought as to what the difference between the two really is.

billybob4• 17 years ago

"I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I want one."

I think you're hitting on something here. Maybe more to the point is that there is something else you want more - either to save your money for things that give you more security or enjoyment, or to follow your principles, etc. In you heart, you feel that NOT buying a shiny car will make you happier than buying it.

Much of our unhappiness comes from sacrificing our higher desires - health, security, accomplishment - for lower ones: junk food, instant gratification, laziness.

The salesman in the article is pushing his customer away from a higher desire to a lower one. And helping to make him less happy.

mmt• 17 years ago

I don't need a shiny car, but I often feel like I want one. That is what Russell is talking about and that is still something that is very wrong about our society.

Interestingly, I'm in the same boat (car?) WRT utility and being happier with an ugly, scratched car.

However, I have no trouble avoiding being given feelings about my car by someone else, since my feelings are mine alone, and I am secure in them.

This means that I don't feel like I want a shiny car (how is feeling like one wants different from actually wanting?), but I don't think it's wrong to attempt to dissuade me.

In fact, I consider a good salesperson to be someone who discovers something I want, but had been unaware of, and points it out to me. I may lose some blissful ignorance, a trade-off I consider well worth it.

omouse• 17 years ago

the rest of the sales cycle becomes natural, like judo or ballet.

Judo and ballet are perfectly unnatural. They take dedication and concentration and consistency, years of practice. There is no other animal in existence which will take the time and effort to perfect a set of particular movements.

Also, we should use words other than "want" and "need". Make up a few, give them definitions and that way we'll avoid any equivocation or any other logical problems.

RyanMcGreal• 17 years ago

Silly Russell: didn't anyone tell him about credit cards?

Edit: sarcasm fail?

lazyant• 17 years ago

Slightly off-topic but I use a couple of things as a consumer to defend myself (or "from myself") from "spur of the moment" purchases.

I never buy anything over $100 the same day I see an item in a store or online; I wait at least one day. (Then I can so some Internet searches etc).

Same thing when some service is offered to me over the phone or at my door. Telemarketers I pretty much hang up on them as soon as I hear the code word "on behalf of". For salespeople I explain that I cannot sign right now, because it's my policy and they don't find arguments against that.

Another rule of thumb is that if I haven't thought or being worried about something before, probably I don't need it.

Also for some services/products I already have an "ideal" on mind that I have already researched, so I don't have to think or make decisions about that any more. For example, for long-distance calling I use the $10/month Skype services which gives me unlimited international time. I don't think this can be beaten, and if so, probably the hassle in changing is worth more than the $10/month.

I also read books like "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert B. Cialdini which I highly recommend, so we are aware of our irrational mind.

lsc• 17 years ago

I think avoiding products that you must buy through salespeople is another good defense... Assuming the same good is sold by two companies, if one requires you to dicker over a price with a professional, it costs them much more to provide you the service than it costs the other company, who just puts a price on the website.

fburnaby• 17 years ago

I completely share Russell's distaste for the practices of pushy salesmen, but I absolutely can't side with him in condemning them and blaming the cultural problem that he identifies on them. The salespeople are a wasteful symptom of our (the consumers) weakness for consumer crap and for their antics - they're not the cause of it.

Also, while (again) I completely agree that because they are driving over-consumption that this is a problem, it's very difficult to tell how much of problem it is. Maybe some people really enjoy owning useless shit and are taking advantage of an opportunity while it's made convenient by the sales person. Has anyone attempted to do some science to understand this? What proportion of purchases "induced" by pushy salespeople are customers unhappy with X weeks later, as compared with "other" purchases - ones made with previous intent?

amtiskaw• 17 years ago

Try the BBC documentary 'The Century Of the Self' by Adam Curtis. You'll have to torrent it because no US TV station has dared show it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

It documents (with gripping style) the activities of Edward Bernays and others in their efforts to manipulate people's subconscious - to make them buy stuff.

Bertrand Russell, "On Sales Resistance"

Related Stories